The risk of hospitalization/death from Breakthrough Covid from the fully vaccinated currently stands at nearly 3 in 100,000, per the CDC. That would be considered “rare” - approximately equal to the risk of developing heart inflammation in connection to the vaccine. As for a variant showing up that behaves differently from the broad range of current variants (including Delta) - this is speculative.
Interests are likely secondary to protection in your model. Why not just have a rule like UIUC does: if you can show a vax card, no need for extra protections. If you can’t, then you need to mask up and show a test. No fuss about the interests of group (a) vs. (b) - as for those with weak immunity, again the data suggest that they are very rare as long as fully vaccinated.
Your large-scale thoughts on social planning are laudable but they likely won’t work optimally in a de-centralized democracy with wide thought-diversity. Might work better in a more centralized economy and system of government. You make a good point that some businesses and universities are already moving in this direction, except for the fact that it won’t be imposed uniformly (to put it mildly) and will take too long to convince all to head in the “right” direction. A more practical solution might be to allow group (a) to seek it’s own protection and group (b) it’s own choices (with consequences) - both will do so much more efficiently and probably arrive at the desired social outcome more quickly than under a system of governmental and institutional mandates.
Again, I defer to UIUC which likely took into account the need for additional “covid-paranoia.” Waiting for herd might be a frustrating endeavor. And my guess is that most aren’t choosing their college based on specific Covid policies, though no dog in this race at the time so could be wrong. My rationale is that people choose colleges for a longer horizon than Covid is expected to remain a big deal now that the vaccine is out.
I believe they are planning to donate and not sell?
I wasn’t aware that we are giving AZ away - isn’t that a bit problematic? Shortages will be impacted by decisions to allocate AZ only to older patients. Was thinking extra stores of the three more commonly administered here. Glad to see that this is going on, however, and it really helps solve one of the issues of vaccine reluctance, which is that enough people aren’t taking advantage of the opportunity. Herd immunity - that nebulous goal - can only be best achieved with world-wide vaccination. The “who” is less important than the “how many.” That’s the point of my question. Thank you for the update.
Of course, group (b) is still likely to complain about being required to wear masks, get frequent testing, etc. under this type of rules.
In terms of the small subset with weak immunity (part of group (a)), the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 for the general population is not representative of their personal risk, since the breakthrough COVID-19 is presumed to occur mainly in the small subset with weak immunity.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but I have not actually advocated for vaccine mandates, but only pointed out the conflict of interests between groups (a) and (b) that you seem to deny exists. (The external effects of contagious diseases makes it hard for group (a) to self-protect.) Indeed, if group (a) did not exist as you apparently want to believe, then there is no issue with the libertarian solution of letting group (b) play COVID-19 lottery among themselves, since their personal choices affect only themselves. But group (a) exists, so schools and businesses (and other organizations) need to make choices about whom to prioritize.
In addition, trying to paint your perceived opponents as communists is just gaslighting.
The schools and workplaces are probably looking at their own interests as well as the competing interests of groups (a) and (b). Those who want their communities to be as vaccinated as possible are presumably being mindful of the bad press if someone in group (a) dies or has severe consequences from COVID-19 because it was difficult for them to self-protect with many of group (b) around spreading virus, or the bad press if a significant outbreak among group (b) occurs.
Understanding that we all want the best for the medically vulnerable, these fears seem a bit unfounded. Covid-19 manners can be set aside to a large extent because people are now vaccinated. Those are CDC guidelines. This doesn’t preclude those medically vulnerable from taking extra precautions as appropriate and for their family members and caregivers to assist with that. LTC communities should protect their residents and if that’s not apparent (it’s usually easy to see when you visit) then family members should move them elsewhere. There is enough information for best practices to prevail on this matter. Unfortunately, Covid is not a uniquely new phenomenon endangering the residents of eldercare communities; the problem of compromised care and safety in those facilities has been ongoing for a long time now with little overall regulation My guess is that governors are not forcing the sick back into those communities. At least, let’s hope not! That killed a whole lot of elderly here in the Twin Cities. And it was so sad because there was capacity at many hospitals throughout the state (workers at Mayo were actually furloughed due to lack of patients). https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-lawmakers-and-advocates-call-for-end-to-virus-pipeline-to-elder-care/570968262/
Is this separate than the 60 million AZ doses that the US is sharing (donating) to other countries, announced in April? Off loading the AZ doses as they become available makes sense, as the AZ vaccine is unlikely to be approved in the US (I’m not even sure AZ intends to seek approval here). U.S. to share 60 million doses of AstraZeneca Covid vaccine with other countries
Just to be clear, the US (taxpayers) is purchasing the vaccines from the manufacturers and then giving it away to other countries/WHO. (Not saying it’s a bad policy, but its a nuance that the press hasn’t discussed.)
Group (b) might complain - in fact, they will have right to - but it is a public health issue and universities etc have the right to safeguard the public health. What they might not have the right to do is require something that isn’t fully approved by the FDA or mandated by the state health board. But more simply, this method respects autonomy and personal choice. Stacked protective measures do work and with a smaller subset of them they are easier to enforce.
“True” degree of immunity is really an unknowable to anyone getting the vaccine; all we have is aggregate numbers that vaccines work for all age groups. However, to figure out ball-park “risk” I’d go with something easily retrievable such as my state’s data. Out of 757,013 of 65+ fully vaccinated, 317 have been hospitalized (average age 74) and of those 44 have died (average age 79). Those percentage suggest it’s a rare event. Vaccines work for that age group (a more sizable number of whom will be medically vulnerable); they are not somehow advised that they can’t resume their normal activities once vaccinated. Yes, in reality the vaccine might be 100% ineffective for a very small minority. And it may be 100% dangerous for a very small minority. Only data will tell us that definitively. Anything other than that would be theories and speculation.
There are always conflicting interests in all societies. Group (a) exists but the data doesn’t suggest they are moving the needle in terms of needed prescriptions (outside of some preachy statements by some of our higher ed establishments). I don’t think you are trying to be a communist (actually, you probably mean socialist, fascist or totalitarian), and accusations of gaslighting are disappointing to read coming from you. I do think you might be overstating the risk to Group (a) and allowing that exaggeration to form your judgements outside the science (or perhaps, justify reasons for going beyond common sense measures). Unfortunately, by doing so you resort to the “choose one” strategy which, as I’ve noted earlier, is unnecessary for a few reasons and - sorry to offend but comes across as a tad judgey. Maybe you don’t mean it that way and anyway, this is my impression, not an accusation. I’m sure you will correct if I’m off.
Perhaps if you could provide some evidence at this point as to how sizable the risk to Group (a) actually is if they 1) vaccinate (if possible) and/or 2) continue to take sensible precautions per CDC guidelines, that would help move the conversation along. At some point you are going to have to demonstrate how your model for choice and behavior somehow fills a gap in the re-opening plans going on across the country right now.
We want to offload vaccines that we ourselves won’t take? AZ is problematic. How about we offload extra doses of our Pfizer, Moderna and J&J? Those are safer and the data is more robust (nb: I do realize that FDA is reviewing AZ data for product safety, but still . . . ). I haven’t looked up how much extra we have of those three but if there’s “vaccine reluctance” then we surely have too much . . . Of course, there are complicating factors as some “vaccine reluctance” can be due to continued vaccine inaccessibility for some populations. Other than that, if someone doesn’t need or want it, off it should go to someone who does.
Your response has has nothing to do with what I asked you. I merely asked if the article you cited includes the previously announced sharing of 60M AZ vaccines that the US will likely never use. I have no idea if the US has extra Pfizer, Moderna, or JNJ and if we do, how many extra doses we have.
It is clear that this thread is still being dominated by a few posters. I’m enabling slow mode until tomorrow to encourage discussion from a wider range of folks.
Sunk cost. Now it’s just about ending the pandemic as quickly as possible. Debt will be inflated away or our young people will get a tax hike regardless of what happens to the vaccine stores.
Since you seem to want to dominate this thread, why don’t you do some research on this topic? Instead of asking these questions. It’s been widely reported. We’ve discussed it in the past.
Carry on. I need to find something else to do. But I don’t know why I keep following. Sigh!
Actually, some people know that they are higher risk of vaccine ineffectiveness, such as those taking some medications (e.g. some common chemotherapy drugs) that have immunosuppressing effects. It is not the case, as you apparently assume, that risk of vaccine ineffectiveness is even across all people of the same age. Indeed, some people who know that they are likely to be immunosuppressed take antibody tests after vaccination to check whether they actually did gain antibody activity from vaccination (and some are disappointed at the low or no antibodies that they got). Some even try getting vaccinated again with a different vaccine to see if they can get an immune response (sometimes successful, sometimes not).
Other situations of known medical vulnerability can exist. For example, some people are still being extra careful due to pre-existing medical conditions that make even the small risk of a breakthrough infection after vaccination to be much more of a concern than for most people. Indeed, some posters on these forums have mentioned such conditions for themselves or relatives.
You appear to be claiming that group (a) does not exist, even though it clearly does. If it did not exist, then a purely libertarian solution where vaccination is a choice, and group (b) non-vaccinators are just voluntarily playing COVID-19 lottery with themselves, is an obvious solution. But since group (a) exists, it is less clear cut, and the conflicting interests between groups (a) and (b) must be considered. You obviously prioritize group (b). Obviously, that is your opinion, but basing it on an argument that group (a) does not exist makes it less convincing (versus making an argument that group (b)'s interests should be prioritized over group (a)'s interests).
Unless you deny the existence of group (a), you have to choose between the interests of group (a) and group (b), or some sort of compromise that could leave both dissatisfied.
I’m having the same problem with my 31 year old son and his 35 year old wife. They are not getting the vaccine and they are not budging. She recently learned she is pregnant. I’m curious to see how her new ob reacts to her lack of vaccine. They are missing our annual family vacation since we have young children in the mix. We have had many many sometimes heated discussions, It keeps me awake at night. I feel your frustration.
The daughter of a close family friend is expecting identical twins in a few weeks. Supposedly, she is not getting the vaccine with the blessing of her OB. Seems really odd to me.
I have two nieces who are pregnant and not getting the vaccine for now (one works at a major hospital). Both their OBs approve. I was very surprised. They are not anti-vaxx at all, just being super cautious. One lives on a farm and sees almost no one, and the one who works at the hospital wears PPE and is super careful. She worked in the Covid unit all last summer and never got it then (as far as she knows anyway) so I guess she feels pretty safe with the precautions she’s taking.
A friend recently had a baby. She was a high risk pregnancy and monitored start to finish by Duke. They did not recommend the vaccine for her either. I was also surprised, but I don’t know if being in the last trimester or being high risk made a difference.
It has come down to this: I am scared, very scared for my very young, unvaccinated grandchildren. I can’t comprehend adults in this country not circling the wagons to protect the children.
My guess is that governors are not forcing the sick back into those communities. At least, let’s hope not! That killed a whole lot of elderly here in the Twin Cities. And it was so sad because there was capacity at many hospitals throughout the state (workers at Mayo were actually furloughed due to lack of patients). 
But more simply, this method respects autonomy and personal choice. Stacked protective measures do work and with a smaller subset of them they are easier to enforce.