Or variants emerging from those vaccinated. It’s nonsense to assume “the unvaccinated are dirty Petri dishes where mutations come from!” Variants can come from vaccines themselves or mutating in the host and then spreading.
If anyone think that’s impossible, such a phenomenon is happening right now in Africa with Polio. Wild Polio is declared to be eradicated. A vaccine derived strain is keeping the outbreak alive.
Sure, it can happen, and viruses spread even through a vaccinated population, but quantity is a quality all of its own. Vaccinate everyone, and the number of opportunities for the virus to mutate and spread drops by orders of magnitude. Vaccinate half the population, and all that you'll do is create a great amount of evolutionary selection pressure for a mutation.
You can contract covid, have it mutate and also spread it to others even if you’ve been vaccinated. There’s supposedly less of a chance to do this if you’re vaccinated but with for profit corporations funding most of the science it should all be taken with a grain of salt.
Yes, the oral polio vaccine is a live vaccine that can cause polio. More advanced vaccines, practically everything in use in developed countries nowadays, don't contain live virus. It's just that third-world countries cannot afford better vaccines.
So yes, you are right that there are some corner cases.
“Herd immunity is only relevant if we have a transmission-blocking vaccine. If we don’t, then the only way to get herd immunity in the population is to give everyone the vaccine,” says Shweta Bansal, a mathematical biologist at Georgetown University in Washington DC.
Does... Not... Compute. She is contradicting herself in the very next sentence.
Herd immunity is only possible with a transmission blocking vaccine. This makes sense, as once you’re vaccinated, you are unable to transmit the virus to someone else.
With that first statement, herd immunity is now not relevant, and therefore is not possible, so why mention it as a possibility?
It’s not possible, but we’re just going to vaccinate everyone anyways. Is she benefiting financially from this or something? I don’t understand.
Until we have transmission blocking vaccines, the concept of herd immunity is irrelevant. That goes not just for COVID-19, but for every other vaccination campaign as well. Large scale vaccination campaigns likely decrease transmission, but it doesn’t guarantee the end of any outbreak.
Perhaps the best thing would've been quantitative easing with required guaranteed govt backed loans for anyone unable to meet rent or mortgage or utility payments.
Loans are forgotten if you fail to meet minimum income thresholds (i.e. you can put in forbearance until your income is above say $70k) if your income does't rise about that in ten years, congratulations you're free and clear and the government eats it.
Figure out some list of "necessities" bring your bills and get monthly loan disbursements for those amounts.
Or another option prop the banks but REQUIRE them to prop up landlords but ONLY if they prop up tenants who cannot pay and do the same for utlities, cell phone providers, internet.
That would've ensured a smoother way of essentially "pausing" where you're at, so we can lockdown and "reboot" the system. Basically.
Though I'm all for a UBI as I've been out of work for awhile myself as a freelance dev and am feeling the noose of despair tighten.
Quantitative easing doesn't generally cause inflation in my opinion. All it does is increases bank reserves which is why 10 years into endless qe, inflation is very muted.
The reason they are finally expecting inflation now is that they are going into policy measures on the fiscal side that actually enter the real economy, not just qe. Imo one dollar of fiscal expenditure has the power of at least $10 of qe if not actually more like an infinite multiplier in the case that qe does literally nothing.
If you are interested I. This kind of stuff search YouTube for Jeff snider or Lacy Hunt. Both of them are really fascinating to listen to and have a strong conviction that qe is totally ineffective.
Economies don't exist in a vacuum. There is a demand component and a supply component. The Fed pretends as if influencing the supply component is the only thing that is important.
There are parallels to the law of the minimum.
>It states that growth is dictated not by total resources available, but by the scarcest resource (limiting factor). [0]
The same applies to the economy. If adding more money to the supply side does nothing, that means you already did your job and the supply side is already saturated and you should look for the part of the economy that is lacking in stimulus.
Can you think of any period of hyper-inflation without quantitative easing? People assume that because the velocity doesn't increase in lock step with the amount of currency creation that somehow inflation has been avoided, but the tsunami is still coming.
A series of growing incidents will become a crisis, and it will lead to a collapse in faith of the spending power of all western fiat currencies. That's when everyone, including large institutions will start disgorging vast amounts of dollars in an effort to put that value somewhere more secure and the spending power of the currency will collapse and with it the value of everyone's savings.
There is nothing new here. This has happened many times before.
Sure. As far as I'm aware of not a single historical episode of hyperinflation ever had anything to do with QE.
QE is central bank asset purchases, not attached to specific policy or spending, extending into the long end of the yield curve, of a pre determined quantity, at least pre determined per time period.
The first people to do this were the Japanese in the mid 90s. So every hyper inflation event before that was not caused by QE. The ones after it as well. Venezuela and Zimbabwe weren't trying to influence the yield curve when they hyper inflated, they were printing money directly to pay debt and buy commodities.
Despite the fact that QE increases the money supply, it is not synonymous with literally printing money
Which went straight to banks and inflated assets prices which benefits almost exclusively the wealthy and big business. American taxpayers got looted for cash that went straight to banks, Boeing & friends and big business.
The media is complicit because they sure aren't reporting on the actions of the Fed nor the stimulus bills which are 75%+ pork and corporate welfare, with a $1,400 crumb going out to basically nobody.
One giant problem, which you seem to be suffering from, is lumping in radical anti-vaxxers who would willingly waste doses with people that are questioning the safety of the vaccines. These people are looking to have an open discussion on the positives and negatives to getting the vaccine, but instead find themselves the victims of name calling and censorship.
Conflating the vaccine hesitant with the radicals you mention is done on purpose of course, but there’s a real cost. You are alienating and further radicalizing fence sitters. Censorship of open discussion can also be seen as confirming their possible view that vaccine manufacturers are ”hiding something“.
I too can speak in an authoritative tone in complete generalities with no logic or reason.
Your comment actually creates more doubt about long term effects than it assuages. “There aren’t any long term effects. Because uh, there is no such thing as long term! Hah hah! It’s certainly not because they weren’t studied long enough.”
Try posting a study that backs up the nonsense you’re spouting because you don’t seem trustworthy.
Fair enough, I am no vaccine expert. So, what I got from sciency layman's info is the following: Long term effects are called that because the sustain for a long time, not because they kick in after a long time. Second take away, these effects for vaccines show themselves in the first couple of weeks and months. Given that we started trials almost a year ago and serious vaccination campaigns months ago with literally millions of people vaccinated, and still being monitored under Phase 4 trials if I remember well (which are standard for drugs and so), it is highly unlikely that any side effects have not been discovered yet. Sounds reasonable and logic to me, but then I have all vaccinations that are recommended were I live. Plus some optional ones. Neither do I read through al the potential side effects before I take drugs.
Yeah they’re all conspiracy theories until one day they aren’t.