Formerly DT: COVID-19 - Featuring Lots of Politics, now CR because political talk not going away

[utee94 15745]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

Well let's see here.  It took generations for a smallpox vaccine to be developed.  The deaths occurred over hundreds of years.  COVID-19 has killed over 3 million in just about a year, half a million in the US alone.  I'm thinking a vaccine passport isn't such a bad idea.

I'm not really onboard with the idea of a vaccine passport, but I'll also underscore your first point by saying COVID-19 has killed over 3 million in just about a year, despite the most massive isolation/shut-down efforts in history.  I can't even imagine what the death toll would have been, had the entire globe done nothing.

Note-- I'm not saying it ever would have come to that, eventually as the hospitals and morgues filled to overflowing and the trees were full of bodies, people would have self-isolated without any government mandates whatsoever.  

 

[BabaYaga 15212]

56 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Chickenpox is deadly to children? German measles and mumps are deadly to children? 
 

eta smallpox may not have killed you but you might end up looking all fucked up. Do a google image search for smallpox scars

Untreated Chicken pox may "only" result in infections in the lungs, pneumonia (not deadly to kids whatsover...), along with brain infections and swelling (encephalitis & cerebellar ataxia).  GM has similar outcomes - all of which are quite deadly to small children  This, not so much in any statistical manner of measurement.  

 

[BabaYaga 15212]

3 minutes ago, utee94 said:

despite the most massive isolation/shut-down efforts in history. 

Many of which are being revisited as doing the opposite of what they were intended to prevent - namely prevent the spread of the virus.  At best, they were entirely ineffective.  

Lockdowns

 

Quote

In the framework of this analysis, there is no evidence that more restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (‘lockdowns’) contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain or the United States in early 2020. By comparing the effectiveness of NPIs on case growth rates in countries that implemented more restrictive measures with those that implemented less‐restrictive measures, the evidence points away from indicating that mrNPIs provided additional meaningful benefit above and beyond lrNPIs. While modest decreases in daily growth (under 30%) cannot be excluded in a few countries, the possibility of large decreases in daily growth due to mrNPIs is incompatible with the accumulated data.

 

[Sawbonz 27429]

12 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Untreated Chicken pox may "only" result in infections in the lungs, pneumonia (not deadly to kids whatsover...), along with brain infections and swelling (encephalitis & cerebellar ataxia).  GM has similar outcomes - all of which are quite deadly to small children  This, not so much in any statistical manner of measurement.  

 

Care to quote the incidence of those manifestations? Do you know what number needed to treat is?

Edited May 3, 2021 by Sawbonz

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Do you know what number to treat is?

[utee94 15745]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Many of which are being revisited as doing the opposite of what they were intended to prevent - namely prevent the spread of the virus.  At best, they were entirely ineffective.  

Lockdowns

 

 

Yeah... no. You're gonna score no points here, because I said, specifically and intentionally,  "isolation/shut-down."  I didn't mention "lockdowns" at all.  I'm talking about the sum total of all human activity, where people didn't interact with one another on a massive scale for up to a year in some cases, regardless of whether or not the government mandated it.

If you can find an analysis that asserts that the sum total of all of that cessation of interaction did nothing, I'll take a look at it.  I'll also most likely call it out as being  bullshit.

 

[Neonmoon 38127]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

Well let's see here.  It took generations for a smallpox vaccine to be developed.  The deaths occurred over hundreds of years.  COVID-19 has killed over 3 million in just about a year, half a million in the US alone.  I'm thinking a vaccine passport isn't such a bad idea.

I saw a report on how China uses technology, like a vaccine passport for people to show they’re vaccinated. I know many Americans would not like it for XYZ reason, but I wouldn’t give a shit, take my information. The dark web already has it. Just scan a QR code anywhere you go and boom, you can enter. 

[blacklab 11850]

I'm wondering if health insurance companies will end up being impetus behind some of these morons to get a vaccine.

If health insurance was 2-3x as expensive if you didn't have the vaccine, or any covid related hospital bills were not covered by your insurance I'm sure you'd see many people go get it.

[BabaYaga 15212]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Care to quote the incidence of those manifestations? Do you know what number to treat is?

Now, or before vaccinations were created?  The point being those treatments for children are for bugs that can mess kids up and pass easily between them.  This is not that.  Statistically this virus has a lower mortality rate on that age group than taking tylenol (55 vs 44)

[Guest Lobo]

^

Good point, blacklab.  Maybe don't change their premiums, but make the deductible/out-of-pocket max a shitton higher for anything related to Covid-19.  Which will be a curious retreat from the "they're coding everything as being from Coronavirus!" 

Edited May 3, 2021 by Lobo

[BabaYaga 15212]

2 minutes ago, blacklab said:

I'm wondering if health insurance companies will end up being impetus behind some of these morons to get a vaccine.

If health insurance was 2-3x as expensive if you didn't have the vaccine, or any covid related hospital bills were not covered by your insurance I'm sure you'd see many people go get it.

Indigent care a new term to you?

[blacklab 11850]

Another lever that would probably be the easiest to pull is not allowing anyone on a plane that isn't vaccinated.

Don't want to get it? Cool, you can drive.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

3 minutes ago, blacklab said:

I'm wondering if health insurance companies will end up being impetus behind some of these morons to get a vaccine.

If health insurance was 2-3x as expensive if you didn't have the vaccine, or any covid related hospital bills were not covered by your insurance I'm sure you'd see many people go get it.

I'm down with that. And smokers. And overweight people. And people who drive BMW's. 

[BabaYaga 15212]

3 minutes ago, utee94 said:

 "isolation/shut-down."  I didn't mention "lockdowns" at all.

How do you differentiate between the two, and what examples that are not islands that can geographically isolate themselves do we have of total and complete isolation that we can quantify it's effectiveness?

[BabaYaga 15212]

1 minute ago, blacklab said:

Another lever that would probably be the easiest to pull is not allowing anyone on a plane that isn't vaccinated.

Don't want to get it? Cool, you can drive.

So, like a passport-type thingy?  Interesting idea.

[Dahobbs 17447]

18 minutes ago, utee94 said:

I'm not really onboard with the idea of a vaccine passport, but I'll also underscore your first point by saying COVID-19 has killed over 3 million in just about a year, despite the most massive isolation/shut-down efforts in history.  I can't even imagine what the death toll would have been, had the entire globe done nothing.

Note-- I'm not saying it ever would have come to that, eventually as the hospitals and morgues filled to overflowing and the trees were full of bodies, people would have self-isolated without any government mandates whatsoever.  

 

Yeah, I understand and I don't know that air travel restrictions would be the most effective way to increase vaccine participation or to lower risk to those unable (different than unwilling) to get vaccines. I was really just spit balling things that could be done, not necessarily things that should be done. I do think it generally makes sense to require vaccination for certain activities in order to boost vaccination rates and protect others. But I also think it is important to be selective and not over regulate. 

[blacklab 11850]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

Indigent care a new term to you?

No. But I'm guessing the number of people who aren't getting the vaccine who have health insurance is greater than zero.

[BabaYaga 15212]

Just now, blacklab said:

greater than zero.

The famous phrase used as a driver for all great and lasting regulations

[blacklab 11850]

So you're opposed to private companies doing what's best for their bottom line?

I'm not talking about regulation, I'm talking about insurance companies changing their policies.

[utee94 15745]

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

How do you differentiate between the two, and what examples that are not islands that can geographically isolate themselves do we have of total and complete isolation that we can quantify it's effectiveness?

Geography is irrelevant and immaterial here.  Social distancing is part of the isolation effort.  It works.  Staying 6 feet away from someone makes it less likely you're breathing the same air.  Staying inside your own house for 6 months make it less likely than that.  Not going to crowded bars and restaurants for the past 12 months is part of the isolation.  And it works.

If you think it doesn't, feel free to try and prove that to me.  That's the point you're trying to make, whether you intend it or not.  By countering what I said, you're asserting that there were no self-isolation/distancing actions taken by humans over the past year, that slowed the spread or prevented the hospitals from becoming overrun, or that resulted in less loss of life than there would otherwise have been without any actions whatsoever.  That's the hill you're dying on.  Good luck with that.

Edited May 3, 2021 by utee94

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

Just now, utee94 said:

Geography is irrelevant and immaterial here.  Social distancing is part of the isolation effort.  It works.  Staying 6 feet away from someone makes it less likely you're breathing the same air.  Staying inside your own house for 6 months make it less likely than that.  Not going to crowded bars and restaurants for the past 12 months is part of the isolation.  And it works.

If you think it doesn't, feel free to try and prove that to me.  That's the point you're trying to make, whether you intend it or not.  By countering what I said, you're asserting that there were no actions taken by humans over the past year, that slowed the spread or prevented the hospitals from becoming overrun, or that resulted in less loss of life than there would otherwise have been without any actions whatsoever.  That's the hill you're dying on.  Good luck with that.

VIRUS GONNA VIRUS

[Dahobbs 17447]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

The famous phrase used as a driver for all great and lasting regulations

So, out of curiosity, what kinds of laws are you ok with? 

• Requiring seatbelts to be worn?
• Requiring seatbelts/airbags to be installed by the manufacturer?
• Speed limits?
• Vaccinations (e.g., measles) to attend schools?
• Restricting access to certain types of medical care? 
• Restricting freedom to associate?
• Zoning restrictions?
• Requiring a license to drive?
• Requiring a license to vote?

Is there any principle or principles behind your beliefs? Why is requiring vaccination a no go for you? What distinguishes it from the numerous other restrictions placed on us by society? Or are all such restrictions wrong in your view?

[Pancho 44475]

 

[BabaYaga 15212]

5 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Geography is irrelevant and immaterial here.  Social distancing is part of the isolation effort.  It works.  Staying 6 feet away from someone makes it less likely you're breathing the same air.  Staying inside your own house for 6 months make it less likely than that.  Not going to crowded bars and restaurants for the past 12 months is part of the isolation.  And it works.

If you think it doesn't, feel free to try and prove that to me.  That's the point you're trying to make, whether you intend it or not.  By countering what I said, you're asserting that there were no self-isolation/distancing actions taken by humans over the past year, that slowed the spread or prevented the hospitals from becoming overrun, or that resulted in less loss of life than there would otherwise have been without any actions whatsoever.  That's the hill you're dying on.  Good luck with that.

Besides posting an article from a scientific study that says that very thing?  Care to read it, refute it, and report back to us?

[BabaYaga 15212]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

So, out of curiosity, what kinds of laws are you ok with? 

• Requiring seatbelts to be worn?
• Requiring seatbelts/airbags to be installed by the manufacturer?
• Speed limits?
• Vaccinations (e.g., measles) to attend schools?
• Restricting access to certain types of medical care? 
• Restricting freedom to associate?
• Zoning restrictions?
• Requiring a license to drive?
• Requiring a license to vote?

Is there any principle or principles behind your beliefs? Why is requiring vaccination a no go for you? What distinguishes it from the numerous other restrictions placed on us by society? Or are all such restrictions wrong in your view?

 

[BabaYaga 15212]

10 minutes ago, blacklab said:

So you're opposed to private companies doing what's best for their bottom line?

I'm not talking about regulation, I'm talking about insurance companies changing their policies.

Of course, as long as they do the same for the litany of other, much more serious comorbidity factors, namely all the jelly-bellies stuffing their faces with french fries and burgers and updating their FB status' with "I'm vaccinated"

[Dahobbs 17447]

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

 

You're the one that brought up other laws. I'm just trying to understand the nature of your disagreement. Is this a libertarian stand against any regulation of private conduct or is there something particular to vaccines or this vaccine that is objectionable? 

P.S you still don't know what a strawman argument is. 

Edited May 3, 2021 by Dahobbs

[The Dog 43803]

11 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/health/pfizer-covid-vaccine-teens.html

Maybe as early as late this week.

Expect a BIG jump in demand once this happens (at least in the short term).

[GRHorn 105]

11 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

I wonder what the vaccination rates for this age group will be?

[blacklab 11850]

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Of course, as long as they do the same for the litany of other, much more serious comorbidity factors, namely all the jelly-bellies stuffing their faces with french fries and burgers and updating their FB status' with "I'm vaccinated"

They already do this.

When you get a quote for your company for health insurance for your employees they ask you questions about your employees. Adding a question of "Have all of your employees been vaccinated" will not be a big issue.

When the insurance company comes back to the business owner and says you have 2 options:

1. Pay $2000 a month per employee  

2. Get all of your employees vaccinated and/or fire those not vaccinated and pay $1000 a month per employee

what do you think the owner will do?

[Don Johnson 4745]

2 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

I wonder what the vaccination rates for this age group will be?

I'm betting pretty low.

[utee94 15745]

15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Besides posting an article from a scientific study that says that very thing?  Care to read it, refute it, and report back to us?

If you think your citation claimed that human distancing and self-isolation efforts were ineffective, then you don't understand the citation.

I read it, I'm refuting your point, and reporting back.  You clearly don't understand what the citation is saying.  Or you think that I'm talking specifically, and solely, about government mandates, which I've already stated, I am not.

Feel free to improve your reading comprehension, and then report back to me.  I'm waiting with 'bated breath.

Edited May 3, 2021 by utee94

[gmr548 16512]

I'm down with that. And smokers. And overweight people. And people who drive BMW's. 

If BMW’s are contagious I’d like to know the risk factors.

[Sawbonz 27429]

25 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Now, or before vaccinations were created?  The point being those treatments for children are for bugs that can mess kids up and pass easily between them.  This is not that.  Statistically this virus has a lower mortality rate on that age group than taking tylenol (55 vs 44)

Go ahead and quote both. The Childhood vaccination schedule other than polio and DPT is not designed to prevent significant mortality or long term disability among children.

 

Chickenpox in particular is in there because about a third of chickenpox infections recur as shingles in the greater than 50 population and it really sucks if you are in that 33%

[The Dog 43803]

4 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

I'm betting pretty low.

It depends on the parents - I'd suspect most parents who have been vaccinated will at least ask their pediatricians if their kids should get it. We'll see an initial spike in demand then we'll probably see it tail off.

[BabaYaga 15212]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

P.S you still don't know what a strawman argument is. 

Neither do you apparently with this idea that I'm somehow against all those laws mentioned.  The point you missed was utilizing the logic that "if it saves just one life (net grater than zero)" as the driver for enacting it can have massive, negative implications and unintended side effects that far outweigh the initial intentions of the original bill.  

 

 

[Incredulity 11564]

13 minutes ago, blacklab said:

fire those not vaccinated and pay $1000 a month per employee

... Kimberly in HR just stroked out.

[Don Johnson 4745]

9 minutes ago, The Dog said:

It depends on the parents - I'd suspect most parents who have been vaccinated will at least ask their pediatricians if their kids should get it. We'll see an initial spike in demand then we'll probably see it tail off.

I think you'd have to see one of these variants actually be dangerous for kids for parents to have any motivation.  

[Dahobbs 17447]

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Neither do you apparently with this idea that I'm somehow against all those laws mentioned.  The point you missed was utilizing the logic that "if it saves just one life (net grater than zero)" as the driver for enacting it can have massive, negative implications and unintended side effects that far outweigh the initial intentions of the original bill.  

 

 

I honestly can't tell what thought you're trying to convey in the bolded portion. I don't think I've ever said anything about "if it saves just one life" as a justification for a law. That standard is impossible and impractical. 

At any rate, I never assumed you were against all those laws. Frankly, I figured you would be in favor of a number of them. My only question is why a law requiring covid vaccination for participation in certain (undetermined at this point) activities would be objectionable. What makes it different from those laws that you do approve of? This is a sincere question; I want to know what properties of a covid vaccination requirement (of any scope) would make it objectionable to you. 

Edited May 3, 2021 by Dahobbs

[gyroprotagonist 2591]

38 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Many of which are being revisited as doing the opposite of what they were intended to prevent - namely prevent the spread of the virus.  At best, they were entirely ineffective.  

Lockdowns

 

 

using SK as a case 'for' not locking things down seems a little misleading.  They were kicking so much ass with robust contract tracing then keeping those individuals quarantined that things never got that bad at the start and middle of the year iirc.  Now they are at a relative highpoint for cases, but deaths are back down to 0-2 per day.

I mean there are lots of comparisons with Norway and Sweden and their different C19 responses.  here is a graph (through July 2020) of total mortality (not just C19) between the two.  The dotted lines at the bottom are C19 deaths

 

pretty clear that doing something vs yolo will save some lives.  Norway's lockdown was March 17th or somewhere around there. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201116/Study-compares-deaths-in-Sweden-and-Norway-before-and-after-COVID-pandemic.aspx

I'm biased.  I could work from home and was not an essential worker.  i did not have my business shut down.  My kids' school immediately pivoted to online learning and it was not a total joke.  I realize this was not the case for most.  If my job/industry was shut down or if my kids did not have a learning option or childcare if i could not wfh, then my views might different on what was an acceptable response for shutdowns.  

If you really believe that keeping a % of people from interacting in close quarters on a day to day basis for the majority of the day had zero effect the body count, then nothing is going to change your mind about any covid response being reasonable.

 

 

[BabaYaga 15212]

19 minutes ago, utee94 said:

If you think your citation claimed that human distancing and self-isolation efforts were ineffective, then you don't understand the citation.

I read it, I'm refuting your point, and reporting back.  You clearly don't understand what the citation is saying.  Or you think that I'm talking specifically, and solely, about government mandates, which I've already stated, I am not.

Feel free to improve your reading comprehension, and then report back to me.  I'm waiting with 'bated breath.

Not saying that.  Again, referencing the idea that "the most massive shut down in history" is being questioned as being effective.  More and more studies are saying it wasn't.  Your point about people not interacting for an entire year - I'd like to see those studies, but what we can look at are the impacts of areas that locked down and those that did not and make generalizations about their efficacy.  

I'm talking about these stay at home orders, closures, etc.  I also want to see the CDC results of the reduction of distancing in schools from 6t to 3ft, and whether that original assertion was warranted?

[BabaYaga 15212]

9 minutes ago, gyroprotagonist said:

If you really believe that keeping a % of people from interacting in close quarters on a day to day basis for the majority of the day had zero effect the body count, then nothing is going to change your mind about any covid response being reasonable.

Not saying that - but do we know what the net gain was vs the economic cost?  Or whether 

[utee94 15745]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Not saying that - but do we know what the net gain was vs the economic cost?  Or whether 

We don't know.  We won't possibly be able to know, for many more years, because the sum total of effects won't be known, for many more years.

I'm hopeful that extensive studies will be performed, to quantify all of those factors, and help us more confidently manage the next one.

 

[BabaYaga 15212]

16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I honestly can't tell what thought you're trying to convey in the bolded portion. I don't think I've ever said anything about "if it saves just one life" as a justification for a law. That standard is impossible and impractical. 

At any rate, I never assumed you were against all those laws. Frankly, I figured you would be in favor of a number of them. My only question is why a law requiring covid vaccination for participation in certain (undetermined at this point) activities would be objectionable. What makes it different from those laws that you do approve of? This is a sincere question; I want to know what properties of a covid vaccination requirement (of any scope) would make it objectionable to you. 

For children, completely and utterly unnecessary.  They are statistically safer from COVID that taking over the counter pain meds.  For the vulnerable.  Protect and target the vulnerable.  To mandate the everyone MUST do this or do that to carry on with their lives is akin to E.Germany stops to "show your papers".

This virus kills the fat and the old.  So protect the fat and the old.  For most everyone else, mandates like this are insane.  

[gyroprotagonist 2591]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

Not saying that - but do we know what the net gain was vs the economic cost?  Or whether 

dunno if there are any economic studies on Norway vs Sweden.  The mortality ones are obviously out there.  If Norway is a broke dick and Sweden is rolling like Croesus then that might be a starting point.

 

[BabaYaga 15212]

2 minutes ago, gyroprotagonist said:

dunno if there are any economic studies on Norway vs Sweden.  The mortality ones are obviously out there.  If Norway is a broke dick and Sweden is rolling like Croesus then that might be a starting point.

 

They'll try open vs closed US states and international regions, but it's all correlative.  

[Dahobbs 17447]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

For children, completely and utterly unnecessary.  They are statistically safer from COVID that taking over the counter pain meds.  For the vulnerable.  Protect and target the vulnerable.  To mandate the everyone MUST do this or do that to carry on with their lives is akin to E.Germany stops to "show your papers".

This virus kills the fat and the old.  So protect the fat and the old.  For most everyone else, mandates like this are insane.  

Your assumptions are unsupported. First, the virus kills more than the fat and old. For instance, it kills the relatively healthy middle age adult at a much higher rate than the flu. Second, the cost of the virus is not limited only to the death toll. And your proposal of "protect and target the vulnerable" isn't a proposal at all. The question is how to do that. In particular, how do you protect those people that cannot get a vaccine? Our answer for other diseases has usually been to have a high level of vaccination in the population so that those individuals aren't likely to be exposed to it. That's why we require vaccinations for many of those childhood ailments. So, my question to you, why should covid be different? Its cost is surely greater than or equal to things like chickenpox and measles. So why treat it differently? 

[BabaYaga 15212]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Your assumptions are unsupported

For children and people under 40, you bet your ass they are.

 

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

First, the virus kills more than the fat and old

No shit.  It was tongue in cheek.  The point being we have clear data that this virus is not the indiscriminate killer it was made out to be.  And the flu?  Who cares about the flu?  The flu kills the very young and the very old.  This is nothing like the flu.  For the older, it's much worse, but for the very young, the flu can and will kill them - yet we have done nothing proactive ever to monitor or track outbreaks - why?

 

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The question is how to do that. In particular, how do you protect those people that cannot get a vaccine?

Who cannot get the vaccine?  Find them.  Work to help them?  We talking geographical restrictions?  Medical complications?  Cost?  You are talking about a statistically minute sector of people.  To mandate that hundreds of millions HAVE to take it is insane when you look at the mortality rates and statistical implications of certain age demographics.  

My folks are older - they are dialed in with both shots.  I already had it.  We all did.  Like a wet fart in a windstorm.  Daughter lost taste for a day.  I had a headache.  My folks are visiting.  They are good to go.  So are we and they feel safe around us.  So what is this mandate going to do to help us?  This top-down, one size fits all nonsense has to stop. 

[Dahobbs 17447]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

Who cannot get the vaccine?  Find them.  Work to help them?  We talking geographical restrictions?  Medical complications?  Cost?  You are talking about a statistically minute sector of people.  To mandate that hundreds of millions HAVE to take it is insane when you look at the mortality rates and statistical implications of certain age demographics.  

I was specifically referring to medical reasons. Every vaccine that I'm aware of has a segment of the population that cannot take it. Part of the reason we require vaccinations for other ailments is to protect those people. Again, why should Covid be treated differently than either measles or chickenpox in that regard? Or is it your opinion that requiring vaccinations for those ailments is wrong too? 

Note: my comparison to measles and chickenpox is not meant to suggest that we should require vaccination in the same way or for the same activities (i.e., school). It is merely a reference to the broader principle of requiring vaccination in association with certain activities. 

[BabaYaga 15212]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I was specifically referring to medical reasons. Every vaccine that I'm aware of has a segment of the population that cannot take it. Part of the reason we require vaccinations for other ailments is to protect those people. Again, why should Covid be treated differently than either measles or chickenpox in that regard? Or is it your opinion that requiring vaccinations for those ailments is wrong too? 

Note: my comparison to measles and chickenpox is not meant to suggest that we should require vaccination in the same way or for the same activities (i.e., school). It is merely a reference to the broader principle of requiring vaccination in association with certain activities. 

Those need to be identified and isolated.  Numbers I have seen are in the low thousands (less than 5K).  To mandate hundreds of millions of otherwise healthy people must comply to protect and very clear and identifiable sub-set is absurd.  

Vaccines are not new, so to act like identifying this sub-set is difficult seems counter intuitive as they would know their own conditions.