It’s good to give better incentives for people to be vaccinated, as many have urged for some time.
I worry this carrot isn’t tied to an adequate stick - the unvaccinated can simply go without a mask regardless of their status. Will this move actually counter our slowing vaccination rates?
> For what it's (not) worth, it prompted me to sign up today. :)
More for my understanding than anything else, and with every guarantee that I won't present any follow-up questions or statements, but why was this the tipping point and not the actual disease risk mitigation resulting from the vaccine?
Not me, but a coworker of mine is the only guy in my office who hasn't been vaccinated (rest of us got second dose at end of January) because of adverse reactions to past (milder) vaccinations. He correctly assesses that he's in a very low risk environment, but at some point he'll probably risk the vaccine to not have pariah status.
But for the last 3 months, there was nothing to make the tradeoff worthwhile to him.
Glad that he didn’t value not being a disease vector which could spread the virus to someone who may be at risk. Vaccines work when most of society get vaccinated, it only requires a small minority of egos to make a forgotten disease rear its ugly head again.
My guess: GP is young and healthy, so the chance of significant harm from COVID is nearly zero, and the vaccines for COVID have significantly worse side effects than pretty much any other vaccines given today. Thus, until today, it was a high-risk low-reward proposition.
Anecdotally, dozens of people in my social circle (aged 30-50) reported that the worst vaccine side effects were (1) a sore arm and (2) 24-48 hours of sleepy brain fog (even after the second dose). Among first and second degree connections on Facebook, I know of exactly two people who experienced the full gamut of flu-like symptoms, such as fever, chills, and whole-body aches for a day or two. Take this with a grain of salt, but I'd estimate an upper bound of 10% for "moderately unpleasant" side effects among young-ish, moderately healthy individuals.
Anecdotally, dozens of people in my social circle (aged 25-45 or so reported severe side effects, including at least three or four of sore arm, fever, chills, headaches, exhaustion, body aches, nausea, and brain fog. My girlfriend and I had five of them, for an entire day.
I'm not sure if your group's experience or mine is more typical. That's why comprehensive data is required to sort things out, and limited-number anecdotes are useless.
Basically none of which rises to the point of hospitalization and is gone in a few days.
The risk of hospitalization among even 18-29 year olds is not negligible. Neither is the risk of permanent side effects like diabetes. Those autoimmune conditions can and do strike even perfectly healthy individuals.
It is weird how the vaccine is probably 1000x safer than getting the virus, but young people in particular are happy with the idea that "that won't happen to me, I'm healthy and young" when it comes to the virus, while they're deeply concerned about vaccine side effects that really aren't concerning at all.
(And BTW "robust immune system" doesn't help you if your own immune system turns on you due to the virus).
You can't just weigh "The risk and severity of bad effects from COVID" with "the risks and severity of the bad effects from the vaccine". You also need to factor in that the probability of an unvaccinated person getting COVID isn't 100%.
About 10-30% of Americans got COVID-19 so far, depending on how you tally the numbers. Of those, approximately 8% can be expected to experience long-term effects that disrupt their daily lives:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/91270
>About 8% of all participants said at least one activity of daily living suffered long-term consequences, most commonly household chores.
That puts the net risk for non-vaccinated people at no less than 0.8%.
By contrast, the incidence of blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine, which caused its ouster, was about 0.001%. That's a factor of 800 in favor of vaccination with the worst of the vaccines.
And how do you measure the mid to long term risk of a novel mRNA technology which is effectively in trial now, under emergency approval, when vaccines typically take years of safety evaluations? Particularly considering that there are preprints out with a mechanism identified for reverse transcription of the spike producing mRNA, which could result in chronic inflammatory disease in some proportion of recipients, given that other preprints claim that the spike protein itself is a general inflammatory agent and may be responsible for clotting/vascular symptoms.
Note that reverse transcription of COVID RNA also is a convenient explanation for post symptomatic positive tests as well as long COVID symptoms.
I think it's irresponsible to downplay the risks associated with this novel technology, especially when people still have the option of continuing to socially isolate to some degree.
Vaccines either cause side effects in ~3 months or they don't. They could conceivably trigger long-term autoimmune conditions but they don't hide for years.
And we have a long track record of understanding this because viruses and vaccine cause the same kinds of autoimmune conditions. I had viral pericarditis once from a common cold that struck a month or two after I got over it. We've got hundreds of years of experience with it.
The issue with vaccines taking a long time to get approval is development time and efficacy data. Both of those were able to be done quickly due to the massive pandemic and due to the 10 years of preparatory work done on SARS-CoV-1 and mRNA vaccines.
And your interpretation of the reverse transcription article is just bullshit misinformation.
And you're still not escaping from being exposed to SARS-CoV-1 mRNA, it'll become endemic. You're getting it from the virus or the vaccine, there's not really going to be any skipping out.
(And if the LINE-1 results are correct this is how we pick up genetic material from all kinds of RNA viruses, our genome is littered with historical pandemics).
> The issue with vaccines taking a long time to get approval is development time and efficacy data. Both of those were able to be done quickly due to the massive pandemic and due to the 10 years of preparatory work done on SARS-CoV-1 and mRNA vaccines.
Not only that, but Operation Warp Speed (hate the name, but have to give it some credit) removed bureaucratic hurdles that allowed many of the normal steps to be done in parallel rather than serially. That doesn't mean that those steps were rushed or done in an unsafe manner.
>Particularly considering that there are preprints out with a mechanism identified for reverse transcription of the spike producing mRNA, which could result in chronic inflammatory disease in some proportion of recipients
This doesn't make sense because the mRNA-based spike protein, unlike the natural spike protein, is specifically tuned to annoy the immune system. Any cells incorporating the vaccine mRNA into their DNA will be summarily executed for the very same reason that the vaccine works as a vaccine in the first place: it's an antigen.
>I think it's irresponsible to downplay the risks associated with this novel technology
What's irresponsible is couch-quarterbacking the epidemiological community and the medical authorities of ~every developed country in the world, based on preprints, in the face of a pandemic that has claimed ~10M lives globally.
Newer variants are hitting young people harder. COVID is getting more dangerous to that group. Plus, as other posters have said, the vaccine is extremely safe.
Interesting, as someone who got vaccinated the first day it was available to all adults in Utah(3/24), I'm surprised that this news changed any ones mind. But either way I'm glad it did!.
The vaccine does carry the risk of side effects and adverse reactions. That risk, for most, is VERY small.
But if the person in question also has very low risk of contracting or spreading Covid (works from home, rarely goes out, young, healthy) and if being vaccinated doesn’t actually enable you to live any differently than you already are, then there’s no compelling reason to get vaccinated and assume the risk of side effects, no matter how small.
The logical decision here involves civic duty. I certainly fit into the low risk category, etc., but I also exist in society and am a willing participant, and as such have certain responsibilities to other people in my community.
As an American, I can tell you that most Americans aren't big on civic duty. And when we are, it's mostly limited to getting out to vote and not complaining too much when selected for jury duty.
American individualism also tends to downplay a person's responsibility to anyone outside their family, which some even restrict to their immediate nuclear family.
It's a shame, and I think it's one of our biggest failings as a culture. Ironically this is one of the few things where the American left and right are fairly on the same page, even if most won't admit it.
(I'm painting a pretty dire picture here, but it really isn't that bad. Communities exist everywhere, and people who care about others exist everywhere. It just seems like when the chips are down, people tend to turn inward rather than outward.)
It does... but again, if being vaccinated means that you still have to do all the other things that are done to limit the spread, then you are perceivably ALREADY doing your civic duty when you go out by masking up, distancing, and otherwise staying home.
Also, if vaccination doesn’t change the risk enough for you to drop some of the other precautions, that also lowers the perceived value of the efficacy of the vaccine as well.
vaccination is probably the most broadly effective, but there are many ways, big and small, to limit the risks of transmission, so don't fall for the fascist line of thinking that there is only one true way, especially when an understanding of the risks (airborne is highly unlikely) and effectiveness of the various mitigations (no, you never needed masks outside unless tightly packed for extended time) is so woefully lacking.
and civic duty is voting, educating yourself on policy issues, obeying reasonable laws, and tolerating and even celebrating differences of perspective and opinion. it's about participating effectively in our democratic republic. it doesn't encompass every possible responsibility to every other human, like the term 'moral duty' might.
I don’t understand this. Does the hypothetical low risk person hypothetically work from home and rarely go out.. forever? If no, when/what is the trigger that changes this behavior?
If going out means the hassle of wearing a mask, staying distanced, and all the other rules, then, yes.
Put another way, if going out feels like a big hassle, and getting vaccinated doesn’t remove enough of the rules to make going out NOT feel like a hassle, then there’s no reason to change one’s “going out” habits. And if there’s no incentive to change one’s “going out” habits, then there’s no reason to go through any process or procedure that only perceivably benefits you if you leave home.
I will be getting my vaccine soon myself.
But the world has changed. If I was isolated and nervous to “put myself out there” pre-pandemic, then I’m nearly agoraphobic now.
Nobody I work with wants to return to the office, nobody wants to return to having fun outings (at least not outside their own social circle).
There’s literally nothing for me to return to doing. I’ve built up a relatively solitary life with my dad in the last 12+ months, and everything outside of it is gone.
If you feel that you have so much to return to that the idea of rarely going out, forever, sounds unrealistic, then I would
consider yourself lucky.
I intend to get vaccinated just to be safe to anyone I might come in contact with, but to your point, even once I get vaccinated, I honestly see no trigger to change my behavior. I highly doubt I’m alone in this.
I would prefer to wear a mask at the grocery store, but not at work when physically on-site. I'm low risk, and don't really have any desire to go out and get vaccinated mostly because I'm lazy, don't like needles, antisocial, and generally anxious in public.
I don't really ever go out willingly, so I didn't really have an incentive to get vaccinated. Now I can get vaccinated and not wear a mask at work when it's 100+F in a few months.
Now that it's socially acceptable to wear a mask when in businesses and isn't a fashion trend, I will continue to do it since it should impede facial recognition. Except if it's a bit hot, I now can choose not to :)
I think this will be a great incentive to drive vaccination rates.
I'm really glad that you're going to get vaccinated!
But the thing that really bothers me about your previous rationale is that it doesn't take anyone else into account. What about people who would like to get vaccinated, but can't because they're deathly allergic to components of the vaccine (or some other medical reason)? What about people who would like to get vaccinated but can't afford to take time off work for the shot, or to rest during possible side effects?
You getting vaccinated protects those people too, when you walk past them in that grocery store. They deserve to be out and about without fear of infection just as much as you or I do.
Totally, at the store there's definitely other people to take into account as well as at work. I don't think about other people much in my daily life, so it's easy for me to fall into that (false) mentality of being unlikely to have any meaningful impact by not getting vaccinated.
If you were in a very low risk group, I can see delaying taking the vaccine to avoid blocking a higher risk person. Absent that I truly don't understand declining any of the vaccines for COVID. The risk of serious side effects is negligible. Meanwhile, every day you are alive you move into a higher risk group both for COVID and for longer recovery of mild side effects. So why wait?
I waited a couple weeks after it was open to everyone here. I waited because the only available vaccines were multiple hours away. I wasn’t going to make that trip twice (and potentially find out they screwed up their count or ruined doses or something) when I could wait a couple weeks and get one in my own town. Doubly so since I have less contact with strangers than most.
I was in a similar boat, but I went ahead and drove the couple hours out for the first shot...and then as supply opened up closer to me, scheduled my second 5 miles away. Totally understand the motivation to wait though; my wife got in due to some health stuff, and so there was more pressure for me to just hurry up and get it.
That makes sense. I too waited some extra time for supply to be available in my own area, rather than traveling and taking from others' allocations.
But I'm surprised that the "you can go maskless if you get the vaccine" is a deciding factor for anyone. Wearing a dust mask is so trivial compared to all the other changes and efforts I've made this year.
I traveled a bit during this pandemic and in Arizona it’s like the virus didn’t exist. Nobody was wearing a mask, nobody. Even indoor. Even the waiters.
I’m back in SF now and everybody is wearing the mask. Everybody. The adults, the children, Even the vaccinated people. Yesterday the waiter asked me if we could put back our mask so she could hand us our plate.
Country of extremes. I feel like there’s no going back to normal eventhough I’m fully vaccinated.
I'm curious where in Arizona. Cities have been hit hardest because of population density and interactions, so it's somewhat more reasonable for cities to be more concerned.
> the waiter asked me if we could put back our mask so she could hand us our plate
I get the feeling behind this, but it's also silly. Either you're outdoors and the risk is already pretty low, or you're indoors, and 30s of exposure won't be a big deal, especially when it's not like everyone is wearing N95 respirators and aerosols are a bigger concern than we used to think.
In TX people often, say ~25%, ignored mask mandates inside stores. When the mandate lifted it went to more like ~10%. I get it, I'm a contrarían, but it was surprising that once it wasn't required to be thoughtful, people were.
Was in Florida in March. Few masks anywhere. Almost none at bars and restaurants. It was nice to experience "normal" again. Some retail stores had "please wear a mask" signs up and I'd say the shoppers were about 70% compliant.
We had a lady on Nextdoor lauding her ability to go outside without a mask and being able to smile at a friend from afar now that she’s vaccinated. Masks haven’t been required outside when social distancing for most of the pandemic, vaccinated or not. There’s reasons for wearing masks (or not), but the decision to wear one (or not) typically has nothing to do with reason.
> There’s reasons for wearing masks (or not), but the decision to wear one (or not) typically has nothing to do with reason.
It spreads so poorly outdoors (this has been abundantly documented), especially if your exposure to someone is brief, that the main reason is a combination of virtue signaling, hygiene theater, and because it makes you feel safer.
> that the main reason is a combination of virtue signaling, hygiene theater, and because it makes you feel safer.
Or, because you feel it's a conservative decision which is respectful of others. I'm not worried about incidental exposure from passing someone on the sidewalk, but I can only make that decision for myself, so I either mask up or get out of the way.
At some point you're going to have to draw the line, though. At what point is it etiquette, and at what point is it indulging paranoia? That line might not be today, but it exists.
From what I hear, the Bay Area seems especially mask-wearing at this point. I live in the well known Trump bastion of Massachusetts </s> and, while I don't know what things are like in Boston proper, an hour west where I live, essentially no one is wearing masks at this point on hiking trails and the like. People may do the theater of pulling up a bandana for a few seconds to pass but that's mostly it. (People are still mostly wearing inside though.)
I believe that guidance was based upon a prioritization necessity to make sure that medical first responders had access to PPE. Once the supply of PPE was great enough the guidance was also changed
The problem is they didn't say "masks work but please save them for first responders until we get more." They said "masks don't work." You can argue they may have had a good reason to lie, but you can't argue that they didn't lie.
Medical specialists were concerned about incorrect usage of masks, which may increase risks of infection. Later studies contradicted those fears somewhat.
They never said that "masks don't work", you'll find that they instead said "There is no evidence that masks work" as there wasn't yet evidence at the time. It was correct, but a poor way to communicate the situation.
Unvaccinated should wear mask, because they are more likely to spread it. Vaccinated dont have to wear mask, because they are less likely to spread it.
Making masks into that big punishment and unfairness definitely killed my trust into whole lot of people and groups of people.
It’s mostly just accepting reality and gives states an alibi out of their partisan pandemic response
Like, on one end you have states waiting for an impossibly high threshold of vaccination before masks go away or nightclubs open up with dance floors. And now they can say “oh ok that was old guidance, we’re good now”
On the other hand it also caters to the states that ignored old guidance “ah! Sanity has prevailed! Now can these few businesses that demand masks stop fighting us on this?”
I sincerely hope the trend of tying very personal, individual healthcare decisions with what is essentially gambling, NEVER spreads beyond the COVID vaccine.
I don’t know of many other ways to cheapen the significance of one’s own healthcare or the science that drives it than something like this.
I'm sure somebody will want to create vaccine coins, where the crypto currency are mined by people getting vaccinated, or walked their 1k steps for the day and what have you
Or it could give people who are already suspect of government more reason to avoid the vaccine.
A stranger on the sidewalk is giving away free cookies. If in addition they offer $100 to each person who eats one, does that make me more, or less likely to accept a cookie?
I don't think the public's interest is in question here (well, at least not in this particular argument).
I think the point is about how much you trust the person handing out the cookies/vaccine and money. There are plenty of people who trust the government about as much (or less) than a random stranger.
Yes, but the important thing is that the vaccine is available. They chose not to take it. The argument that we need to keep each other safe no longer holds.
There are very few people who can't tolerate the RNA-based coronavirus vaccines. For severely immuno-compromised people, the vaccines may not be effective.[1] People who are going to have their immune systems suppressed for a transplant apparently present some problems, but can be vaccinated before the transplant or weeks afterward.
Unless the President said that, your message is not going to get across.
848 Americans died today marked as a Covid contributed death. There were lockdowns across 90% of the country a year ago when less people were dying from this. So we’re just past that, sorry. Good luck to them.
The goal was just to keep ICU capacity available for the normal distribution of emergencies in society. We’ve done that.
Whatever you are saying is just reinforcing my point?
It means we’ve all been reduced to statistics for 15 months and we have now simply reverted to a mean where the world is not compatible with immunocompromised people and good luck to them, just like before Covid, and just like during and after Covid. They had a 15 month time period where people and the state would help reduce exposure to them, and that was the luckiest time for them to be immunocompromised and thats over now.
This right here is the argument, and has been since February 2020. We got a little lost along the way, but our original social measures to reduce the spread of COVID was due to our inability to protect those who couldn't protect themselves. Now that we have the vaccines, we have no moral reason to now baby the people who refuse to protect themselves.
Children can't get vaccinated yet, though, and I do still want to protect them. It's why my wife and I, though fully vaccinated, haven't totally returned to normal, since our toddler and infant are still susceptible.
On an objective basis, the risk to children is in line with colds and flu.
Which isn't zero, colds and flu kill a few children a year.
I support you in keeping your children healthy, not trying to second guess you as a parent. But "think of the children" is not a good basis for policy here.
Good point! And I don't want to imply that the only people left without a vaccine are those who "refuse" it. We're not there yet, but were close! Stay safe!
(what in the world is going on with downvotes in this thread? Are HNers really unable to have difficult conversations?)
Kids are more likely to die in the car/bus on the way to school than by covid. Still it's good to get them vaccinated so they don't end up killing older people.
Against what, a pandemic that's over by then? For more than a year, children's interests have been largely ignored, their well-being and education sacrificed for the sake of scared adults. Now we start vaccinating them, which doesn't actually benefit them but does benefit aforementioned adults, to protect them just in case they catch Covid after the pandemic is over, but not until they're old enough that this is actually a problem? Because they're suddenly that important to us? I don't buy it.
What the fuck? You're aware that we vaccinate children for a lot of things, right?
It's not evil, it's common sense. COVID may be the first pandemic you've lived through/remembered, but it's not the first pandemic, and there are far more dangerous diseases out there we don't want coming back.
I was vaccinated as a child of things i am still immune to today.
I understand wanting to protect your kids, but here’s some statistics (United States): on average, 500 kids a year die from RSV, a respiratory virus for which there is no vaccine. Last year, 200 kids died from COVID-19, for which a seemingly safe and effective vaccine exists. I understand this probably doesn’t help much since you don’t hear and think about RSV every day for a year straight, but hopefully the vaccines are approved for children soon. Hang in there :)
Really hoping that the majority of those that haven't been vaccinated are just lazy and not scared of the vaccine. Hopefully this is enough of a carrot, but also hope this doesn't embolden those that haven't been vaccinated and don't plan on it from going mask-less in public when they previously were wearing masks.
In WA it only recently opened up to all, and even those with early access may still be working on a full course. I just finished my full course because I had early access due to volunteer work. So we're not quite through those who are choosing not to take it here. Soon tho it will be all down to choice here.
Oh, good to know.. guess I assumed that because I've heard there's more vaccines than people that want to take them in the valley that it'd be like that in most other places.
the thing that scares me is that Pfizer is "only" ~75% against B.1.351. I'm not worried right now, and I've relaxed a ton since before, but I'm nervous that B.1.351 and other vaccine-resistant strains will rise to prominence once enough people are vaccinated.
"The effectiveness against any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant was 75.0% (95% CI, 70.5 to 78.9). Vaccine effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal disease due to infection with any SARS-CoV-2 (with the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants being predominant within Qatar) was very high, at 97.4% (95% CI, 92.2 to 99.5). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results (Table S3)."
so it's still quite effective at preventing severe illness, which is why I'm not terribly worried, but still spooky that strains are starting to mutate away from our protection.
And so we will synth a new one in a 2 weeks, just like the last one. The important thing is that we have a cold supply distribution chain, readily available production for mRNA synthesis, and emergency authorizations, which will become regular vax authorizations when it is shown to be a new cutting edge technique and a new golden age in fighting viral infections. Go, go ASAP. Get it. It won’t be your last. But it might be the last of viral cancers, covs, hiv…
Neither of them need to be true for a critical mass of vaccinated people to demand for restrictions to be rescinded. Eventually politicians will realize they need to get re-elected and cave to pressure. It will happen, especially with this new guidance from the CDC. I would bet there are no state wide mask mandates by Jan 1, 2022.
Edit: Minnesota will be ending their mask mandate tomorrow.
I cant wait for the businesses that demand masks to be disconnected from the ability to operate by market pressures
Most brick and mortar was barely viable during the best market in history so all we gotta do is wait! And also not go to them lol have fun with that gofundme
Disagreed politically? I’m talking about major markets like California opening up, not whatever happens already in Georgia or Florida. So I think these more risk averse jurisdictions will also have a few businesses that try to maintain independent restrictions without support from the state, and I think they will have lost tolerance from their entire population or market base by then (a few weeks from now). This is not political, as the Federal government and the state government will be of the same political leaning. Nice try though.
I think the parent's main objection is that you seem to be showing glee at the prospect of a business failing because it shows an overabundance of caution even after the state no longer requires it. That's... kinda petty, no? Especially when wearing a mask inside a store or whatever isn't a particularly difficult thing to do.
Not parent but although i disagree with them, i kinda get where they're coming from.
Some businesses give in to security theater and it is immensely frustrating. For example here in Belgium some shops force you to take a trolley even if you just want to buy a single item and have your own bag. They do this "because COVID". So what happens? A pile up of people at the entrance trying to move caddies over, leading to far more risk there than there otherwise would be if you left people to their own device.
Our swimming pools are open, but they closed the showers "because COVID". So what happens? People are gross, get in the water right away, don't soap up or whatever, and it's far less clean/healthy than it would be for no good reason.
Overabundance of caution is not always a good excuse.
I have no idea what happens in Belgium, but nothing like that happens here in the US. They barely ask people to wear a goddamn mask, and they are all up in arms about it.
So, nothing like Belgium then, and exactly what I described: people being asked to wear a mask and not doing it.
I don’t know the circumstances of the situation you mention, but it hardly qualifies as security theatre. Also, I doubt they screamed ‘not approved’ but I guess no anti-mask narrative sounds dire enough without a little exaggeration.
Oh, I knew. I was just pointing out that even in the scenario he described it didn't even approximate to what you describe as happening in Belgium (which to be clear, I completely believe).
I’m fine with a business underperforming when it’s due to an over-abundance of any type of decision making. Too large salaries, expand too quickly, charge too much, charge too little, ask too much of customers, whatever it is, I hope businesses which make better decisions do better.
I am expressing glee at the accelerated failure of barely viable businesses.
Its 100% Machiavellian.
Many businesses could have made their patrons equity owners but instead went for the gofundme as nondilutive capital. Many bad tastes in my mouth, so long and goodnight. Evictions restarting soon too.
where exactly incentives end and discrimination starts? it's very narrow line
I think people should take care about their own health, if you are in risk group get vaccinated, if you are not in risk group what's the point urging someone to get vaccinated if risk groups are vaccinated or are ready to bear risks?
Some people in high-risk groups are not vaccinated, mostly due to allergies or other medical conditions.
Low-risk people can still become infected, never show symptoms, and pass the virus to someone else without realizing it. Risking that happening while a vaccine is available is just irresponsible and selfish.
Throughout this pandemic, my biggest fear was not getting COVID myself, but unwittingly giving it to someone vulnerable who then died.
I just watched the most recent Last Week Tonight, and there was a clip of a man whose mother refused the vaccine, caught COVID, and is now in the ICU on a ventilator. He was asked if he was going to get vaccinated, and he said he still wasn't sure.
I really wish that stick worked, but it seems like it won't, at least not universally. But presumably there are some people for whom it will work, if one of their loved ones gets infected and ends up in a bad way.
This isn’t a carrot, its public health guidance based in risks and infection rates (including the induced risk of noncompliance by the unvaccinated triggered by loosening rules for the vaccinated.)
> Will this move actually counter our slowing vaccination rates?
Yes, loosening controls does that. It also reduces the harms imposed by the controls. Vaccination and infection affect the cost/benefit analysis between those effects.
The problem is also the social pressure that this will add on other people by the anti-mask who are going to say "Why are you wearing a mask ? Nobody is going to check anyway, just say you are vaccinated, pfff..."
States will begin rescinding their mask mandates soon, if they calculate their health care system can handle an outbreak among the remaining unvaccinated. Minnesota is rescinding their mask mandate once 70% of adults have had their first shot, or July 1.
Edit: MN mask mandate goes away tomorrow.
If you’re vaccinated along with a decent majority of people, why would you want to wear a mask? The vaccines have been overwhelmingly good so far at preventing hospitalization and death, they’re more effective than influenza vaccines.
I worry this carrot isn’t tied to an adequate stick - the unvaccinated can simply go without a mask regardless of their status. Will this move actually counter our slowing vaccination rates?