>>13882301>Their life still has value but not to the point of stopping a society to reduce their mortality rate from 0.14% to (at best 0.09%).there have been around 5 million deaths (2% death rate) worldwide and most would have been prevented if the people would have gotten the vaccine. of course it would be more important to prioritize the vulnerable population, but, first of all, it's difficult to draw a clear distinction between the vulnerable and the less vulnerable (in a lot of cases). second, we could save a lot of deaths by also vaxxing the healthy population, indirectly by reducing spread.
>I can cite you a whole number of absurd mesures that would decrease the mortality of the elderly by auch absurd amoumtsof course we could save more people, but it all comes down to costs vs lives saved. I think getting 2-3 jabs and feeling like shit for a day or two is worth it, even if it only gives a few weeks of extra lifespan to a elderly person, to spend a bit more time with their loved ones before dying. I don't think doing what Australia does with all the lockdowns is alright, because at a point, it costs more lives to prevent the spread than to allow it.
>They didn't get clogged by healthy sub 35yo and shouldn't get clogged by the vaxxed whose rate of hospitalisation is either way extremely low.in israel they started to get clogged by the vaxxed as well, because the antibody levels started to go down a few months after the second jab. the best way to prevent this is to try to vaccinate as much as the population as possible. at the same time, we have to recognize that in some populations, such as most 13 year olds or younger, the risks of the vaccine outweigh the benefits and we should be mindful of that
