> Is your claim that moderate voices are causing people to not get vaccinated then?

I suspect that's the case for the vast majority of the unvaccinated. Do you think most of the unvaccinated people are unvaccinated because of "metal chips in the vaccine" or "it's the serum of the devil"? Or do you think they are unvaccinated because they read up on the history of vaccines, talked to their doctors, etc?

> If that is the case maybe silencing them isn't a bad thing so that we can get past the pandemic rather than wallowing in "would we should we" territory.

But aren't we past the pandemic. I remember being told that we needed herd immunity. Remember "herd immunity"? It was all over the news and social media just a few months. Now we are way past herd immunity. It was the gold standard. Remember? To question it was to question science. But everyone forgot about herd immunity.

It's never good to silence moderate voices as it only leaves you the choice of extremes which tend to be wrong. And sadly, as it pertains to covid, the extremes have been wrong about covid - everything from death rate to mandates to metal chips...

Also, I can't think of another time moderate voices were silenced - other than the lead up to the 2nd iraq war when you absolutely could not question the lies about wmds. Can you?

> Or do you think they are unvaccinated because they read up on the history of vaccines, talked to their doctors, etc?

The history of vaccines shows a phenomenal success rate. And most physicians are in support due to the enormous impact vaccination has on hospitalization rates.

The problem is your definition of "moderate" is flawed. You have included craziness as part of the spectrum which isn't correct.

Many have said "it doesn't really work" or "somebody died from it" which are not moderate statements at all. Those are quite anti-vaxx when you dig into how skewed the numbers really are.

Trials so far have shown over a 90% drop in hospitalization during reinfection cases IIRC. Similarly in July 2021 there were 3 known deaths from 339 million doses. Hell there were 6,207 deaths from people who had been vaccinated (the 6,204 other cases were found to be unrelated)

> Now that we are way past herd immunity

We aren't past herd immunity. At all. 70% is a low ball number for herd immunity, many suggested a large rate is needed given the fast spreading of the virus. California is sitting at 58.8%.

> And sadly, as it pertains to covid, the extremes have been wrong about covid - everything from death rate

I mean the US has had 43 million cases and 693,000 deaths. It has so far killed 1.5% of the confirmed cases. I remember there were error bars from 1-3% but I believe since early 2020 that has been the expected range for cases. (Actual death rate requires knowing the infection rate which is super hard to do unfortunately)

> The history of vaccines shows a phenomenal success rate.

Absolutely. I'm vaccinated against a lot of the terrible diseases. Grateful for it. But the history of vaccines is also littered with missteps and unethical behavior as well.

> The problem is your definition of "moderate" is flawed. You have included craziness as part of the spectrum which isn't correct.

Nope. My definition of moderate is moderate. Being open to the facts and weighing the data and the ability to question orthodoxy - especially when orthodoxy has been wrong so many times.

> And most physicians are in support due to the enormous impact vaccination has on hospitalization rates.

Sure. Especially for the most vulnerable population - the elderly, people with immune system issues, etc.

> We aren't past herd immunity. At all. 70% is a low ball number for herd immunity, many suggested a large rate is needed given the fast spreading of the virus. California is sitting at 58.8%.

You are conflating "vaccinated" with herd immunity. Isn't vaccinated + those who had covid ( the original and natural vaccine ) over 90%? I may be wrong. Is 70% a "low ball"? I remember the original herd immunity was 60-70% and 70% was the high end. Then what's the herd immunity number?

> I mean the US has had 43 million cases and 693,000 deaths. It has so far killed 1.5% of the confirmed cases.

Now add in the "nonconfirmed cases" and how low does that 1.5% go.

I was for lockdown. I think the states that locked down should stay locked down for the duration of the pandemic so that we have useful data to compare against the non-lockdown states/countries. I'm for people getting vaccinated - especially the at-risk people. But why are you being so intentionally misleading? You try to mislead with only "confirmed cases". You try to mislead by conflating vaccination rate to herd immunity. If you have truth, science and data on your side why be so sneaky with the data and labels?

If you truly wanted the pandemic to be over, shouldn't you be celebrating the vaccine rate + people who got covid? Is your goal the end of the pandemic or that everyone get a shot? Because they aren't the same thing.

> I remember the original herd immunity was 60-70% and 70% was the high end. Then what's the herd immunity number?

The target is 100%-100%/R0.

The original COVID had an R0 of 3-ish, so 60-70% was plenty; delta has an R0 more like 8-9, so the new target is more like 90%.

Typical high-end infection rates were estimated at 25-35% of the population in most of the US after the second wave. 60% vaccination rates plus 35% infection rates gives you about 75% with some form of immunity, which was enough to shut down the original COVID, but not enough to shut down the Delta variant.

We aren't going to call the pandemic over because the numbers made it.

We are going to call the pandemic over when people stop dying. Things were looking good until the Delta variant hit.

If you truly think this point of view is the right thing, consider replacing the word "vaccination" with "war". e.g. "Is your claim that moderate voices are causing people to hurt the war effort? If that is the case maybe silencing them isn't a bad thing".

If you allow corporations and governments to censor reasonable and moderate opinions at this juncture don't be shocked when it's used in the future in a context that you don't like, when a sufficiently large surveillance and technological state leaves you powerless to do anything about it.

So reducing the deaths is the equivalent of supporting war?

Actual moderates are fine. "Maybe you shouldn't get it" requires ignoring the 90% reduction in hospitalization rates for those vaccinated and the existence of only 1 in 100 million deaths from the vaccine from a side effect that doctors are actively on the look out for.

Maybe a healthy 25-year-old who has already recovered from COVID-19, who has been tested for antibodies and still shows a significant level of them, shouldn't get the vaccine, given analysis of the individual's benefit to risk ratio.

I'm the OP here, and the doctor with the YouTube channel I referred to was asking questions like the above. And after raising the issue adds, "I encourage you to speak with your doctor."

And that there is the root of the problem I have with the recent discourse. That the ends (fighting covid) justify the means (silencing legitimate debate, chilling effects, authoritarianism). I disagree in the strongest of terms.

The real concern is what happens when a truly scary leader gets their hands on those new powers you've just handed them.

As always, these debates need to happen in the open, as messy as that is. Shine light on bad ideas, don't let them fester in the cellar.