The unvaccinated have stolen Coastsiders’ Pumpkin Festival through their reckless irresponsibility, like some infectious “Grinch Who Stole Fall.” At least, so we were told in an op-ed published in the Half Moon Bay Review on Sept. 15 and authored by David Eblovi, of Half Moon Bay. Not only is this claim false, I believe it represents a dangerous trend toward demonizing our own coastal neighbors that must be stopped for the good of our community.

Contrary to Eblovi’s claim that unvaccinated people are uniquely to blame for spreading COVID-19, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention itself says, “Vaccinated individuals infected with Delta may be able to transmit the virus as easily as those who are unvaccinated,” as reported by The Washington Post on July 29. The CDC further stated, “Vaccinated people infected with Delta have measurable viral loads similar to those who are unvaccinated and infected with the variant.” Even CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said in a CNN interview on Aug. 5: “Our vaccines are working exceptionally well. They continue to work well for Delta, with regard to severe illness and death — they prevent it. But what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.”

If being vaccinated protects you from serious illness but no longer prevents being infected or infecting others, as the CDC says, then blaming our unvaccinated neighbors for COVID-19 spread is deeply wrong.

In closing, I’d like to bring this back to our local community and the serious implications of labeling our unvaccinated neighbors as irresponsible and reckless without basis. I’m a lifelong Coastsider. I was born and raised here. I’ve run charities, community centers, youth programs, and food drives here alongside many of you. I’m raising my own family here. I’m also the type of person, like many of you, who thinks that our community could do with a great deal less politics and partisanship. My kids recently advertised a lemonade stand on Nextdoor and one of the many delightful neighbors we met there said, “It was such a relief just to see anything on Nextdoor that wasn’t about COVID or politics.”

I agree — and I think a great many of our coastal neighbors would too. This polarization is not who we are. This scapegoating of others isn’t us either. The day we, as a community, start blaming victims of a disease, we go down a path leading to the type of abuses we find shameful in American history.

There is a better way, a way of love for one’s neighbor, of tolerance and persuasion, that I believe our community will take instead. Last year’s motto was “In this together.” Now let’s make it our mission by showing practical kindness toward others in difficult times, not blaming and shaming.

Ian Patterson lives in Montara.

Recommended for you

(8) comments

dce

Ian- you are a very eloquent writer and I hope to see more of your work here in the Review. (Albeit with a hopefully more factually sustainable bent...)

I am astonished that you simply do not grasp the basic mathematics as Jim Larimer has outlined to you below, and as anyone with a high-school math education should be able to grasp. You and Ms. Voisard are head over teakettle about how vaccinated people can trasmit teh virus- which is absolutely true. What you fail to grasp is how likely they are to get the virus in the first place (as set against unvaccinated folks) and how that affects the health of the general public.

Jim did an admirable job below, please let me take another whack in an attempt to illustrate the fallacy of your argument to you:

A Covid positive person goes to a meeting in a closed room attended by 20 people. Ten of those 20 people are vaccinated. The other ten are not. All are exposed in equal terms to the viral load being shed by the infected individual.

So what happens next??

Statistically speaking all ten of the non-vaccinated folks are going to get Covid, while only two of the vaccinated folks will get it. As everyone leaves the meeting you've got ten imminently dangerous unvaccinated people spreading the virus (shortly), and two vaccinated people spreading the virus. With an R of 3.5, which is what I believe the Delta variant has been shown to have an R0 of approximately 5ish. Meaning for every person who leaves the meeting infected with the virus another five will (on average) be infected by them. Rinse and repeat.

So that one meeting will end up infecting (on average) 60 people if outside interventions are not made promptly. Of those 60 people 50 will have been infected by the original group of 10 unvaccinated folks, and ten will have been infected through the vaccinated group.

Do you get it now?? It isn't who can spread Covid that is the issue. It isn't really even relevant. It's who CAN GET Covid that is the problem...

Cheers-

dce

Scott McVicker

Essential for your review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG7XZ2JXZqY

Worth the hour+. A step towards recovery from the psychosis.

Jim Larimer

Ian Patterson is correct in suggesting we should treat others with love, respect, and tolerance, but he is wrong in suggesting that being fully vaccinated does not protect others as well as yourself. The idea that vaccinations don’t matter in terms of spreading illness is a dangerous misunderstanding of the data and CDC recommendations.

Being exposed to someone who has an active Covid-19 infection is the only way you can become infected yourself. The more people you encounter that are infected, the greater your risk of getting sick. If two people, one vaccinated the other not, encounter a person with Covid-19, the unvaccinated person is 8 times more likely to become sick with Covid-19 than the person protected by a vaccination.

This is like throwing a pair of dice and letting the dice total decide who gets sick. If you are vaccinated, you get sick if the dice come up with two ones for a total of 2. The unvaccinated person will get sick if the much more likely outcome of the dice pair adding to seven occurs.

Getting vaccinated reduces everyone’s risk of infection. Being vaccinated for Covid-19 is a responsible action to protect yourself and people around you, a real show of love and respect for others.

Ian P.

Jim, thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, the latest and best data support what the CDC indicated in these three quotes above: vaccination does not prevent transmission.

Due to word count limits I cut out this following part of my opinion piece, but include it here to shine light on your concern:

------

Here’s how a renowned Stanford Professor of Medicine, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health scientist summarized the latest scientific data on a podcast interview published September 18th, 2021:

“The vaccine does not stop infection, and very likely does not stop disease spread after only a few short months… It does have very long lasting protection against severe disease. What that means is that the vaccination question is a private matter not a public matter. My vaccine, after a few short months, no longer protects you, it just protects me," said Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

He cites as evidence an important new study from Qatar, authored by Chemaitelly, et al, and the fact that highly vaccinated countries like Israel, Iceland, UK, the US, have still seen surges of cases. “You just can’t have that unless the vaccine doesn’t stop infection,” he concludes.

But there’s something else we must take into consideration, says Bhattacharya: “You have very, very robust protection against severe disease and probably even infection for quite a long time after you get and recover from covid.” Therefore, “the vaccinated actually may pose more of a disease spread risk than the unvaccinated who have recovered from covid.”

So, in summary, the CDC says vaccination does not prevent transmission. Therefore being vaccinated protects you from serious illness but no one else. Moreover, the vaccinated may spread the virus as readily as the unvaccinated, or even more so when compared to an unvaccinated individual who has recovered from covid.

--

Warm regards, Jim!

Screeple

Yes!!!!!! Thank you!!!

John Charles Ullom

" Therefore, “the vaccinated actually may pose more of a disease spread risk than the unvaccinated who have recovered from covid.”"

Hmmm. So the best way to prevent the spread of Covid is for everybody to catch Covid in the wild vs getting vaccinated.

Sort of like when one has to burn a village in order to save said village. Probably explains why states with lower vaccination rates have overflowing hospitals while those that have high vacation rates don't. Right?

To sum it up, if you want to prevent the spread of Covid, do your part and catch Covid!

Yep.

Jim Larimer

Ian, you are still missing the point here.

Getting sick is a matter of odds it is never absolute. The CDC states that the odds ratio is 1:8, you are 8 times more likely to get Covid if exposed to Covid if you are NOT vaccinated. It is easier to catch Covid if you are NOT vaccinated. It is also well known and stated on the CDC website that vaccination also lowers the risk of a hospitalization resulting from a Covid-19 infection.

If you don’t have a Covid-19 infection, you cannot spread it to others. Getting vaccinated makes it less likely that you will be infected when exposed to Covid-19 and therefore less likely that you will spread it.

Everyone has a responsibility to others to get vaccinated for Covid-19. This protects others as well as yourself.

Scott McVicker

Lets take a few more steps...

IF you get COVID

AND

you have NOT been injected

AND

you are NOT in the susceptible group

THEN

what are your odds of survival?

Answer: 99.95%. (See the video link I posted) And all these folks go on in life with their natural antibodies/immunity which will help them fight future exposures...and thus reduce the viral load in the world. This should not be discouraged.

It is slightly lower for those in their advanced years (95%)

Overlooked: Your chances for a positive outcome improve if you seek appropriate early care. Early care might have been more widely explored if the forced consensus of “vaccines are the only option” had not been pushed so hard /so uniformly by The Narrative.

IF you have received the injection, it is ASSUMED that you experience reduced symptoms/effects of COVID. Why is this an assumption? Because we have nothing to compare it with. There is only one of each individual.

What is being touted as a “vaccine” is actually a “therapy” intended to offer a short term protection against severe effects. Those who take it are doing so to receive the benefits on offer. For a short time, these folks will – it is assumed - join those with naturally-developed immunity to reduce the viral load in the world.

Considering the very, very low mortality rate and time-limited benefit of the therapy on offer, it makes NO sense to push it on others...in the hopeless effort to SOMEHOW eradicate COVID from the environment. This is where your “take the jab to protect others” argument falls on its face.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

More Stories