Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 248 posts

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#51

Post by basch »

AYBABTME wrote: post #37
stefan_ wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been hundreds of millions of vaccinations. What unforseen danger is there at this point? Be precise.

What if there's unpredictable long term consequences? Like, turns out XYZ compounds gives cancer but that only become detectable after 18+ months. Although I admit I don't know if regular trials would uncover these either. I have no dog in this fight, I'm just providing a possible answer.

That's traditionally not how vaccines work. The side effects and consequences are short term, as in less than one month. The substance is broken down by you body, and all that remains is immunity.

Off the top of my uneducated head, the one theoretical concern would be giving yourself an autoimmune disease, where your immune system attacks something it shouldnt. Like mistraining a model. Barring that, it seems general consensus is that long term consequences are infinitely unlikely.

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#52

Post by Pyramus »

LifeIsThermal wrote: post #11
raxxorrax wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is ridiculous really. I have been vaccinated with Moderna, which didn't even bring anything else to the market as far as I know. Listening to these people wanting to nudge others I wish I didn't get vaccinated. I think the damage Covid can cause is significant, but this is an experimental treatment. To my disappointment I didn't get magnetic, but doctors claiming there cannot be any unforseen dangers are lying to…

I´m less worried by vaccine safety than the vaccine strategy. You don´t normally vaccinate in an ongoing pandemic, usually you vaccinate when a virus is not in circulation. By vaccinating in this way, in an already infected population, you add selection pressure that creates an advantage for more contagious vaccine-resistant strains. This is the real danger in my opinion, but of course side effects of this new vaccin…

> He´s the only one so far that has made correct predictions in this pandemic.

How likely do you think is it, that a vast field of virologists, immunologists, molecular biologists, medical doctors and scientists in general are all wrong but this one person is right?

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#53

Post by CogitoCogito »

CJefferson wrote: post #32
AYBABTME wrote: post #25

Forgive me for asking a dumb question, and I mean no wrongthought in asking it: if I'm vaccinated, why should I care if others aren't? Does it change anything for my life from here? EDIT: thanks for the answers, exactly the info I needed to update my prior beliefs.

Firstly, vaccines aren't perfect -- they significantly improve your chances of not catching COVID, and having less serious problems. It is better if (almost) everyone gets the vaccine, which will reduce cases of COVID. Secondly, I'm getting the COVID vaccine not because they believe that there is a high risk of getting serious COVID myself, but to help others -- some at-risk people can't get the vaccine at all, and i…

> Secondly, I'm getting the COVID vaccine not because they believe that there is a high risk of getting serious COVID myself, but to help others -- some at-risk people can't get the vaccine at all, and immune-suppresed people are still at significant risk post-vaccine (although still lower risk than without).

People not getting the vaccine who are able are being incredibly selfish. They are exercising the opposite of personal responsibility. It's your personal responsibility not the harm those around you as much as possible. I know they are mostly ignorant, but frankly I find them to be disgusting people.

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#54

Post by rich_sasha »

LifeIsThermal wrote: post #20
rich_sasha wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, most people getting into hospitals now with severe Covid are young and unvaccinated. So while yes, the risks are much lower for young people, there are enough of them getting seriously ill.

Not much different from how influenza also gets some young people in hospitals then? We don´t vaccinate young people against influenza either, because the risk is so low. Let the children build up natural immunity, they´ll benefit from that in the future. Vaccinate people at risk, elderly and sick people. Just like we always do. Changing strategy from what´s already known to work, when the stakes are this high, is ve…

As of yesterday (2021-07-12), there were 563 people admitted to the hospital with Covid in the UK [1]. If 80% are young and unvaccinated (and I think the proportion is higher), that's 450 severly ill people going into hospital per day.

Doesn't sound much like the flu to me.

Even if "these young people" (makes me sound like a dinosaur, though in fact I'm in that cohort) don't care about that risk, they are wasting doctors' time, and taking resources away from overstrained health system.

So maybe I'd say: if you don't want to get vaccinated, without an overwhelming reason, then stay at home (so as not to risk infecting others) and if you do get sick, don't go to the hospital (as it was your risk you were taking).

[1]: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#55

Post by mjburgess »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #9

Is seems like a new trend for right wing ideas to be expressed in what would traditionally be considered left-wing concepts and language. Does that mean they lost the culture war or is it just a new phase?

I think we should separate out ideas like "discrimination" from "left vs. right". That would clarify the change that has happened.

The language and ideas of civil rights etc., coupled with identity politics, has a political life of its own. And it has been adopted by most major political institutions in the west: "equality", "diversity", "discrimination", etc.

Neutrally, this could be called "identity-first politics" (where "anti-vax" is a tenable identity signifier).

In that sense something has won, but it isnt really The Left. Nor least, because many of these political institutions are quite right wing (eg., the republican party).

What appears to have happened is really the defeat of The Left as a collective political force.

What we're left with is a new awakening across the political spectrum which is more religious than political. Virtue, Struggle, Sin -- and so on -- is attaching itself to new forms of identity which use political vocabulary, but are really not political at all.

Neither the "modern activist left" nor the "alt-right" are political movements, they're more like religious movements centred on a new mode of identity. Their "political" project is merely that their identities be respected.

This isn't politics: there is no material, economic, or institutional goal.

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#56

Post by chii »

forcry wrote: post #3

>This removes any opportunity to nudge more people toward getting the shots, he added.“The whole idea behind a good vaccination campaign is making not getting vaccinated the harder choice, and getting vaccinated the easy choice. Right now it’s the exact opposite — it’s easier not to be vaccinated." So people are supposed to be "nudged" into it? And they are supposed to do it because it is easier, as opposed to safer?…

> because convincing people is harder

why do they need convincing, when it is quite self-evident that getting vaccinated, if you can, is better?

If the people holding out won't listen to evidence, no amount of evidence-based convincing is going to change their mind. So the alternative should be to "nudge" by policy.

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#57

Post by Nursie »

hrjfkfnf wrote: post #43
stefan_ wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been hundreds of millions of vaccinations. What unforseen danger is there at this point? Be precise.

Some toxins take years, or decades to manifest themselves. As an example, see lead, asbestos, mercury, or other heavy metals poisonings. As Taleb says, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As a specific point regarding these vaccines, we don't really know the long term effect of the lipid nano particles used in them. And we do know that it took 20 years to create them, because all previous lipid nano parti…

AFAICT this applies only to Pfizer and Moderna, which are mRNA vaccines. The J&J and Astra vaccines are more 'traditional' and use adenovirus as a delivery mechanism.

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#58

Post by forcry »

stefan_ wrote: post #19
raxxorrax wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is ridiculous really. I have been vaccinated with Moderna, which didn't even bring anything else to the market as far as I know. Listening to these people wanting to nudge others I wish I didn't get vaccinated. I think the damage Covid can cause is significant, but this is an experimental treatment. To my disappointment I didn't get magnetic, but doctors claiming there cannot be any unforseen dangers are lying to…

There have been hundreds of millions of vaccinations. What unforseen danger is there at this point? Be precise.

> There have been hundreds of millions of vaccinations.

People have been smoking for a very long time without noticing any apparent problem.

Vioxx is estimated to have caused a 100000 additional heart attacks in US alone, but no one noticed.

This is why we do systematic research. Point is "There have been millions of vaccines administrated", is not a proof for safety.

That is not even considering the censorship of Vaccine adverse effects, and how that can skew the perception of safety.

https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/wp-content/uploads/vcc-open-...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-doctor-removed-fr...

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#59

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

Nursie wrote: post #42
AYBABTME wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if there's unpredictable long term consequences? Like, turns out XYZ compounds gives cancer but that only become detectable after 18+ months. Although I admit I don't know if regular trials would uncover these either. I have no dog in this fight, I'm just providing a possible answer.

All of the components have been used before, these things aren't that new. mRNA tech itself has been in development since the 80s, and for immunisation since about 2012. It's gone from the body within a few hours AFAICT. If you're that worried, go for the J&J or AZ vaccines, which are more 'traditional' and don't use mRNA.

Being new or not is not the crucial point. What matters is that it's in the interest of the society at large that as many people as possible are vaccinated quickly. This might present certain incentives to treat possible side effects in a political way, basically downplaying them.

I'm not saying this is what is happening now, but it has definitely happened in the past. When you read the history of Pandemrix[0][1], you will note that:

> In August 2010 the Swedish MPA issued a statement which included the following: "An investigation is ongoing, but any relationship between the vaccination and the reported symptoms can not be concluded."

and:

> In the Irish parliament, TD Clare Daly commented that, “The Health Service Executive (HSE) decided to purchase Pandemrix and continued to distribute it even after they knew it was dangerous and untested, and before most of the public in Ireland received it.”

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix

[1] https://www.thelocal.se/20201126/why-some-young-swedes-are-w...

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#60

Post by Pyramus »

adriancr wrote: post #30
AYBABTME wrote: post #25

Forgive me for asking a dumb question, and I mean no wrongthought in asking it: if I'm vaccinated, why should I care if others aren't? Does it change anything for my life from here? EDIT: thanks for the answers, exactly the info I needed to update my prior beliefs.

1. you can still catch things as vaccines are not 100% (some are 50-60% effective, mRNA are 90-95% so far) 2. It can mutate in people that catch it to avoid vaccine / cause other issues. Imagine if it started causing blindness... would you care then of being forced to take a 5-10% / 50% chance of catching it? 3. No chance of wiping it out without everyone vaccinated. 4. Some people can't get vaccinated or it wont wor…

> 4. Some people can't get vaccinated or it wont work on them. They will catch it and die if others are not getting it / spreading it.

I think that needs to be highlighted more. It's like wearing seatbelts, but for other people. I would consider that the fabric that most societies are made of, taking care of the people that can't for themselves, and in many cases through no fault of their own (e.g. genetics).

Post reply on HN