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

61–70 of 248 posts

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

#61

Post by AYBABTME »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #53
CJefferson wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think a lot of people just lack the education and context that you have, and so don't come to the same conclusion. Just 25min ago, I was in favor of getting vaccinated myself, but didn't understand why I should care about other people getting vaccinated too. And I'm not a bigot (I hope) or a person more ignorant than the average. If you believe this to be true, I think we can agree that it's probably fair to at least assume ignorance instead of vileness to the vast majority of vaccine-skeptic folks.

Especially if you consider the social landscape in the USA, where having beliefs misaligned with your in-group's is extremely damaging. It doesn't leave a lot of room for people to exercise independent thought and climb out of their ignorance.

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

#62

Post by raxxorrax »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #44
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.

> What if there's unpredictable long term consequences? That same question can be asked about covid so I don't understand how this single point brings anything to the discussion. We don't know the future. We don't know the future vaccine effects just like we don't know the future for covid effects. We do definitely know that the effects of covid (even if you discount them by the fact that not everyone gets covid) are…

That was my point from the beginning, but you still cannot exclude risk completely. This is why manufacturers are explicitly exempt from responsibility of damages. Why would that be needed then? Why do people getting the vaccine need to wait a while before being released? Because of the unknowns that I meant.

And it doesn't even have to be intrinsic to the vaccine, it could be a manufacturing error like there was with Polio.

As I said, I am vaccinated, but this reaction and militancy really puts me off and frankly, I think it is a bit stupid. Not your comment though.

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

#63

Post by forcry »

basch wrote: post #51
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.

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…

>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.

I am not sure this idea of "traditional vaccine" is true. The contents of Vaccines can be drastically different. And you cannot generalise that.

> substance is broken down by you body, and all that remains is immunity.

It is quite misleading, to say the least.

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

#64

Post by Pyramus »

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…

Does that mean you are a proponent of the more traditional vaccines like AZ and J&J, or the NovaVax one?

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

#65

Post by Mordisquitos »

irish_guy_uk wrote: post #8

As a healthy, 30 something year old living in the UK the only reason I took the vaccine (both doses) was in the civic duty which said that once a certain percentage of the population was done, then restrictions could end. Now it looks like that's kinda happening in a week but even so the BMA and others are calling this irresponsible and there's an unsaid expectation of further lockdowns. I'm really starting to wonder…

> I'm really starting to wonder why I bothered with the vax. This will just go on and on.

Don't worry. This will not go on an on, we're just living through the death rattles of the pandemic completely dominating global, collective, and media awareness over the past year and a half. Of course the BMA are concerned: they are doctors, they have taken the worst of the pandemic, and they just want this damn thing to stop. The difference is that for them, this damned thing is people needing medical attention, and they can only wish it were possible for everything to just bloody stop if that would release them with dealing with the worst of COVID-19. But it will get better, with minor ups and downs.

SARS-CoV-2 is of course not going anywhere. There will continue to be new variants, the media will for a while loudly (and clumsily) echo any clinical paper about breakthrough infections, or increases of cases in this or that population, or collapsed ICUs [0]. Meanwhile, vaccine manufacturers will try to lobby governments into buying and administering newly developed booster doses for this or that variant of concern. The new variant may or may not really be truly concerning for public health, but their business is manufacturing and selling pharmaceuticals, so fair enough.

But in any case, once a critical mass of the population is vaccinated, COVID-19 will gradually become irrelevant. Virtually everyone will have significant immunity, a few people will catch it and think it's just a cold, fewer people will catch it and develop a nasty flu-like case which will be correctly diagnosed as COVID-19, and there will even be nasty and even deadly cases in vaccinated people. But there are nasty and deadly cases of flu, and even nasty and deadly cases of common cold viruses. However, as the media little by little gets bored of making a big thing every time this happens, the epidemiology of COVID-19 will slowly become only of interest to people actually working in the field — just like they have been silently studying the epidemiology of every seasonal flu strain without any media attention.

[0] For Spain at least, I can find you news about collapsed ICUs... during pre-2019 flu seasons!

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

#66

Post by premium-gecko »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #65
irish_guy_uk wrote: post #8

As a healthy, 30 something year old living in the UK the only reason I took the vaccine (both doses) was in the civic duty which said that once a certain percentage of the population was done, then restrictions could end. Now it looks like that's kinda happening in a week but even so the BMA and others are calling this irresponsible and there's an unsaid expectation of further lockdowns. I'm really starting to wonder…

> I'm really starting to wonder why I bothered with the vax. This will just go on and on. Don't worry. This will not go on an on, we're just living through the death rattles of the pandemic completely dominating global, collective, and media awareness over the past year and a half. Of course the BMA are concerned: they are doctors, they have taken the worst of the pandemic, and they just want this damn thing to stop.…

> This will not go on an on

At what point would you be willing to admit you were wrong? If we're still doing whatever-variant this time next year, would you reconsider?

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

#67

Post by Mordisquitos »

premium-gecko wrote: post #66
Mordisquitos wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm really starting to wonder why I bothered with the vax. This will just go on and on. Don't worry. This will not go on an on, we're just living through the death rattles of the pandemic completely dominating global, collective, and media awareness over the past year and a half. Of course the BMA are concerned: they are doctors, they have taken the worst of the pandemic, and they just want this damn thing to stop.…

> This will not go on an on At what point would you be willing to admit you were wrong? If we're still doing whatever -variant this time next year, would you reconsider?

I will be willing to admit I am wrong if, in a given country, we're still doing whatever-variant 6 months after the vaccination of school-age children is completed.

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

#68

Post by forcry »

chii wrote: post #56
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.

> If the people holding out won't listen to evidence

Different people have different definitions for "evidence". Something that can convince me, might not be enough to convince you.

That does not mean I can force my trust in a certain evidence upon you.

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

#69

Post by basch »

Pyramus wrote: post #60
adriancr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Seatbelt's are for other people. If you are in the car with someone, and they are not wearing a seat belt, they are a projectile.

That's part of the reason debate over seat belt laws is often misguided under the guise of being only about self inflicted harm. It's also to protect you from others becoming a meat torpedo.

Which circles back to the crux of the original post. At what level does a society have the right to self assemble and govern and protect itself from others. Is it at the block level, the city level, the county level, the state level? Should people be able to go move to an empty spot in the desert and say "vaccinated people only" OR "unvaccinated people only." If those people only want to be around those people, are they allowed to carve out a space for themselves somewhere? When that area starts to rely on the infrastructure of others, how does that relationship change?

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

#70

Post by basch »

forcry wrote: post #63
basch wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. I am not sure this idea of "traditional vaccine" is true. The contents of Vaccines can be drastically different. And you cannot generalise that. > substance is broken down by you body, and all that remains is immunity. It is quite misleading, to say the least.

>quite misleading

Possibly. Or accurate.

Post reply on HN