Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by hrjfkfnf » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 9:15 AM UTC

Pyramus wrote: post #64

hrjfkfnf wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, I find those even more risky. The Novovax one in particular has a unique set or risks (circulating spike protein), combined with lower efficacy (because it doesn't stimulate T cell immunity).

After thorough analysis I took the Moderna one. If you're above 25, the risk from Covid is bigger than any vaccine risk. But I do assume I also took some risk with the Moderna shot. It's basically choosing the lesser evil.

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

#82

Post by CogitoCogito » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 9:18 AM UTC

raxxorrax wrote: post #62

CogitoCogito wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wit…

Of course you can't exclude the risk, but there is _no_ usable information in that fear. Just because something can happen down the line, doesn't mean it's actionable. What if these vaccines start giving us super human strength in a few years? Can we discount that possibility? Why or why not? Should I act on that possibility today?

All we can consider is _actionable_ information. All information so far points to the side-effects of the vaccines causing problems at negligible levels compared to the the side-effects of getting covid. That is information we can use and it really only supports one conclusion.

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

#83

Post by forcry » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 9:25 AM UTC

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…

> It's your personal responsibility not the harm those around you as much as possible

Sure. But there is also a bigger responsibility to oneself. To not do things that might harm themselves.

So with that conflicting forces, it becomes a matter of opinion and perception. So it becomes no longer selfish, and just common sense.

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

#84

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 9:25 AM UTC

BurnGpuBurn wrote: post #74

The amount of unsubstantiated and scientifically unproven or even completely unstudied claims in this thread is truly staggering. These mRNA vaccines are safe for children? How on earth would you know that if the vaccines have only been studied on a handful of healthy kids for a couple of months. Does nobody understand the amount of time needed to do this kind of study properly and thoroughly? I'd also love some scie…

[deleted]

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

#85

Post by mjburgess » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 9:27 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #79

mjburgess wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"…

> 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. While all political and other ideological movements share a certain degree of the character of religious movements, the idea that either for the “modern activist left” or the “alt-right” the po…

Christians of every era have their political goals too. And of course, claimed to own peace, equality and justice.

And there is no doubt a political core to each identity banner 'BLM'.

The question is whether the mass movement and the institutional and cultural mass are even 'aware of' let alone 'coordinating for' these political ambitions.

Clearly they are not. The culture of these projects ARE these projects and they are fundamentally demands for a 'theatre of identity' to be created.

Contrast this with union activity, the temperance movement, civil rights era -- etx.

These are political projects whose adearents aim towards them.

This 'identity-fist politics' is not a politics; its a religious awakening for a new era of identity.

You will no doubt find genuine politics going on, and evangelists like Colbert appearing to champion them -- but this isnt a political awakening. It isnt the 20s or 60s.

Its the 19th C. and what we have is a new era of religious identity and new claims to who owns virtue-- across all of society.

Your 'list of demands' is just another Lutheran political gesture -- no one standing alongside you has read them. They are there to demand respect for their newly minted identities.

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

#86

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 9:27 AM UTC

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…

> There´s one scientist that predicted this development perfectly, Geert Vanden Bosschen. He´s the only one so far that has made correct predictions in this pandemic. He said that mass-vaccinating during ongoing pandemic will result in rising numbers of cases among fully vaccinated people a couple of months after vaccination,

No, its not one scientist who got that right; this was widely flagged that as a likely outcome if the deployment was not so rapid and universal as to essentially curtail significant community spread before that occurred, which is why there was so much imperative from experts for rapid and universal deployment and so much criticism of the slow speed and uneveness of the actual deployment.

> He also warns strongly against vaccinating children.

Given the reason for the other risk (which isn’t “vaccination” but “incomplete vaccination which leaves an large unvaccinated population in contact with the vaccinated population”) that seems.

> But he praises the new vaccine technology, so he´s not antivaxx.

Supporting vaccination in the abstract but arguing that we shouldn’t actually vaccinate people with the actual real vaccines that exist in the actual real circumstances that exist is…not an uncommon antivax position, so, while the conclusion of this argument might still be true, the premise offered is not sufficient to justify the conclusion.

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

#87

Post by raxxorrax » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 9:28 AM UTC

CogitoCogito wrote: post #82

raxxorrax wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

Of course you can't exclude the risk, but there is _no_ usable information in that fear. Just because something can happen down the line, doesn't mean it's actionable. What if these vaccines start giving us super human strength in a few years? Can we discount that possibility? Why or why not? Should I act on that possibility today? All we can consider is _actionable_ information. All information so far points to the…

I believe this to be actionable enough that the decision to take it or not should remain an individual decision and I believe that is the extend what people demand. Nobody is talking about throwing it off the market because it isn't deemed safe.

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

#88

Post by forcry » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 9:33 AM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #77

forcry wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Va…

> Point is "There have been millions of vaccines administrated", is not a proof for safety. No, but with a larger population, any adverse effects are likely to be noticed.

Just in my comment I showed cases where it didn't

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

#89

Post by premium-gecko » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 9:39 AM UTC

Mordisquitos wrote: post #67

premium-gecko wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Are school-age children at risk from this virus? If not, what is the medical justification for performing a medical procedure on them?

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

#90

Post by oshkarr » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 9:43 AM UTC

BurnGpuBurn wrote: post #74

The amount of unsubstantiated and scientifically unproven or even completely unstudied claims in this thread is truly staggering. These mRNA vaccines are safe for children? How on earth would you know that if the vaccines have only been studied on a handful of healthy kids for a couple of months. Does nobody understand the amount of time needed to do this kind of study properly and thoroughly? I'd also love some scie…

"Truly staggering" is 4 million dead people and maybe 61 million more who are dealing with "long-Covid" symptoms. The quotes you cited are just people being considerate of others. Sometimes doing the right thing doesn't need—or hasn't time—to be scientifically proven.