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

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

#111

Post by Nursie » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:22 AM UTC

johnisgood wrote: post #105

Nursie wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, and as the vaccines do very little harm compared to the virus, it's definitely a good thing to get vaccinated. Especially as we are now getting the fuller picture that covid can lead to last lung and brain damage.

I am not so sure. Some side-effects do take time to manifest. They just started talking about how teens get heart issues from it and so forth. We did not know this before either, nor did we know about the AstraZeneca's blood clots. Some take longer time though. We simply do not know. Anyone leaning towards "it is safe" and "it is not safe" is silly, because we just simply have no idea, you cannot claim either for cer…

> They just started talking about how teenage boys get enlarged heart from it and so forth

Inflammation/swelling of the heart, not enlarging, very rare given the number of shots that have been rolled out, and people recover pretty quickly. Definitely a concern, not a showstopper.

> We did not know this before either, nor did we know about the AstraZeneca's blood clots.

Again, an incredibly low risk and less risk than harm from the virus.

> we just simply have no idea.

This is not really true, we have a ton of data from this vaccine and from previous ones that can inform our expectations.

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

#112

Post by CogitoCogito » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:25 AM UTC

johnisgood wrote: post #105

Nursie wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, and as the vaccines do very little harm compared to the virus, it's definitely a good thing to get vaccinated. Especially as we are now getting the fuller picture that covid can lead to last lung and brain damage.

I am not so sure. Some side-effects do take time to manifest. They just started talking about how teens get heart issues from it and so forth. We did not know this before either, nor did we know about the AstraZeneca's blood clots. Some take longer time though. We simply do not know. Anyone leaning towards "it is safe" and "it is not safe" is silly, because we just simply have no idea, you cannot claim either for cer…

> I am not so sure. Some side-effects do take time to manifest.

You're being irrational. It's true side-effects can take time to manifest. It's also true that problems due to the disease also can manifest. Taken together the fact that _something_ can possibly happen in the future gives you _no_ information today. For example, one of the side-effects of the vaccine that might manifest might be that you're _healthier_.

So yeah if you take the possibility of negative side effects, but not positive side-effects, you are being irrational. Said in another way, if you are taking statements devoid of information ("something can happen with some likelihood in the future"), you are being irrational.

All actual current information points overwhelmingly to the fact that the disease (even considering that not everyone will get it) is much worse than the vaccinations. That is information. That information points to one conclusion and it's not "wait forever and see what happens".

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

#113

Post by johnisgood » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:26 AM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #111

johnisgood wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not so sure. Some side-effects do take time to manifest. They just started talking about how teens get heart issues from it and so forth. We did not know this before either, nor did we know about the AstraZeneca's blood clots. Some take longer time though. We simply do not know. Anyone leaning towards "it is safe" and "it is not safe" is silly, because we just simply have no idea, you cannot claim either for cer…

> They just started talking about how teenage boys get enlarged heart from it and so forth Inflammation/swelling of the heart, not enlarging, very rare given the number of shots that have been rolled out, and people recover pretty quickly. Definitely a concern, not a showstopper. > We did not know this before either, nor did we know about the AstraZeneca's blood clots. Again, an incredibly low risk and less risk than…

Sorry. I mean this, and this happens to children:

> A CDC committee will hear about reports of 300 cases of the heart enlargement that have happened after children were vaccinated against COVID-19. The ailment is fairly common and easily treatable.

The heart inflammation happens too, though.

---

> Again, an incredibly low risk and less risk than harm from the virus.

But that is not the point. The point is that we did not know this would be the case. Other side-effects may come up as time goes on.

> This is not really true, we have a ton of data from this vaccine and from previous ones that can inform our expectations.

Again, are you talking about the mRNA vaccines? I asked the question twice with regarding to it so I am not going to do it again here.

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

#114

Post by zimpenfish » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:26 AM UTC

johnisgood wrote: post #105

Nursie wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, and as the vaccines do very little harm compared to the virus, it's definitely a good thing to get vaccinated. Especially as we are now getting the fuller picture that covid can lead to last lung and brain damage.

I am not so sure. Some side-effects do take time to manifest. They just started talking about how teens get heart issues from it and so forth. We did not know this before either, nor did we know about the AstraZeneca's blood clots. Some take longer time though. We simply do not know. Anyone leaning towards "it is safe" and "it is not safe" is silly, because we just simply have no idea, you cannot claim either for cer…

> how teenage boys get enlarged heart from it

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/06/17/1007447...

" 7 million U.S. teens and preteens (ages 12 through 17) had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine" [...] "more than 300 cases of heart inflammation have been documented [...] mostly in teens and young adults between 12 and 39 years old"

Assuming every single one of those 400 (rounding up) cases was between 12 and 17, that's 400 out of 7 million or 0.0057%.

"The rate seen after these vaccines is slightly higher than the "background" rate. [...] Many of the events reported turn out to be coincidental — not caused by a vaccine."

Which could well mean that only a handful of these cases are actually down to the vaccine, no?

And it's not even that drastic a problem; mainly just scary - "In a case study of seven teenagers who got myocarditis following vaccination published last week in the journal Pediatrics, all seven got better after routine treatment with anti-inflammatory drugs."

[edit: forgot to round one of my 300s up to 400]

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

#115

Post by Mordisquitos » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:27 AM UTC

premium-gecko wrote: post #89

Mordisquitos wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

At an individual clinical level they may not be at significant risk, but the justification for vaccinating them is not about individual clinical risks but public health. As far as I can tell, the potential risks of vaccinating children are overwhelmingly outweighed by the potential public health risks of them spreading the virus, acting as a reservoir, or suffering severe cases of the disease, however rare.

That is, unless we want to take "the long road" to the scenario I mentioned above. Yes, we could expect this to be eventually over by waiting until the population develops significant immunity because children usually catch the disease at school, spread it around, and the more vulnerable people in the population are little by little reduced in numbers. However, I personally prefer the vaccination shortcut.

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

#116

Post by Nursie » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:31 AM UTC

johnisgood wrote: post #110

Nursie wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plus they do not get that new vaccines usually take 10-15 years This is outdated info, vaccines don't typically take that long any more, and there was a bit of a head-start here due to the work on SARS and MERS. > How long did it take to develop this one with a tech that has not yet been used on humans? Which tech are you talking about? And which vaccine? J&J and AZ, for instance, are more 'traditional' and based o…

Yes, and we have seasonal flu vaccines that do not take that much of a long time to develop, we know that. The same case with other vaccines that are based on what our other vaccines are using. I was talking about the mRNA vaccines. When was the first time that any mRNA vaccine has been approved for human use? --- To the down-voters of my previous comment: This is the source of my claim: https://www.historyofvaccines…

Well, mRNA vaccines have been in development for a number of years, unsurprisingly. It was first identified as a treatment vector in the 80s, and started development for vaccines in about 2008 AFAICT, with human trials for some of them (a prospective cancer vaccine from what I can tell) going back about ten years.

> When was the first time that any mRNA vaccine has been approved for human use?

Approved for widespread use? Certainly, this is the first, but that doesn't mean we don't have useful data on the likely effects.

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

#117

Post by johnisgood » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:34 AM UTC

CogitoCogito wrote: post #112

johnisgood wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not so sure. Some side-effects do take time to manifest. They just started talking about how teens get heart issues from it and so forth. We did not know this before either, nor did we know about the AstraZeneca's blood clots. Some take longer time though. We simply do not know. Anyone leaning towards "it is safe" and "it is not safe" is silly, because we just simply have no idea, you cannot claim either for cer…

> I am not so sure. Some side-effects do take time to manifest. You're being irrational. It's true side-effects can take time to manifest. It's also true that problems due to the disease also can manifest. Taken together the fact that _something_ can possibly happen in the future gives you _no_ information today. For example, one of the side-effects of the vaccine that might manifest might be that you're _healthier_.…

Personally I have been exposed to COVID-19 at the hospital on a regular basis, and I have been quarantined before with people who were positive. It does not seem to pose such a risk that you are talking about to me. I have an immunologic autoimmune disorder, too. This is my personal experience and case.

Plus I do not know if I was talking against getting vaccinated, I merely said that more side-effects may come to light, which I mention because many people seem to have excluded it from the list of possibilities.

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

#118

Post by Mordisquitos » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:36 AM UTC

johnisgood wrote: post #110

Nursie wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plus they do not get that new vaccines usually take 10-15 years This is outdated info, vaccines don't typically take that long any more, and there was a bit of a head-start here due to the work on SARS and MERS. > How long did it take to develop this one with a tech that has not yet been used on humans? Which tech are you talking about? And which vaccine? J&J and AZ, for instance, are more 'traditional' and based o…

Yes, and we have seasonal flu vaccines that do not take that much of a long time to develop, we know that. The same case with other vaccines that are based on what our other vaccines are using. I was talking about the mRNA vaccines. When was the first time that any mRNA vaccine has been approved for human use? --- To the down-voters of my previous comment: This is the source of my claim: https://www.historyofvaccines…

There is no reason to believe mRNA vaccine technology poses any particular risk compared to conventional vaccines. In fact, I would be willing to bet that they're less likely to cause problems than viral vector vaccines.

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

#119

Post by jollybean » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:38 AM UTC

forcry wrote: post #97

jollybean wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The discrimination against people with AIDS was based on irrational fear of getting AIDS by touching or interacting with them. The discrimination against non-vaxxed people is based on the fact they are non-vaxxed and potential sources of risk. It's a little bit like discriminating against those who don't have a drivers license who want to drive a car i.e. reasonable grounds for discriminating. Obviously, it's more co…

>The discrimination against non-vaxxed people is based on the fact they are non-vaxxed and potential sources of risk. Poor people can be thought of a being more risky to be around, because they have low standard of living, can't afford prompt health care and so on, so there are chances that they might be carriers of contagious diseases.. So you can argue that being around poor people is riskier than being around rich…

1) Being poor doesn't materially increase the risk of anything.

2) There's the issue of inequity i.e. poor people don't have access to healthcare, whereas everyone has access to vaccines.

3) Driving the car that you own seems to be more of a freedom, frankly than the ability to enter a restaurant. You have neither the right nor freedom to go on someone else's private property.

COVID is real, it's a deadly virus that spreads rapidly for which we have a variety of vaccines.

If a restaurant wants to keep their patrons safe and you don't want to have a vaccine, then you'll have to go to another restaurant at least for several months until COVID subsides to the point where there's little material risk to anyone.

It's just the reality of the situation.

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

#120

Post by johnisgood » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:38 AM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #116

johnisgood wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and we have seasonal flu vaccines that do not take that much of a long time to develop, we know that. The same case with other vaccines that are based on what our other vaccines are using. I was talking about the mRNA vaccines. When was the first time that any mRNA vaccine has been approved for human use? --- To the down-voters of my previous comment: This is the source of my claim: https://www.historyofvaccines…

Well, mRNA vaccines have been in development for a number of years, unsurprisingly. It was first identified as a treatment vector in the 80s, and started development for vaccines in about 2008 AFAICT, with human trials for some of them (a prospective cancer vaccine from what I can tell) going back about ten years. > When was the first time that any mRNA vaccine has been approved for human use? Approved for widespread…

How many people have received an mRNA vaccine pre-COVID-19? For example the one you have mentioned for cancer. Was it successful? Could you give me a link to studies with regarding to it? Just curiosity.