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

121–130 of 248 posts

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

#121

Post by Nursie »

johnisgood wrote: post #109
Nursie wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From a societal standpoint, he said people who skip the vaccine could compromise the safety of others. But this is a discussion of fact, not an appeal to emotions. > we have literally no clue with regarding to its long-term effects Except we have a great deal of information on the long term effects of vaccination, from studying many vaccines. It's quite wrong to say we have no idea.

> Except we have a great deal of information on the long term effects of vaccination, from studying many vaccines. It's quite wrong to say we have no idea. Are you talking about mRNA vaccines? How many people have gotten such a vaccine before the COVID-19 vaccines and when?

> Are you talking about mRNA vaccines?

Are you? You seemed to be talking about all vaccines.

> How many people have gotten such a vaccine before the COVID-19 vaccines and when?

I don't have the exact figures but if you search for human mRNA trials, they seem to go back about 10 years.

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

#122

Post by johnisgood »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #118
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…

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.

Less likely to cause short-term or long-term problems or both?

By the way, the "I would be willing to bet" is what I am talking about. We do not know, we can bet and all. All my comments started because I know that many people excluded the possibility that there could be any potential side-effects that may manifest a year from now or so. I am not talking against vaccination, just that we should not exclude this possibility. That really is all there is.

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

#123

Post by mjburgess »

dragonwriter wrote: post #95
mjburgess wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> Christians of every era have their political goals too. And of course, claimed to own peace, equality and justice. Christianity has been fairly expressly political for most of its history post-Constantine, and the divisions between different Christian subgroups have often turned more on the political divisions than any notional theological divides. > The question is whether the mass movement and the institutional a…

You're the one talking about BLM. You're the one talking about "Black".

I happily said "anti-vax" was an identity marker.

The relevant comment here, and context, is the use of the term "discrimination" by the right wing. And indeed, see for example, the recent CIA advert using "equality, diversity" and various identity markers.

The unifying phenomenon isn't political -- even if we take BLM itself to be a purely political manifestation. The unifying phenomenon has to account for the alt-right alongside BLM.

What is occurring ACROSS the political spectrum is a new civic religious awakening.

This fervour you have, as a political hobbyist, is at base an identity fervour. Much more akin to a religious fervour. You are commenting on a website advertising your identity. You aren't on any barricades.

The US, and to some degree the west, is undergoing a religious revival disguised as a political movement. It may contain them ("BLM", "Capital Riot", etc.) -- but the social transformation is one purely in the space of "signification" (identity). The capital rioters, and the blm activists -- the TV evangelicals (fox, colbert) -- the CIA with its "diversity" -- celebrities with their metoo opportunism -- your local MegaCrop with its "heartfelt commitments" to the new dogma.

This is a religion. It isnt a politics. It exists purely in the space of identity, signification, public professing.

Trump is the perfect non-political president in this style: a person elected to do nothing political, and everything "religious" -- to be seen to be saying, not to be seen doing.

This is all of the same kind: the new activist left, the alt right, the CIA and Google. It's a religious awakening bordering on a hysteria.

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

#124

Post by premium-gecko »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #115
premium-gecko wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> 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.

This is a very serious mistake. The duty of a doctor is to the patient in front of them and no one else. The question they have to consider is, is this proposed treatment more likely than not to help this particular patient? If so, the doctor advises the patient to undergo the procedure. If not, they advise against it. If a doctor is considering anything other than the health of the person presently before them, they need to make that clear, that they are treating a herd rather than a specific patient.

> As far as I can tell, the potential risks of vaccinating children are overwhelmingly outweighed by the potential public health risks

That's not the calculus. The question is the risk/benefit for them individually. And, I will add, the risk for even just them as individuals is not known. Some people are advising that the vaccines could cause very significant injury, e.g. https://odysee.com/@OracleFilms:1/Dr.-Sucharit-Bhakdi-Oracle...

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

#125

Post by forcry »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #108
forcry wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> So with that conflicting forces, it becomes a matter of opinion and perception. So it becomes no longer selfish, and just common sense. All information points the disease being worse than the vaccine. It's not common sense to avoid it. It's highly irrational. If people are really concerned with not harming themselves, they _will_ get vaccinated.

>All information points the disease being worse than the vaccine.

No, at some point you are trusting some external entities. You trust the information because you trust the entities that provide it.

When you say that someone else is irrational, you are doing that because that person does not share your trust. And to that person, in all probability, what you are doing might be irrational.

In the end, I think no one have the right to impose their standard of trust on to anyone else.

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

#126

Post by premium-gecko »

Nursie wrote: post #106
premium-gecko wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If it's virtually zero risk and it protects others, that's pretty justified. You know, like how we already take into account more than just individual risk when we vaccinate children. Stop trying to make out like this is some sort of new or extreme position. FYI - there have been about 30 kids in hospital in the UK with covid in the last month, so the risks are non-negligible.

> If it's virtually zero risk

It would be great if we knew that, but we don't. We usually have long testing periods, but we didn't this time, for reasons that remain unclear.

> Stop trying to make out like this is some sort of new or extreme position.

Please remind me, when was the last time that we gave people vaccines not to protect that person specifically, but to allegedly protect some unknown other person, somewhere?

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

#127

Post by CogitoCogito »

johnisgood wrote: post #117
CogitoCogito wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 l…

> 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.

There's nothing scientific about any of that. You could have some natural immunity. You could also simply have been lucky. You might never be infected. You might also someday die from the disease. This is entirely anecdotal and basically useless information.

> 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.

People shouldn't exclude that from the list of possibilities. But people _should not_ take it into account with their decision-making. If they are going to give weight to the future possibility of negative side-effects coming to light, they should also give weight to the future possibility that positive side-effects may come to light.

Said simply, there's nothing very useful in the statement "we might know more in the future than now".

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

#128

Post by johnisgood »

zimpenfish wrote: post #114
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…

> 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 wa…

My source of skepticism on such reports is my own Government that makes people lie about the COVID-19 cases (we have more reported than actual) because it funds our hospitals and our Government in general. We have a huge history of taking EU money in such a way, and it is pretty much incentivized. Our president told us a few months ago that COVID-19 will go away during summer (tourism), and will return in September. We are also going to produce our own vaccines, so they will be trash-talking others when it is done (again, we (or they) have done such things often).

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

#129

Post by aaron695 »

jollybean wrote: post #48
aaron695 wrote: post #36

Anyone who remembers the discrimination against people with HIV (which still exists) is obviously cautious here. WHO is against discrimination based on covid vaccine passports. I suspect because they deal with disease based discrimination all the time. So you can be one of those people screaming at school meetings to kick out the kid with HIV in the 80's or take a step back. Perhaps it is ok to discriminate, but it's…

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 people with AIDS was based on irrational fear of getting AIDS by touching or interacting with them.

Sorry but this is wrong and feels like it's straight from a telemovie.

It was around body fluids and how often people swapped them in practice. Could someone throw up on someones eyes. Do kids fighting swap much blood, this was addressed in 1990's Degrassi High as an unknown. https://degrassi.fandom.com/wiki/Bad_Blood_(2)

Countries today discriminate on HIV, not because they are afraid of touch.

"Some 59 countries, territories and areas deny the entry, stay or residence of HIV-positive people because of their HIV status only" https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/jc173...

People with HIV are a risk especially in countries without adequate treatments, if America wants to discriminate based on risk, there's no reason other countries can't also discriminate on risk.

And if you want to do it based on intent, it opens up a Pandoras box of whether murders get blood transfusions, or hookers or junkies. It's a mess.

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

#130

Post by CogitoCogito »

forcry wrote: post #125
CogitoCogito wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So with that conflicting forces, it becomes a matter of opinion and perception. So it becomes no longer selfish, and just common sense. All information points the disease being worse than the vaccine. It's not common sense to avoid it. It's highly irrational. If people are really concerned with not harming themselves, they _will_ get vaccinated.

>All information points the disease being worse than the vaccine. No, at some point you are trusting some external entities. You trust the information because you trust the entities that provide it. When you say that someone else is irrational, you are doing that because that person does not share your trust. And to that person, in all probability, what you are doing might be irrational. In the end, I think no one ha…

You don't have the right to simply ignore all the research going into this and be treated seriously.

But I guess believe whatever you want if it makes you feel better.

Post reply on HN