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

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

#141

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 11:14 AM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #121

johnisgood wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#142

Post by Duckeh » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 11:15 AM UTC

premium-gecko wrote: post #126

Nursie wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, somew…

> We usually have long testing periods, but we didn't this time, for reasons that remain unclear

A pandemic ravaging the globe doesn't seem clear?

> 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?

Herd immunity and personal protection are both parts of every vaccine, they go hand in hand. I'm surprised this is even a discussion on a place like HN... I guess I'm feeding the trolls...

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

#143

Post by Mordisquitos » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 11:21 AM UTC

premium-gecko wrote: post #124

Mordisquitos wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 advis…

You're talking about the duty of a doctor with regards to their individual patient, but I'm taking about the duty of public health agencies with regards to the population as a whole.

But fair enough, let's focus on the individual patient. The fact that a child is now 10 years old and would most likely suffer from asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 if they were to catch it today says nothing about their possible condition if they catch it in 20, 30, or 40 years time. As long as SARS-CoV-2 is circulating in the population, and it will be for the near future, deciding not to vaccinate a child because they are at low risk at this very moment is at best wishful thinking about their future, and at worst an active hope that they catch the virus and develop some level of immunity before it is likely to harm them significantly. And if some people are advising that the vaccines could cause very significant injury, they are more than welcome to publish their findings in a scientific journal rather than producing online films about it.

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

#144

Post by Nursie » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 11:21 AM UTC

premium-gecko wrote: post #126

Nursie wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, somew…

> Please remind me, when was the last time that we gave people vaccines not to protect that person specifically

Constantly, it's always part of why we vaccinate, to stop people being a vector as well as personal protection.

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

#145

Post by CogitoCogito » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 11:22 AM UTC

johnisgood wrote: post #139

CogitoCogito wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not for me though it is not, and that is the only reason I mentioned it, that there are such occurrences, too. Whether or not you believe me, well, that is up to you, and you can do whatever you want with it. :) I never said I don't believe you. I just said there was nothing scientific in your reasoning. It's completely obvious that not all people get covid that are exposed to people. I've also been exposed to covi…

Why I was mentioning that is because I personally would not like to get the vaccine because: I am in my twenties, I have an immunological autoimmune disorder (and I recently developed allergies, to my luck), and I have not caught COVID-19 despite constant exposure to it. Does it sound a good enough reason for not getting vaccinated?

I don't think you should take into account the fact that you haven't gotten it despite being exposed. But yeah if you have a disorder that increases the likelihood for complications of course you should take that into account. (I also presume you've spoken to doctors about this.)

But none of that has to do with the issue that something may happen in the future. You are making your choices with the information you have _now_.

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

#146

Post by johnisgood » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 11:25 AM UTC

CogitoCogito wrote: post #145

johnisgood wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why I was mentioning that is because I personally would not like to get the vaccine because: I am in my twenties, I have an immunological autoimmune disorder (and I recently developed allergies, to my luck), and I have not caught COVID-19 despite constant exposure to it. Does it sound a good enough reason for not getting vaccinated?

I don't think you should take into account the fact that you haven't gotten it despite being exposed. But yeah if you have a disorder that increases the likelihood for complications of course you should take that into account. (I also presume you've spoken to doctors about this.) But none of that has to do with the issue that something may happen in the future. You are making your choices with the information you hav…

I suppose it is possible that some people may be more immune to COVID-19 than others. I am curious about this. I hope there will be research on this, but that is just for my curiosity.

By the way, something related: I cannot get a job because I am not vaccinated. No one cares here about people who cannot get vaccinated for health reasons. It is tough.

For Americans: https://www.axios.com/republicans-coronavirus-vaccines-discr...

> Republicans push to ban "discrimination" against unvaccinated people

I am sure many people are against it, but if we push people to get the vaccine because of society and its people, then surely they should care about those who cannot get vaccinated for health reasons. They are currently unable to get a job here.

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

#147

Post by Nursie » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 11:25 AM UTC

johnisgood wrote: post #120

Nursie wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As I said elsewhere, I don't know the numbers, but it's non-zero. Here's a link to a 2018 article in Nature - https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243

Particularly this table calls out some of the trials that were completed or ongoing at the time - https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243/tables/2

I imagine the cancer vaccine trial wasn't successful, as the current mRNA vaccines are indeed the first to enter public use.

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

#148

Post by CogitoCogito » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 11:27 AM UTC

forcry wrote: post #140

CogitoCogito wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think that I don't understand the banal point you're trying to make.

Try https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27817926

What point are you trying to make by linking that post? It's not even about the same subject. There may very well be not very much information supporting covid passes for restaurants, but what does that have to do with covid vaccinations? There is an enormous amount of information there.

E.g. here is a point you made that doesn't even remotely apply here:

> If you do an experiment that very few people in the world is able to replicate, because it is hard or due to lack of resources, then the rest of the world have to trust you.

These vaccines have been taken by _millions_ of people. They have been given by many different independent organizations. So yeah this doesn't even apply at all.

> The trust of people should be won, research by research, not authority by authority, and the non-requirement of mandates goes along automatically with that idea.

Essentially all the research points towards the vaccines being much much better than the disease. It's your choice to stick your head in the sand if you so wish, but no one need respect your decision. You're not somehow wise simply due to your being contrarian.

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

#149

Post by Nursie » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 11:28 AM UTC

skinkestek wrote: post #93

Nursie wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> but with a larger population, any adverse effects are likely to be noticed. With time. Not every problem shows up immediately. I'm vaccinated but I respect some people who decided against it. My logic is easy enough to explain: the virus have bigger known side effects than the vaccine and I have personally no reason to belive that there won't be even more and bigger unknown unknowns with the virus than with the vac…

> Not blindly trusting governments, media and big pharma however doesn't sound crazy to me.

> As for media: how anyone here can trust anyone of them blindly is beyond me.

I think this is a problem in our current society, rightly or wrongly a lot of people don't trust government or many mainstream information resources, but unfortunately instead of becoming rationally sceptic, a lot go over to blatant misinformation and conspiracy.

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

#150

Post by codeflow2202 » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 11:28 AM UTC

CogitoCogito wrote: post #127

johnisgood wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 be…

This is ridiculous. The body as anything in nature is always struggling to stay in balance. To maintain this balance it had millions of years of evolution to optimize strategies that counteract external and internals effects. But in general the chances are much higher for a neutral/bad result in case of an external intervention for which our body was never put in contact before (not even in past generations as in the case of lipid nano particles).

In general people hates to accept that not everyone reasons in the same way. Many societies aren't as trustworthy as you are to whatever decision is taken by their elites (being either for historical or cultural reasons). You need to accept that many would consider something in front of them poisonous until the contrary is proven (as opposed to more trustworthy people who sees everything safe until proven poisonous).