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

161–170 of 248 posts

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

#161

Post by underseacables »

forcry wrote: post #134
CogitoCogito wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>You don't have the right to simply ignore all the research going into this and be treated seriously. Replace "research" with "stuff a bunch of people you believe say", and the situation will become much more clear.

I think this is really a case of self righteous indignation. There are people who truly believe you must take the vaccine, and nothing will convince them otherwise, but more importantly, If you say no you won’t take the vaccine, they take it as a personal attack on their beliefs. In other words: how dare you say no to what I want you to do.

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

#162

Post by premium-gecko »

Duckeh wrote: post #142
premium-gecko wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> A pandemic ravaging the globe doesn't seem clear?

A fear campaign ravaged the globe. If there hadn't been a fear campaign, I don't think anybody but doctors and immunologists and such would have been aware anything significant was happening. Similar to previous seasonal illnesses that were technically pandemics, but no normal person recalls doing anything about it. For example, ask people who are old enough what they remember about the HK flu in 1968.

> Herd immunity and personal protection are both parts of every vaccine, they go hand in hand

I'm still waiting for the example from the past where we administered a vaccine to someone, saying to them "this is not to protect you, since you are not at risk from this virus, but it is just to protect someone out there, we don't know whom". Are you able to provide such an example?

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

#163

Post by johnisgood »

Nursie wrote: post #147
johnisgood wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Yeah, but you see how non-reassuring it is. :P

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

#164

Post by underseacables »

checkyoursudo wrote: post #27
AYBABTME wrote: post #25

Forgive me for asking a dumb question, and I mean no wrongthought in asking it: if I'm vaccinated, why should I care if others aren't? Does it change anything for my life from here? EDIT: thanks for the answers, exactly the info I needed to update my prior beliefs.

Variants develop primarily in unvaccinated people. Your vaccine may not be effective against future variants.

Where there is a drug company there will always be another vaccine. Worry not.

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

#165

Post by Nursie »

premium-gecko wrote: post #162
Duckeh wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> A pandemic ravaging the globe doesn't seem clear? A fear campaign ravaged the globe. If there hadn't been a fear campaign, I don't think anybody but doctors and immunologists and such would have been aware anything significant was happening. Similar to previous seasonal illnesses that were technically pandemics, but no normal person recalls doing anything about it. For example, ask people who are old enough what th…

> If there hadn't been a fear campaign, I don't think anybody but doctors and immunologists and such would have been aware anything significant was happening.

So the excess deaths, the health services stretched to capacity, this is nothing, nobody would have noticed at all?

I think this is a very, very strong claim given the numbers and would take some extraordinary evidence to back up.

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

#166

Post by underseacables »

mjburgess wrote: post #38
qeternity wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it means both sides have serious ideological flaws and that their prototypical stances sometimes blur as a result. For instance, the constitution ensures both the right to vote and the right to bear arms. The liberal stance is that voter ID infringes on rights, but gun ID does not. And the GOP stance is the reverse. Both are logically inconsistent, just different dog whistle topics. You can feel however you want t…

The constitution does not obviously guarantee a right for individuals to own guns. Nor a right to vote. The second amendment is explicitly predicated on, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State". You can easily now read that predicate as false in the contemporary united states, and hence, the derivative right not obtaining. Ie., the 2nd A. says, "given it is necessary for Militia, in…

Well the Supreme Court disagrees with you on that, but I think Penn and Teller’s description and explanation might appeal to you a little better: https://youtu.be/Hx23c84obwQ

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

#167

Post by mjburgess »

underseacables wrote: post #166
mjburgess wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The constitution does not obviously guarantee a right for individuals to own guns. Nor a right to vote. The second amendment is explicitly predicated on, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State". You can easily now read that predicate as false in the contemporary united states, and hence, the derivative right not obtaining. Ie., the 2nd A. says, "given it is necessary for Militia, in…

Well the Supreme Court disagrees with you on that, but I think Penn and Teller’s description and explanation might appeal to you a little better: https://youtu.be/Hx23c84obwQ

As of 2008 -- which indicates that this view of the constitution is extremely contemporary, as a legal doctrine.

My point wasn't, in any case, about the "facts of the matter". I dont think there are facts about how one should interpret the US constitution.

My point was that the commenter I was replying to assumed that these issues "ID for guns", "ID for votes" were somehow prescribed clearly by the constitution -- and one would be hypocritical to defend only one.

That view is wholly incorrect. The text of the constitution settles almost no matters. Matters are settled at the interpretive level, and much of what passes for "interpretation" is actually established by the historical tradition of the supreme court.

There is no hypocrisy anywhere, because there isnt a stable ideological dogma written down

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

#168

Post by Nursie »

johnisgood wrote: post #163
Nursie wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I imagine the cancer vaccine trial wasn't successful, as the current mRNA vaccines are indeed the first to enter public use Yeah, but you see how non-reassuring it is. :P

I do find it reassuring because it implies we have data from that trial and others going back over a number of years.

I imagine it didn't proceed as the treatment wasn't effective, rather than because everybody died from the vaccine. And if there were problems with the vaccine itself, then I would think that knowledge would feed into the design/implementation of future iterations of mRNA vaccines.

So yeah, that's what I take from that. I find the existence of a decade of trials of the tech, and the approval of these two vaccines after a bunch of their own trials, and the ongoing monitoring of outcomes, to be fairly reassuring.

That said, I got the AZ vaccine, because that's what I was offered!

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

#169

Post by codeflow2202 »

adriancr wrote: post #160
codeflow2202 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forcing a few million extra doses to a bunch of western skeptics won't compensate the fact that there are billions of people that will never have access to the vaccines. If it is true that only unvaccinated people generates new dangerous versions of the virus (which is completely false since leaky vaccines can cause enhanced versions of the virus), you will never be really protected, even if every western country mak…

> there are billions of people that will never have access to the vaccines False. Pfizer alone will manufacture 2.5 billion doses this year, 3 billion next year. Considering EU/US already at 50-60% vacicnated, there are a lot of doses for the rest of the world. Moderna will likely have similar production. The other simpler ones even more. > If it is true that only unvaccinated people generates new dangerous versions…

You are surprisingly optimistic. We have been a few months in the vaccination campaign and we are already in need of boosters to patch new strains. Even if the numbers you mention are true, you still have to deliver a product with extremely complex logistics in highly unreachable places (vaccinating westerners with our infrastructure is way easier than doing the same in Africa), hope that they will really deliver those numbers at that speed, and cross fingers that when this happens, the virus hasn't already mutated enough to make it obsolete. Consider also that many people in third world countries do not trust westerners so I would predict that the percentage of people that will avoid the jab might be much higher than what you have in the USA or EU.

Anyway I am sorry I didn't share an article about what I mentioned, I thought it was known enough to not need an article. (I might say the same about your numbers)

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/info:doi/10.13...

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

#170

Post by skinkestek »

Nursie wrote: post #149
skinkestek wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

> 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.

Yep.

As I have tried to explain one of my friends: even if you assume every official is prone to lying something can be read from their words and actions.

When I see doctors who have 5-7 more years of studies in the field than me lining up for the vaccine that is a useful signal.

Same with the military and the politicians.

Then there is Ivermectin who according to some could have eradicated Covid-19 if it wasn't for Big Pharmas stranglehold on media and politicians.

Well in that case COVID-19 should be eradicated in Cuba, Iran and Russia now as none of those suffers the same stranglehold from Big Pharma.

etc etc.

Post reply on HN