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

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

#201

Post by dwaltrip » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 4:57 PM UTC

caeril wrote: post #193

craig1f wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5. When unvaccinated people end up in the hospital, hospitals get stressed to their limits. This results in fewer beds for me and my family if we end up in a hospital for a different reason. This is also causing job burnout for nurses and doctors.

Interesting. Society bends over backwards to accomodate ever-increasing levels of obese people. The majority of baseline hospital "stress" is due to morbidities caused by, and strongly associated with, obesity. Why are we shunning the unvaccinated, a rapidly decreasing proportion of the population, but promote plus-size models, build ever-larger movie theater seating, and denigrate "fat shaming" in response to a prob…

Getting vaccinated is 1000x easier than becoming un-obese. It's not comparable.

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

#202

Post by native_samples » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 5:32 PM UTC

Pyramus wrote: post #196

native_samples wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's really the case. There are very, very few people who cannot take these vaccines due to allergies etc, and nobody claims the herd immunity threshold is anywhere close to 100%. To suppress it to the point that there are much greater threats in such a person's life only requires reaching that threshold. Unfortunately, public health officials have admitted in public they are lying about the threshold…

> There are very, very few people who cannot take these vaccines due to allergies etc That is correct, allergies are very rare. I'm talking about patients whose immune system is weakened, either on purpose, e.g. transplant patients, or because they have an auto-immune disease (HIV etc.) or simply because their immune system is weak as a result of another disease (e.g. cancer) or they were simply dealt a weak immune s…

The first groups you mention are all either very small and also threatened by many different kinds of virus (e.g. flu), or COVID is not a threat to them because they're too young.

As for the sizes of the other groups, you'd have to argue they make up more than 30% of the population for there to be real concerns. 30% of the population is a lot of people. There's plenty of room for people who don't want the vaccine in such a large slice.

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

#203

Post by johnisgood » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #168

johnisgood wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wha…

> the approval of these two vaccines after a bunch of their own trials

Which two? If it is still the case, Pfizer and Moderna were not approved at all by the FDA. They were given emergency use authorization only by the agency. As I said before, the whole approval process takes years, unless they are authorized for emergency use, as it is the case with COVID-19 vaccines.

You have to realize that they did not have their own "bunch" of trials. It would have taken years to properly go through the process. We are studying them now, some time passed since first vaccinations, hence why there is emerging information about side-effects.

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

#204

Post by jollybean » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

aaron695 wrote: post #129

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 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://degras…

In the 1980's and 1990's there was a stigma about people with AIDS and people didn't want to touch them or be near them.

When Princess Diana visited some people with AIDS and literally just shook their hand - it was a huge deal.

It went far beyond the hard medical issues of fluid exchange.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-39490507

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

#205

Post by jollybean » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 7:37 PM UTC

adriancr wrote: post #30

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.

1. you can still catch things as vaccines are not 100% (some are 50-60% effective, mRNA are 90-95% so far) 2. It can mutate in people that catch it to avoid vaccine / cause other issues. Imagine if it started causing blindness... would you care then of being forced to take a 5-10% / 50% chance of catching it? 3. No chance of wiping it out without everyone vaccinated. 4. Some people can't get vaccinated or it wont wor…

6. COVID is a problem because of it's virality not so much symptoms, i.e. it's about the network or community affect, less so the individual affect.

I don't know who people have this kind of narrow (and a little bit selfish) idea that it's only about 'them' and 'if they catch it'.

COVID is not that deadly on a unit level. It's dangerous because of how incredibly viral it is, then it becomes 'net scary' for the community.

By being unvaccinated - even if you survive - which you likely will you are passing it to others and you become a propagating agent of death.

Take the purely libertarian perspective of 'my body my choice' - well in that view, you'd have to be responsible for your actions as well, and therefore arguably liable for everyone you infect and all the damage you cause.

It's not going to work.

If we're going to live as a community and share services, resources and spaces ... then we have do adjust our behaviour at least temporarily so that this diseases doesn't kill a lot of people.

It's very troubling to me that this isn't obvious to every adult.

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

#206

Post by TheParkShark » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 9:14 PM UTC

milesvp wrote: post #198

caeril wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Society bends over backwards to accomodate ever-increasing levels of obese people. The majority of baseline hospital "stress" is due to morbidities caused by, and strongly associated with, obesity. Why are we shunning the unvaccinated, a rapidly decreasing proportion of the population, but promote plus-size models, build ever-larger movie theater seating, and denigrate "fat shaming" in response to a prob…

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, and give an answer to what appears to be rhetoric. Choice of vaccine is a single binary choice that essentially creates a step function. Food, on the other hand is a continuous function with a daily effort required to decide what to eat. While choosing to be unvaccinated may be it’s own daily struggle, it’s not the same order of magnitude as the struggle not to eat. Now…

Do they not expect shaming to backfire against the unvaccinated?

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

#207

Post by TheParkShark » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 9:30 PM UTC

mjburgess wrote: post #167

underseacables wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 -- an…

In your previous comment you said claimed the constitution doesn’t give people the right to own guns, I guess you didn’t watch the video in the reply. Says right at the beginning, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”. You seem to use your language art skills to talk about the actual conversation instead of contributing to it.

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

#208

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 9:40 PM UTC

TheParkShark wrote: post #206

milesvp wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, and give an answer to what appears to be rhetoric. Choice of vaccine is a single binary choice that essentially creates a step function. Food, on the other hand is a continuous function with a daily effort required to decide what to eat. While choosing to be unvaccinated may be it’s own daily struggle, it’s not the same order of magnitude as the struggle not to eat. Now…

Do they not expect shaming to backfire against the unvaccinated?

[deleted]

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

#209

Post by RhysU » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:03 PM UTC

dwaltrip wrote: post #201

caeril wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Society bends over backwards to accomodate ever-increasing levels of obese people. The majority of baseline hospital "stress" is due to morbidities caused by, and strongly associated with, obesity. Why are we shunning the unvaccinated, a rapidly decreasing proportion of the population, but promote plus-size models, build ever-larger movie theater seating, and denigrate "fat shaming" in response to a prob…

Getting vaccinated is 1000x easier than becoming un-obese. It's not comparable.

You just compared it.

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

#210

Post by jrs235 » Tue, Jul 13, 2021, 10:07 PM UTC

basch wrote: post #69

Pyramus wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 4. Some people can't get vaccinated or it wont work on them. They will catch it and die if others are not getting it / spreading it. I think that needs to be highlighted more. It's like wearing seatbelts, but for other people. I would consider that the fabric that most societies are made of, taking care of the people that can't for themselves, and in many cases through no fault of their own (e.g. genetics).

Seatbelt's are for other people. If you are in the car with someone, and they are not wearing a seat belt, they are a projectile. That's part of the reason debate over seat belt laws is often misguided under the guise of being only about self inflicted harm. It's also to protect you from others becoming a meat torpedo. Which circles back to the crux of the original post. At what level does a society have the right to…

Tangent:

>That's part of the reason debate over seat belt laws is often misguided under the guise of being only about self inflicted harm. It's also to protect you from others becoming a meat torpedo.

Additionally, if the driver is belted in they are likely to have a higher chance of maintaining or regaining control of their vehicle if they aren't tossed around inside, allowing them the chance of preventing further harm to others due to a completely out of control vehicle.

Which is why there's still debate about motorcycle helmet laws. A motorcycle helmet basically only protects the person wearing it.