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

221–230 of 248 posts

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

#221

Post by adriancr »

codeflow2202 wrote: post #214
adriancr wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And we are not vaccinating to avoid a pandemic, we are doing it during the pandemic making the risk of it happening much higher. I bet you would like to go back in time and tell the people that vaccinated against polio that they were doing it wrong too? We are vaccinating to stop the pandemic. India is an example what happens without vaccines btw

You must be kidding me. This is proof that you pro covid mrna therapy are just mindless news consumers. Have you ever spent a second reading articles or watching the data about what you believe? tot cases/1M pop -> usa 104525 india 22200 deaths/1M pop -> usa 1872 india 295 There is no single country in asia that did as bad as the USA in the deaths department. What's now your next extravagant excuse? That the usa has…

Oh boy ... You must not know anyone in India...

I know people that have lost family members there. They were struggling to get them spots in hospitals, everything is mess of corruption, under reporting, overflowed hospitals.

They're not even testing properly... See the airplane full of corona positive people with negative 'PCR' tests.

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

#222

Post by mjburgess »

TheParkShark wrote: post #207
mjburgess wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mean the video with penn and teller?

They're arguing about the placement of a comma: which is exactly my point. I guess you havent understood my point.

The constitution does not verbatim say "you have an individual right to own and use weapons".

It says, "given the necessity of a millitia".

If you whole argument depends on arguing over a comma, then it's pretty clear, there is no "hypocrisy" one way or another. The whole thing is a matter of interpretation.

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

#223

Post by native_samples »

zimpenfish wrote: post #212
native_samples wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the case. The US CDC is heavily backlogged and reports of vaccine injuries aren't being processed in a timely manner, so we don't actually know how many people are being injured by them. We only know lower bounds. If you look at VAERS then it's clear that this is by multiple orders of magnitude the most dangerous vaccine ever deployed. https://swprs.org/us-vaccine-deaths-increasing-rapidly/ "The latest we…

> raising the total of reported post-vaccination deaths to 9,048 Even if all those deaths were directly attributable to the vaccine (and that is unlikely), the US has vaccinated 159M people - that's 0.0057% or 99.9943% safe. If you want to include all the illnesses as well to bring it up to 41,500 incidents, that's still only 0.026% or 99.974% safe. For what is almost certainly the single biggest vaccination project…

You're ignoring the clear evidence of large scale under-reporting.

But there's a deeper problem. Those are not good numbers because they are drastically higher than would be expected for a vaccine. A big part of the argument for getting vaccinated is that vaccines in general are "perfectly safe" and in particular that the vaccine is much safer than actually getting COVID. What this data shows is that these vaccines don't meet expectations established by prior campaigns, and that actually we have no real idea whatsoever of how dangerous they are, especially in the young.

Consider that US all cause mortality for the under 65s is still seriously above the expected baseline despite that COVID deaths have dropped to nearly zero. Something is raising mortality, and according to the largest virus surveillance programme in history combined with the laxest classification process imaginable, it isn't COVID.

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

#224

Post by native_samples »

Theory5 wrote: post #211
native_samples wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately, being forced to believe everything scientists say is neither a law nor a responsibility. And just as well because they routinely contradict themselves or turn out to have been lying. See: the denunciation of the lab leak theory by Daszak and other virologists, which successfully suppressed this obvious common sense idea for a year. So in fact people do have that "right".

Lying? You mean changing their understanding of something new as more information becomes available? That's how science works they use the best info available, and change their understanding as more info becomes available.

They didn't change their understanding with new information, they asserted with 100% confidence that the lab leak idea was a ridiculous conspiracy theory, back when there was simply no intellectual justification for that assertion whatsoever, whilst lying (yes, lying) in their conflict of interest statement about their actual conflicts of interest. The man who coordinated it all refused to sign his own "open letter" to avoid arousing suspicion!

Even today, in their newest letter, they are still trying to obfuscate the real situation and are certainly not apologizing for their prior stance.

At any rate, this claim that scientists are never dishonest or wrong, they just "update their beliefs" as more information becomes available, is getting very tedious. That's not what they're doing. "Science" is constantly bombarding our political leaders with wildly extreme statements delivered not just with 100% confidence, but the assertion that you aren't even allowed to disagree because it's a "scientific consensus". People read the papers and point out that they're making false assumptions or are otherwise pseudo-scientific, but they're suppressed and ignoring. Then when that "consensus" turns out to have been completely wrong a bunch of apologists appear to explain that scientists can never be wrong by definition.

Well, guess what? If a certain type of person constantly make confident statements as a group and insists reasoned disagreement is illegitimate, then is repeatedly proven to be wrong, all their statements become seen as less reliable. As a group.

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

#225

Post by Nursie »

johnisgood wrote: post #203
Nursie wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thei…

They've been given emergency approval, sure.

> You have to realize that they did not have their own "bunch" of trials.

Yes, they did. Sorry but this is where you veer into outright misinformation. There have been trials ongoing for a while. The specific two mrna vaccines you are concerned about have had trials, with phase 1/2 reporting last summer and phase 3 interim reporting starting late last year. Your own link above puts these at the end of the process, and your other link says development can take years, not that it must or always does.

Are all trials complete? No, they aren't. But to state they haven't had trials is incorrect.

So in summary -

The tech has been studied for 30 years.

Human vaccine trials using it started 10 years ago.

Trials have taken place and have reported, though phase 3 is ongoing and will continue to report (this is not the same as it not happening, there has already been useful clinical data).

We now also have several months of data from worldwide rollout, with multi-hundred-million doses administered, all of which is continuing to make these things look incredibly safe.

That's not enough for you? Do you need some sort of an absolute guarantee of safety handed down by god himself, amidst a raging pandemic?

There's no reason to think that there should be long term health consequences to these. We have lots of data saying short/mid term consequences are rare and mostly very mild, we have a fair body of data going back ten years which leads us to expect that mRNA vaccines are not long term dangerous as a category (or they would not be given their emergency authorisation)... at this point I think the judgement needs to be that any long term consequences that might appear are far less likely to be a problem than covid itself, yes, even for those age groups affected by pericarditis/myocarditis.

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

#226

Post by codeflow2202 »

adriancr wrote: post #221
codeflow2202 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be kidding me. This is proof that you pro covid mrna therapy are just mindless news consumers. Have you ever spent a second reading articles or watching the data about what you believe? tot cases/1M pop -> usa 104525 india 22200 deaths/1M pop -> usa 1872 india 295 There is no single country in asia that did as bad as the USA in the deaths department. What's now your next extravagant excuse? That the usa has…

Oh boy ... You must not know anyone in India... I know people that have lost family members there. They were struggling to get them spots in hospitals, everything is mess of corruption, under reporting, overflowed hospitals. They're not even testing properly... See the airplane full of corona positive people with negative 'PCR' tests.

I do know people from India. But these are the numbers like it or not. You seem to be cherry picking only the numbers that convalidate your vision.

I can't tell how much of it is undercounting in India, how much is overcounting in the USA, and how much of it is that the friends and family networks in India count hundreds of people as opposed to the westerner ones.

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

#227

Post by codeflow2202 »

adriancr wrote: post #220
codeflow2202 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'm happy you mention polio because it's a great example of what can happen when we allow companies to rush their product without enough safety standards: In April 1955, soon after mass polio vaccination began in the US, the Surgeon General began to receive reports of patients who contracted paralytic polio about a week after being vaccinated with Salk polio vaccine from the Cutter pharmaceutical company, with th…

1. Same site: > The inactivated polio vaccines are very safe 2. Do you have to worry about polio now?, no, why? 3. We have processes in place to verify vaccines, that's why you got news about janssen or whatever throwing away millions of doses due to contamination.

You are not opposing my point: 1. shit happened 2. rules have been put in place to avoid it from happening again 3. we are now skipping these rules in the name of urgency.

These are not vaccines but gene therapies that have never been tested. History proves risks do exist when new therapies are given to people.

I suppose when a normal vaccine like the novavax is coming out there won't be as much opposition.

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

#228

Post by zimpenfish »

native_samples wrote: post #223
zimpenfish wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> raising the total of reported post-vaccination deaths to 9,048 Even if all those deaths were directly attributable to the vaccine (and that is unlikely), the US has vaccinated 159M people - that's 0.0057% or 99.9943% safe. If you want to include all the illnesses as well to bring it up to 41,500 incidents, that's still only 0.026% or 99.974% safe. For what is almost certainly the single biggest vaccination project…

You're ignoring the clear evidence of large scale under-reporting. But there's a deeper problem. Those are not good numbers because they are drastically higher than would be expected for a vaccine. A big part of the argument for getting vaccinated is that vaccines in general are "perfectly safe" and in particular that the vaccine is much safer than actually getting COVID. What this data shows is that these vaccines d…

> vaccines in general are "perfectly safe"

I don't think anyone has ever said that, have they? They've said things like "vaccines are pretty safe" and "the risk of something going wrong is tiny compared with the risk of being unvaccinated", sure, but I doubt any medical professional has said "perfectly safe"?

> Those are not good numbers because they are drastically higher than would be expected for a vaccine.

Probably the smallpox vaccination program is the only one even vaguely comparable in size to this and, yeah, that had many fewer deaths (68 in the US in 10 years, I think, but I couldn't find out how many vaccinations were actually done.)

But then smallpox is a much easier thing to a) spot, b) treat, c) isolate people from, and d) create a vaccine for.

> Consider that US all cause mortality for the under 65s is still seriously above the expected baseline

Do you have a URL for that?

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

#229

Post by native_samples »

zimpenfish wrote: post #228
native_samples wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're ignoring the clear evidence of large scale under-reporting. But there's a deeper problem. Those are not good numbers because they are drastically higher than would be expected for a vaccine. A big part of the argument for getting vaccinated is that vaccines in general are "perfectly safe" and in particular that the vaccine is much safer than actually getting COVID. What this data shows is that these vaccines d…

> vaccines in general are "perfectly safe" I don't think anyone has ever said that, have they? They've said things like "vaccines are pretty safe" and "the risk of something going wrong is tiny compared with the risk of being unvaccinated", sure, but I doubt any medical professional has said "perfectly safe"? > Those are not good numbers because they are drastically higher than would be expected for a vaccine. Probab…

The world is a big place my friend. Here's the British Society for Immunology saying it: [1]

"These vaccines are perfectly safe and are extremely effective at preventing serious illness from these infectious diseases"

Pennsylvanian officials: [2]

"PA (WBNG) -- Despite natural concern and curiosity over the coronavirus vaccine, Pennsylvania officials held a scientific panel Thursday to explain the vaccines are perfectly safe, even for children."

A professor advising the UK government via the primary COVID vaccination committee: [3]

"There is the concern that what’s happening in Europe might make people in the UK less confident in the AstraZeneca vaccine, unnecessarily so, because it’s perfectly safe"

Maybe you don't consider an academic to be a medical professional, so here's a doctor in San Diego saying the same thing: [4]

"“There’s no reason to think that a 16-year-old or 17-year-old is going to have a reaction that an 18-year-old is going to have. I think it’s perfectly safe,” Sawyer told ABC 10News."

Re: mortality. Go to https://www.usmortality.com/ and click the 25-44 and 45-64 age check boxes, the graphs will then appear.

[1] https://www.immunology.org/celebrate-vaccines/public-engagem...

[2] https://wbng.com/2021/06/17/pa-officials-insist-vaccine-is-s...

[3] https://inews.co.uk/news/health/oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-s...

[4] https://www.10news.com/news/coronavirus/san-diego-doctor-say...

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

#230

Post by underseacables »

mjburgess wrote: post #222
TheParkShark wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mean the video with penn and teller? They're arguing about the placement of a comma: which is exactly my point. I guess you havent understood my point. The constitution does not verbatim say "you have an individual right to own and use weapons". It says, " given the necessity of a millitia ". If you whole argument depends on arguing over a comma, then it's pretty clear, there is no "hypocrisy" one way or another.…

Nope, still don’t get it, third time’s a charm?
Post reply on HN