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

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

#231

Post by adriancr » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 4:55 PM UTC

codeflow2202 wrote: post #227

adriancr wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't understand your skepticism...

Alas... not my business... I took the vaccine and there are no side effects. Same for all people I know. Same for countless others.

If you bring up risk, I think a much bigger risk is the virus destroying a good part of your lungs/kidneys/heart/etc... Ending up in ER and dieing...

And without everyone vaccinating it won't disappear. Either way, good luck

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

#232

Post by adriancr » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

codeflow2202 wrote: post #226

adriancr wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Numbers are usually fudged, especially in corrupt countries.

It's also easy to have good numbers if you issue negative results without doing the actual tests and if you count the deaths as that of something else.

Hints of the false tests are:

- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/20/49-passengers-on-in...

- all of the ones that were positive had negative PCR tests... done in india

Similar things were happening in Communist Romania, hence my skepticism of India's number (back then - record "harvests", everybody well fed and happy, etc, meanwhile everyone was starving as crops were sold off on external markets)

Either way, best of luck, this discussion was fun for a while.

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

#233

Post by adriancr » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

codeflow2202 wrote: post #190

adriancr wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My point is that the myth that unvaccinated people are the part of the population creating enhanced variants is false. Incorrect. By logic, 95% (or whatever % you want) of the vaccinated population will not catch virus. As such, virus cannot evolve in them. Logical right? This is what they study says. > ... anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission ... The vaccines we have PREVENT transmission with var…

Also: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33688681/

Those are interesting, although they do not help your original statement.

> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/

This in essence states that given a immune population (either vaccine or natural), virus will evolve strains to escape anti-bodies... which is logical... if one such variant evolves, it will have a huge potential for multiplication.

It then states that strategies for viral elimination should be diversified... I would argue vaccinating everyone will lead to viral elimination... Otherwise virus is free to mutate in non-immune people.

> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33688681/

It's a study on the viruses natural mutation potential... and it's worrying... nothing regarding vaccines and so on... it's basically a warning that it can evolve to bypass vaccines and we'll be back to square one...

Again... nothing to help your argument about 'leaky' vaccines...

Have you read them yourself?

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

#234

Post by zimpenfish » Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

native_samples wrote: post #229

zimpenfish wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 perfect…

[1] and [2] are equivocal - [1] isn't about the C19 vaccines and [2] doesn't contain "perfectly" in the actual reported content.

[3] and [4], though, I stand corrected, they do say "perfectly safe".

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

#235

Post by codeflow2202 » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:24 AM UTC

adriancr wrote: post #233

codeflow2202 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33688681/

Those are interesting, although they do not help your original statement. > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ This in essence states that given a immune population (either vaccine or natural), virus will evolve strains to escape anti-bodies... which is logical... if one such variant evolves, it will have a huge potential for multiplication. It then states that strategies for viral elimination should be divers…

1) Wrong. It does help my original statement: "In this context, vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity (and therefore continue to permit transmission) will lead to the buildup of large standing populations of virus [47], greatly increasing the risk of immune escape." ... "Thus, our findings speak to the need for both public health and biomedical intervention strategies targeting SARS-CoV-2 to be designed to account for the risk of rapid evolutionary response to biomedical interventions."

2)Wrong again: "In the presence of mixed sera from multiple previously infected and/or vaccinated individuals these infections would create the appropriate conditions both for genetic recombination to occur, and for selection to rapidly sort multiple recombination-generated combinations of input immune evasion, cell entry and replication impacting mutations."

My original point is that people that made use of covid mrna therapy can be the source of new versions of the virus (because the therapy doesn't prevent infection nor spreading of the virus).

While it's true that the second study talks about mutations in both vaccinated and unvaccinated hosts, the first is clearly looking into the spike protein based therapy:

"The spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 is the molecular target for many vaccines and antibody-based prophylactics aimed at bringing COVID-19 under control. Such a narrow molecular focus raises the specter of viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode for these biomedical interventions."

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

#236

Post by native_samples » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 8:45 AM UTC

zimpenfish wrote: post #234

native_samples wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perfect…

[1] and [2] are equivocal - [1] isn't about the C19 vaccines and [2] doesn't contain "perfectly" in the actual reported content. [3] and [4], though, I stand corrected, they do say "perfectly safe".

Yes, but my original claim was:

A big part of the argument for getting vaccinated is that vaccines in general are "perfectly safe"

I was describing the scientific establishment's description of all vaccines, not just for C19.

You're right about [2], it may be an interpolation by journalists. Still, it's ascribed to them and I doubt any of those officials complained about this characterisation.

At any rate, this is a bit of an odd thing to be debating. "Perfectly safe" is a common turn of phrase in English. I doubt anyone who says it means it literally, and I didn't intend it to be read as such. It can be taken as a synonym for "so safe it's not worth anyone worrying about it".

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

#237

Post by adriancr » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 9:36 AM UTC

codeflow2202 wrote: post #235

adriancr wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are interesting, although they do not help your original statement. > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ This in essence states that given a immune population (either vaccine or natural), virus will evolve strains to escape anti-bodies... which is logical... if one such variant evolves, it will have a huge potential for multiplication. It then states that strategies for viral elimination should be divers…

1) Wrong. It does help my original statement: "In this context, vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity (and therefore continue to permit transmission) will lead to the buildup of large standing populations of virus [47], greatly increasing the risk of immune escape." ... "Thus, our findings speak to the need for both public health and biomedical intervention strategies targeting SARS-CoV-2 to be designed t…

> "vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity"

Here's the flaw in your argument. All vaccines provide immunity so the study does not apply.

> because the therapy doesn't prevent infection nor spreading of the virus)

Wrong. Biontech - 95% of the population is immune. It prevents spread to 95% of vaccinated people. The rest for some reason or another it doesn't work.

So you build your whole argument on a logical fallacy.

I think I repeated this a few times so no point in continuing if you can't wrap your head around this.

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

#238

Post by codeflow2202 » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 11:25 AM UTC

adriancr wrote: post #237

codeflow2202 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Wrong. It does help my original statement: "In this context, vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity (and therefore continue to permit transmission) will lead to the buildup of large standing populations of virus [47], greatly increasing the risk of immune escape." ... "Thus, our findings speak to the need for both public health and biomedical intervention strategies targeting SARS-CoV-2 to be designed t…

> "vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity" Here's the flaw in your argument. All vaccines provide immunity so the study does not apply. > because the therapy doesn't prevent infection nor spreading of the virus) Wrong. Biontech - 95% of the population is immune. It prevents spread to 95% of vaccinated people. The rest for some reason or another it doesn't work. So you build your whole argument on a logical…

Wrong. Again: Pfizer's chief scientific officer, Mikael Dolsten, said the recently reported dip in the vaccine's effectiveness in Israel was mostly due to infections in people who had been vaccinated in January or February. The country's health ministry said vaccine effectiveness in preventing both infection and symptomatic disease fell to 64% in June.

95% is based on faulty/old data.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

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

#239

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 11:26 AM UTC

adriancr wrote: post #237

codeflow2202 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Wrong. It does help my original statement: "In this context, vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity (and therefore continue to permit transmission) will lead to the buildup of large standing populations of virus [47], greatly increasing the risk of immune escape." ... "Thus, our findings speak to the need for both public health and biomedical intervention strategies targeting SARS-CoV-2 to be designed t…

> "vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity" Here's the flaw in your argument. All vaccines provide immunity so the study does not apply. > because the therapy doesn't prevent infection nor spreading of the virus) Wrong. Biontech - 95% of the population is immune. It prevents spread to 95% of vaccinated people. The rest for some reason or another it doesn't work. So you build your whole argument on a logical…

[deleted]

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

#240

Post by codeflow2202 » Thu, Jul 15, 2021, 11:28 AM UTC

adriancr wrote: post #237

codeflow2202 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Wrong. It does help my original statement: "In this context, vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity (and therefore continue to permit transmission) will lead to the buildup of large standing populations of virus [47], greatly increasing the risk of immune escape." ... "Thus, our findings speak to the need for both public health and biomedical intervention strategies targeting SARS-CoV-2 to be designed t…

> "vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity" Here's the flaw in your argument. All vaccines provide immunity so the study does not apply. > because the therapy doesn't prevent infection nor spreading of the virus) Wrong. Biontech - 95% of the population is immune. It prevents spread to 95% of vaccinated people. The rest for some reason or another it doesn't work. So you build your whole argument on a logical…

In this context, vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity (and therefore continue to permit transmission) will lead to the buildup of large standing populations of virus [47], greatly increasing the risk of immune escape

And this sentence is from the study. A study about Covid "vaccines". Not me.