Live data from Hacker News

Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

axios.com

241–248 of 248 posts

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

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

> vaccine effectiveness in preventing both infection

Oh man... so you do agree with me it prevents infection...

You are contradicting yourself...

So, its not 95 its 64, it still gives immunity... check mate?

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

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

> vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity

And those vaccines are which?, does the study allege any of the current vaccines does not provide immunity?, is so please put the quote and the study for that.

Otherwise this is a hypothetical... if x then y... when x is false in reality...

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

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> vaccine effectiveness in preventing both infection Oh man... so you do agree with me it prevents infection... You are contradicting yourself... So, its not 95 its 64, it still gives immunity... check mate?

Wrong. Definition of immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm

If it prevents infection in 64% of cases it doesn't grant immunity.

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

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity And those vaccines are which?, does the study allege any of the current vaccines does not provide immunity?, is so please put the quote and the study for that. Otherwise this is a hypothetical... if x then y... when x is false in reality...

Wrong. The study cited in [47] clearly talks about the therapies from AstraZeneca/Oxford, Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.27.20240309v...

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

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 C…

When did we decide that sharing aljazeera and citing what your friends told you > official data?

I mean, I agree that official data can be forged and should be taken with a grain of salt but come on. You can do better than this.

Also it has been proven that there is a strong inverse correlation between vitamin D levels and covid severity. If we assume that you are right and many more people died in India, how can you prove that it's because the vaccine that in Europe the mortality is so much lower?

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/cl... + https://revista-fi.com.br/upload_arquivos/201606/20160600681... + https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S24054...

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

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

There are big doubts about it.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.27.20240309v...

Also: many people that look into the data of how therapies are going, have high hopes for Novavax, which seems very promising and works in a more "classic way". Sure some people will never get inoculated with anything but that's a different story.

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

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> vaccine effectiveness in preventing both infection Oh man... so you do agree with me it prevents infection... You are contradicting yourself... So, its not 95 its 64, it still gives immunity... check mate?

Wrong. Definition of immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm If it prevents infection in 64% of cases it doesn't grant immunity.

Damn man, you do have trouble with basic concepts.

64% or 95% or whatever of the population are IMMUNE.

It's not 'prevent infection 64% of the timr' as you would in a videogame... It's 'get vaccinated and you have X% chance to develop antibodies, if you do, you are immune.'

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

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity And those vaccines are which?, does the study allege any of the current vaccines does not provide immunity?, is so please put the quote and the study for that. Otherwise this is a hypothetical... if x then y... when x is false in reality...

Wrong. The study cited in [47] clearly talks about the therapies from AstraZeneca/Oxford, Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.27.20240309v...

Oh boy... sorry man, don't have the time to continue this.

47 in link above is a study of the cruise ship, not what you think.

If you meant the actual link above, it clearly states vaccines give immunity but it might be waning, i.e: won't last, same as natural immunity

Best of luck, thought I might help with your logic, but I admit defeat there.

Post reply on HN