Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NYC to Require Proof of at Least 1 Dose Indoors at Restaurants, Gyms and More

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 92 posts

Re: NYC to Require Proof of at Least 1 Dose Indoors at Restaurants, Gyms and More

#41

Post by boring_twenties »

version_five wrote: post #11

If you are trapped there, maybe you have no choice, but why would one willingly visit a place that treats you like that? I have my vaccinations, but I would not spend money anywhere that wanted me to prove it. I go out and spend money to relax and enjoy myself, if businesses start to pretend that I owe them something for the privilege of spending money there, I just won't do it. People lose their minds because its co…

I'm curious how you feel about having to show ID to enter a bar or buy alcohol?

To me, it seems that showing your home address to every bouncer is a much greater invasion of privacy than vaccination status.

Re: NYC to Require Proof of at Least 1 Dose Indoors at Restaurants, Gyms and More

#42

Post by babesh »

babesh wrote: post #37
Analemma_ wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re not allowed to walk into public places spraying bullets in every direction, but that is what you are potentially doing when you’re not vaccinated. Piss off with the juvenile freedom argument; freedom stops where your nose does and does not cover fatal contagions.

You do know how the vaccine works right? The virus still infects you and quite possibly reproduces for awhile. It is just that your immune system has been primed to recognize the virus and kill off cells that have been infected. In other words, vaccinated people can still spread the virus. https://www.immunology.org/public-information/bitesized-immu...

In fact, in some cases, the virus will break through meaning that not only do you get the virus but you show symptoms. Also there are cases of vaccinated people infecting other vaccinated people.

Re: NYC to Require Proof of at Least 1 Dose Indoors at Restaurants, Gyms and More

#43

Post by babesh »

babesh wrote: post #33
Analemma_ wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re not allowed to walk into public places spraying bullets in every direction, but that is what you are potentially doing when you’re not vaccinated. Piss off with the juvenile freedom argument; freedom stops where your nose does and does not cover fatal contagions.

This logic is shete. There are already several classes of people who either can’t or shouldn’t take the vaccines: kids under twelve, immunocompromised, and people who have severe reactions to vaccines. It’s weird but I happen to have family members in several of those categories. According to this shete logic, we should close all elementary schools, daycares, and nursing homes.

Also it is psychotic to vaccinate kids right now. We don’t have a good sense of the long term side effects of the vaccine. We usually figure that out with long term trials lasting years.

Re: NYC to Require Proof of at Least 1 Dose Indoors at Restaurants, Gyms and More

#44

Post by wahern »

criticaltinker wrote: post #38

You know what would make requirements like these much more palatable? If there was accommodation for people who already have antibodies (ie have been infected and recovered). There is mounting evidence that people with naturally acquired immunity will not significantly benefit from further vaccination [1][2]. This is a strong argument for strategically targeting our vaccination efforts toward the highest risk populat…

> There is mounting evidence that people with naturally acquired immunity will not significantly benefit from further vaccination

It's a shame that the mainstream, public health narrative unquestioningly rejects prior infection as an alternative. All substantial evidence points to the contrary.

That said, identifying those who've legitimately had a prior infection is rather difficult. There are no "I had a PCR-confirmed infection" passports. A large and unlikely fraction of the population believes they were infected, with endless anecdotes about illnesses at the end of 2019 and beginning of 2020. Furthermore, vaccination really shouldn't pose any undue risk to this population.

But, yeah, it's yet another unforced error by public health officials (or at least the media interpreting and relaying their guidance) to outright reject this argument.

Re: NYC to Require Proof of at Least 1 Dose Indoors at Restaurants, Gyms and More

#45

Post by AnnoyedComment »

criticaltinker wrote: post #40
AnnoyedComment wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is your text all grey? Is this what we do to dissenting opinions on this site? It's the first time I've seen the effect (I'm new to the site). Regardless, I agree with the sentiment professed above that this is an unconscionable action at the government level.

This happens when a comment is down-voted. Sometimes it happens to non-mainstream opinions being voiced, but more often it's because the comment is considered by others to be inflammatory or unsubstantiative. See the site guidelines for more details https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html .

I see. It only appears to happen thus far when it goes against the mainstream thought process. I'm sure I'll see some apolitical usage at some point, but I've yet to witness it. Thank you for your answer.

Re: NYC to Require Proof of at Least 1 Dose Indoors at Restaurants, Gyms and More

#46

Post by criticaltinker »

wahern wrote: post #44
criticaltinker wrote: post #38

You know what would make requirements like these much more palatable? If there was accommodation for people who already have antibodies (ie have been infected and recovered). There is mounting evidence that people with naturally acquired immunity will not significantly benefit from further vaccination [1][2]. This is a strong argument for strategically targeting our vaccination efforts toward the highest risk populat…

> There is mounting evidence that people with naturally acquired immunity will not significantly benefit from further vaccination It's a shame that the mainstream, public health narrative unquestioningly rejects prior infection as an alternative. All substantial evidence points to the contrary. That said, identifying those who've legitimately had a prior infection is rather difficult. There are no "I had a PCR-confir…

Well put, and I definitely agree on the point of verifying prior infection being difficult and costly.

> Furthermore, vaccination really shouldn't pose any undue risk to this population

I also agree with this point, and it is corroborated by the primary sources I've reviewed. That said, I want to emphasize that it doesn't seem like a good tradeoff to waste vaccines on people who will not benefit from it, especially if that precludes vaccinating the most vulnerable populations across the world.

Re: NYC to Require Proof of at Least 1 Dose Indoors at Restaurants, Gyms and More

#47

Post by himinlomax »

anonymouswacker wrote: post #30
whateveracct wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got a better idea?

Yeah. Let people do what they want. When did centralization of power ever do anything good without horrible unintended consequences?

Freedom to contaminate?

Re: NYC to Require Proof of at Least 1 Dose Indoors at Restaurants, Gyms and More

#48

Post by himinlomax »

babesh wrote: post #43
babesh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This logic is shete. There are already several classes of people who either can’t or shouldn’t take the vaccines: kids under twelve, immunocompromised, and people who have severe reactions to vaccines. It’s weird but I happen to have family members in several of those categories. According to this shete logic, we should close all elementary schools, daycares, and nursing homes.

Also it is psychotic to vaccinate kids right now. We don’t have a good sense of the long term side effects of the vaccine. We usually figure that out with long term trials lasting years.

Yes we do. There are hundreds of vaccines, none have long term side effects. There was some suspicion regarding one flu vaccine and narcolepsy, but it's been mostly ruled out and is entirely due to the peculiar etiology of that disorder, not the vaccine as such (the virus it targets is the known trigger for that autoimmune disorder).

Re: NYC to Require Proof of at Least 1 Dose Indoors at Restaurants, Gyms and More

#49

Post by himinlomax »

babesh wrote: post #37
Analemma_ wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re not allowed to walk into public places spraying bullets in every direction, but that is what you are potentially doing when you’re not vaccinated. Piss off with the juvenile freedom argument; freedom stops where your nose does and does not cover fatal contagions.

You do know how the vaccine works right? The virus still infects you and quite possibly reproduces for awhile. It is just that your immune system has been primed to recognize the virus and kill off cells that have been infected. In other words, vaccinated people can still spread the virus. https://www.immunology.org/public-information/bitesized-immu...

Vaccinated people can still catch the virus, die from it and spread it. Just like non drunk people can still kill people with their cars.

The point is that they're much less likely to do so, just like being sober makes you less likely to commit vehicular manslaughter.

Re: NYC to Require Proof of at Least 1 Dose Indoors at Restaurants, Gyms and More

#50

Post by dagsdgfhdgdj »

wahern wrote: post #44
criticaltinker wrote: post #38

You know what would make requirements like these much more palatable? If there was accommodation for people who already have antibodies (ie have been infected and recovered). There is mounting evidence that people with naturally acquired immunity will not significantly benefit from further vaccination [1][2]. This is a strong argument for strategically targeting our vaccination efforts toward the highest risk populat…

> There is mounting evidence that people with naturally acquired immunity will not significantly benefit from further vaccination It's a shame that the mainstream, public health narrative unquestioningly rejects prior infection as an alternative. All substantial evidence points to the contrary. That said, identifying those who've legitimately had a prior infection is rather difficult. There are no "I had a PCR-confir…

> There are no "I had a PCR-confirmed infection" passports

Despite its name the EU COVID vaccination certificate also covers recording PCR-confirmed infections and even tests.

It is open source so even less developed countries like the US could use it if they wanted to.

Post reply on HN