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

NYC to mandate proof of vaccination for many indoor settings

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 1001 posts

Re: NYC to mandate proof of vaccination for many indoor settings

#81

Post by analyte123 »

bern4444 wrote: post #62
wdhilliard wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem is that the whole thing is based on old data and a false premise that life is safe when vaccinated people are only around vaccinated people. We know this is slightly more true than among the unvaccinated, but only by about 40%. This is real data. Fears of privacy implications: Tracking data/metadata, How data is recorded, How long are records kept. What other data is linked to vaccination checks? Fears of…

Vaccination in NY/NYC is easily proven. Picture of your vaccine card is sufficent and there's also the excelsior pass which is a QR code. Super easy to get from a city/state website after entering a few details (think name, when your last vaccine was, which vaccine etc). This can be downloaded as an image, into apple wallet etc. For those who chose not to, they can stick to carrying around their vaccine card (just as…

Getting a vaccine to cross an international border is not the same as getting a vaccine to walk to a bar on your own street in your own country. Besides, people who have not had the Covid vaccine are not directly preventing anyone from enjoying life. The people are either choosing to not enjoy life themselves, or their government is putting restrictions on them (and then they are obeying them) while blaming the restrictions on non-vaccinated people.

Re: NYC to mandate proof of vaccination for many indoor settings

#82

Post by stnmtn »

tboyd47 wrote: post #69
eropple wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many compulsory vaccines were necessary for you to attend school? For me, it was three or four at least, and until some genuinely inimical people decided vaccines were a good way to get famous at the expense of the body politic, nobody cared .

This is a day-old comment on a thread which never made it to front page HN, and now 5 snarky replies appear in less than 30 minutes. Do you guys all work in the same room or something?

No, I think like someone above said this thread was added to something called a "second chance pool" on HN, which means it gets reposted to the frontpage after X amount of time for a second time, and it rewrites the timestamps. So I think that's what you're seeing

Re: NYC to mandate proof of vaccination for many indoor settings

#83

Post by giantg2 »

polote wrote: post #59
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we're okay requiring masks, and we're okay putting the onus on businesses to enforce that . I'd much rather enforce vaccinations than masks.

It more or less made sense to require masks when people where unvaccinated. But now there is no reason to be OK to require masks either unless you are for mask wearing mandate for everything, everywhere, all the time

"It more or less made sense to require masks when people where unvaccinated. But now there is no reason to be OK to require masks either unless you are for mask wearing mandate for everything, everywhere, all the time"

Well, CDC is saying even vaccinated people should be masking. So it seems we are moving to a public-space mask everywhere all the time.

Re: NYC to mandate proof of vaccination for many indoor settings

#84

Post by tantalor »

tracedddd wrote: post #70
tantalor wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Pointing out a slippery slope doesn’t mean it isn’t worth considering the consequences. My position is indeed speculative, however it’s not without evidence. We very rarely regain rights or freedoms when they are taken so I think it’s valid to be concerned about the same thing happening here.

> not without evidence

Please give examples

Re: NYC to mandate proof of vaccination for many indoor settings

#85

Post by dcow »

benmmurphy wrote: post #43

Surely this is a violation of civil rights law. The law is going to have a disparate impact on minority groups since there is a difference in vaccination rates between different racial groups. The law doesn't seem narrowly scoped to achieve a specific compelling government interest. People from the government seem to be claiming this is being used to incentivise vaccine uptake. If the government made the claim that t…

Then close the gaps.

Re: NYC to mandate proof of vaccination for many indoor settings

#86

Post by ysavir »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #63
ysavir wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If the vaccine is as effective as it seems, then this decision feels positively nanny state to me. It takes away an individual's agency to inform themselves of the risks on both sides and make an informed decision If this were mandating that every resident of NYC must be vaccinated, I would agree. But it's not doing that. It's only saying that anyone wanting to dine (or possibly shop, too) indoors, that is, in space…

It's putting a scarlet letter on these people and shaming them for making their own choice about their own bodies. I think we've determined from other issues that "separate but equal" isn't actually equal. That absolutely applies here.

> It's putting a scarlet letter on these people and shaming them for making their own choice about their own bodies.

Yes, that's how de Blasio phrases it, but I think there's more to it than how he's talked about it.

The way I see these mandates is an effort to have people maintain a person R-naught of less than 1. How each person achieve that is up to them. They can wear masks, they can get vaccinated, they can avoid places with high transmission rates (such as indoor dining/shopping), or a combination of all these things. And ideally we find more options for people to take so that that everyone can help achieve a personal R-naught in a way that best fits their needs.

Ultimately, the goal is to create a win-win scenario where on a personal level individuals can choose what degree of transmission prevention they want to pursue, and on a social level we're organized so that everyone is (hopefully) not infecting others, or doing so so sparsely that the infection rate is going down.

The goal now is to find a comfortable equilibrium in which society can continue to do its thing without explosive outbreaks of Covid. These sort of mandates help get us there. This is all still very new and we need to find more methods in which we can reach that equilibrium, and we should continue to look for them, but we can't let Covid-19 run rampant until we feel we've all the options we like.

Re: NYC to mandate proof of vaccination for many indoor settings

#87

Post by Wowfunhappy »

giantg2 wrote: post #74
alecst wrote: post #9

Pretty dismal discussion in here at the time of writing. Largely complaints about tyranny. Makes me sad that we can't have a calm discussion about the merits of the policy. From what I can tell, you might be opposed to this policy if: 1. You have fears about getting a vaccine, moreso than for coronavirus. If this is you, do you prefer a mask mandate? And if so, how do you enforce this in a restaurant, where anyone ea…

For #2, if you have a medical condition that prevents you from receiving the vaccine it would require either falsified vaccine cards to show you as complying with the mandate, or disclosure of a/the medical condition that prevents you from getting it. Effectively, this small minority is finding themselves in a position that pits their medical privacy of their underlying medical conditions against the requirement to p…

> For #2, if you have a medical condition that prevents you from receiving the vaccine it would require either falsified vaccine cards to show you as complying with the mandate.

IMO, people with legitimate medical conditions should just be granted excelsior passes, the same as those who are vaccinated. There's few enough people with these conditions that it shouldn't be a health issue.

Religious exemptions are the tricky one, since NYC especially has e.g. orthodox jews clustered together in their own communities. IMO, they should not got passes. If they don't want a vaccine, fine—they just won't be able to go to the movies.

Re: NYC to mandate proof of vaccination for many indoor settings

#88

Post by tracedddd »

tantalor wrote: post #84
tracedddd wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pointing out a slippery slope doesn’t mean it isn’t worth considering the consequences. My position is indeed speculative, however it’s not without evidence. We very rarely regain rights or freedoms when they are taken so I think it’s valid to be concerned about the same thing happening here.

> not without evidence Please give examples

Patriot Act.

Re: NYC to mandate proof of vaccination for many indoor settings

#89

Post by SirensOfTitan »

ysavir wrote: post #47
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #39

To preface: I got the vaccine months ago (as soon as I had access), I'm a big believer in vaccines. With that being said, this policy doesn't sit well with me. None of the currently available vaccines in the US are FDA approved. Of course, a lot of people have received those vaccines, but I also don't necessarily fault individuals for feeling hesitant (the nuance here is that I think people ought to get the vaccine).…

>If the vaccine is as effective as it seems, then this decision feels positively nanny state to me. It takes away an individual's agency to inform themselves of the risks on both sides and make an informed decision If this were mandating that every resident of NYC must be vaccinated, I would agree. But it's not doing that. It's only saying that anyone wanting to dine (or possibly shop, too) indoors, that is, in space…

From Alec Karakatsanis's excellent Usual Cruelty on plea bargains:

> “the Constitution requires that every guilty plea waiving the constitutional right to trial by a jury of one’s peers be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.69 But no one who works in the criminal system thinks that contemporary plea bargaining produces voluntary agreements. The vast majority of plea bargains are accepted by people who are told that they will be imprisoned for longer if they do not give up their right to a jury trial. Many of these people are in jail and are told that pleading guilty is the only immediate way out of jail. In no other cultural context would the word “voluntary” describe this arrangement. Should my coworker ask a person out on a dinner date but tell the person that, if he does not accept, he will be placed in a cage, no one would view the person’s agreement to dine with my coworker as voluntary. That’s not how we understand “voluntary” actions.”

Plea bargains are a totally different world, I'm not trying to compare this decision with plea bargains. What I would like to illustrate, through the author's example, is the process by which modern governments reduce the individual's agency in a de-facto manner, while de-jure asserting that individual's rights are upheld. People have been stuck inside for so, so long, keeping them out of restaurants if they don't get vaccinated is surely just manipulating their decision making toward getting a vaccine they may be uncomfortable getting.

I suppose I don't really get what good this does. If a person decides to not get vaccinated and then decides to dine indoors, who are they harming, other than potentially themselves, by making that decision? I wish they would get the vaccine, but I also do respect their rights to judge the information available for themselves without severely restricting their ability to live their lives.

Re: NYC to mandate proof of vaccination for many indoor settings

#90

Post by janitor61 »

pragmatically, the mandatory vaccinations seem to be predicated on the following assumptions:

1. Asymptomatic transmission is the primary vector and just as dangerous as being in proximity to a sick individual - has this been confirmed or refuted? Obviously-sick people aren't going to be in restaurants and bars so they can be taken out of the equation entirely. The virus has a normal lifecycle like all others: incubation, infestation and recovery, and during the 2nd phase people should be showing symptoms that our human instincts would urge us to isolate from and ostracize against.

2. The human body cannot become immune to a strain of this virus by recovering from it naturally - most people have had the virus by now, and if the virus is omnipresent, the non-vaccinated should keep becoming re-infected and in a perpetual state of illness - greatly multiplying their chances of death. I don't see the fatality data supporting this hypothesis, so natural recovery immunity is probably serving some protective function.

Post reply on HN