61–70 of 163 posts
Great news. Vaccination requirements are nothing new - I’ve had a WHO issued vaccination passport since the ‘70s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an expert in this field but I am a scientist and have been looking at the various data released on this point, because it's foundational to the reasoning behind the push for universal vaccination using unapproved drugs. I think that which you say is being twisted, the "truth", doesn't yet exist on this topic. We simply don't have scientific consensus yet on whether the current vaccines are fully neutralising.…
We have clear scientific consensus on the fact that vaccines reduce the negative effects of getting COVID, and reduce the likelihood of getting COVID in the first place. So declaring that vaccine mandates won't affect populations 'because you can still get it' is effectively twisting the truth. Or at least applying some really bad logic. The link you provided is unfortunately not helpful. Again, there is overwhelming…
The specific point I was trying to make is that there is conflicting evidence that the vaccines reduce transmission. Since governments around the world pushed vaccines for everyone partly on the hypothesis that it should reduce spread, this is a big problem. The truth about transmission reduction from vaccination is therefore in my mind critical. And so far from what I've read, there is not yet a clear scientific consensus on whether vaccines do indeed significantly reduce transmission.
And for the record, in case anyone is wondering, I'm not a tunnel-visioned troll. I welcome being shown studies that do (or don't!) demonstrate reduction in transmission, which I will read and digest before the next HN debate on this topic. It's only by scientific inquiry and debate that we will get to the truth here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems perfectly reasonable. I would be against vaccinating people by force. I'm not against telling them they can't fly, eat at a restaurant, or attend a concert if they choose to not be vaccinated. ADDED: Governmental mandates vs. rules established by private organizations is a reasonable debate. I probably prefer the latter in most cases. For example, I'm attending an event in about a month and they're requiring va…
Replace vaccinated by any race. Does that sound good? I say that in a non-facetious way to expose bias. We don't say "you have the right to X, BUT if you use that right you don't have the right to do what everyone else does." That's not a right. "You have a right to free expression, but if you express dissent you are barred from using the Internet (it's too dangerous!)".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US federal government is purchasing doses from drug companies at pre-negotiated prices and then giving them away to foreign countries. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-says-it-has-shared-110-mill...
Interesting! Both that and the pre-negotiated part. IIRC, the was not allowed to negotiate for lower drug prices for medicare, but that may have changed.
Also, the deal was worked out before they were done, and they would have been paid even if the drugs did not work.
It's likely because of the election. Trudeau is calling for an election in the next few weeks. By announcing this now, he dares the opposition to say it's the wrong move, so that he can say he's protecting Canadians and the conservatives won't. Keep me in charge to stay safe. Only 10% of Canadians are opposed to vaccines, so it won't be an unpopular choice. And if the opposition says it's the right move, he can say "…
> Only 10% of Canadians are opposed to vaccines, so it won't be an unpopular choice. What does “opposed to vaccines” even mean? Vaccines for anybody? Vaccines for themselves? Mandatory vaccines? I sincerely doubt 10% of even Canada is in favor of mandating everyone be vaccinated to live what was once a normal life. EDIT: I meant that last sentence in reverse, ie doubt that only 10% is against mandatory vaccinations.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replace vaccinated by any race. Does that sound good? I say that in a non-facetious way to expose bias. We don't say "you have the right to X, BUT if you use that right you don't have the right to do what everyone else does." That's not a right. "You have a right to free expression, but if you express dissent you are barred from using the Internet (it's too dangerous!)".
"You have the privilege to drive a personal car, but if you make yourself a danger to others by drinking and driving, the privilege will be revoked" is a more apt comparison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You have the privilege to drive a personal car, but if you make yourself a danger to others by drinking and driving, the privilege will be revoked" is a more apt comparison.
You don't have the right to drive a car (and it's pretty well know e.g. you require a license) in this case. Here people say you have the right to choose what goes in your body and to be treated as a normal person (not a "normal person license" or a "body choice license")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Yes vaccines aren't 100% perfct but they are a whole lot better than nothing. Not if ADE happens with future strains, and the evidence is mounting that it will.
Can you share some of the mounting evidence?
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.04.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.013
Feasibility argument based on molecular modelling:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2021.08.010
Infection-enhancing antibody pathways exist:
It's likely because of the election. Trudeau is calling for an election in the next few weeks. By announcing this now, he dares the opposition to say it's the wrong move, so that he can say he's protecting Canadians and the conservatives won't. Keep me in charge to stay safe. Only 10% of Canadians are opposed to vaccines, so it won't be an unpopular choice. And if the opposition says it's the right move, he can say "…