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

George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

nclalegal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 146 posts

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#61

Post by seppoonbi3 »

risyachka wrote: post #40
seppoonbi3 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imo it's okay because there is no expectation of people doing everything they can for other people. You could argue that people that don't go to medical school risk lives of the others.

No one will force you to vaccinate if you move do mountains and live in isolation there. But if you want to live among others - you either - follow the rules of majority willingly - will be forced to follow them - move away and leave alone But if you want to live with others and do whatever you want and endanger them - no one will tolerate this and then will be right to.

Let's see again when you actually enforce this by law and we can really talk about "rule". You could still argue that you endanger others by not doing 1000 other precautions, like going to medical school so you can use ballpoint pen to open the airway of that guy that chokes on airplane.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#62

Post by threatofrain »

ampgt wrote: post #12

How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body? For the record: I am vaccinated and I always encourage others to do so. But what is the difference between someone choosing to not vaccinate “because of their religion” and just choosing not to vaccinate? Why is one of those OK and the other isn’t?

Hasn't it been this way since forever?

Firstly, the US has always granted special exceptions to religion for many public policy requirements. You can complain about how it's unfair, but it's likely that the public needle of opinion won't budge past a threshold within this lifetime.

Secondly, there have already been widespread medical requirements for all sorts of aspects of public life, and this hasn't been controversial. Immigrants are required to be immunized. Churches may require missionaries to be immunized. Schools may require children to be immunized.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#63

Post by aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA »

gizmo686 wrote: post #7
sunkenvicar wrote: post #3

18 months into the pandemic we have a rapidly evolving virus, waning vaccine efficacy, and breakthrough infections common enough to warrant a third booster dose. It would be silly to risk altering one’s broad-based, naturally acquired immunity by taking an unnecessary vaccine dose. Just like no one got a chickenpox vaccine after contracting the disease there is no need to get a COVID vaccine after contracting the dis…

The CDC reccomends that adults over 50 who might have had chicken pox get the Shingrix (Shingles) vaccine. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingles/public/shingrix/in...

Shingles sucks. Get the vaccine if you can.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#64

Post by norvvryo »

fatbird wrote: post #49
inter_netuser wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is some evidence that ivermectin has antiviral activity in-vitro, tested on primate cells. Many drugs have effects that are outside of on-label indications, as those are really just for marketing purposes. Physicians are absolutely free to prescribe things off-label, do so routinely, and in fact in many situations the majority of prescriptions happen to be off-label. The only concern here is 1) that concentrati…

Which is to say that the more immediate concern is that it has never been tested or approved for human consumption and there are no guidelines around dosage or expected efficacy and if you're taking it because you heard about it as you seem to have, you're wildly guessing about a treatment in preference to availing yourself of a proven treatment that's been administered almost a billion times in the last 18 months un…

Ivermectin has been tested and approved for use in humans. It is used to treat parasites and rosacea.

https://www.pdr.net/drug-summary/Stromectol-ivermectin-391.1...

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ivermectin#section...

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#65

Post by stickfigure »

risyachka wrote: post #40
seppoonbi3 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imo it's okay because there is no expectation of people doing everything they can for other people. You could argue that people that don't go to medical school risk lives of the others.

No one will force you to vaccinate if you move do mountains and live in isolation there. But if you want to live among others - you either - follow the rules of majority willingly - will be forced to follow them - move away and leave alone But if you want to live with others and do whatever you want and endanger them - no one will tolerate this and then will be right to.

The problem with this statement is that it says exactly the opposite of what you intended.

The actual rule of the majority - coded into law in the united states, at least - is that vaccination is not required. So the truth is, if you want to live with others, you have to accept that folks around you are spreading covid.

Let me be clear: I'm extremely pro-vaccination and think the anti-vaxers are morons. But I'm also vaccinated, and content that pretty much everyone in this country who wants vaccination (and bears any significant risk) has had the opportunity. For the rest, there's infection. Roughly 0.7% of them will die. I wish people would make better life choices, but it's the rule of the land that people get to make stupid choices. Why fight it?

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#66

Post by cycomanic »

josephcsible wrote: post #42
framecowbird wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding vaccination. However, there is a long history of the state telling people what they should do with their body. The two most obvious examples are drug usage and abortion. Why do we accept that but are suddenly outraged by vaccination? Vaccination mandates aren't new either: many countries will not even let you enter unless you are vaccinated against yellow fever. I think there ar…

> there is a long history of the state telling people what they should do with their body. The two most obvious examples are drug usage and abortion. You're only applying this argument in one direction, but it works in both directions. Most people who want the vaccine to be mandatory disagree with the state restricting drug usage and abortion. If you disagree with some policy and want to get it overturned, it seems w…

There is two problems with this argument.

First it's easy to turn it around, it seems wrong to shout now about "infringing my freedom" if you have been pushing to infringe other people's freedom for a long time (I'd say most antivaxers are conservatives at the moment).

And second is that people oppose restricting drug use and abortion for other reasons than simply it is telling someone what to do or not do with their body.

BTW there are many other examples so it's just plain stupid to argue telling me what to do with my body is wrong on principle.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#67

Post by criticaltinker »

djmips wrote: post #22
criticaltinker wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> given the evidence that "natural" immunity has been shown to be less effective at producing neutralizing antibodies than many of the vaccines that are available Down-voted because this is misinformation. First of all the citation you provided does not support your claim at all . Second, a large body of literature suggests that vaccination and natural infection induce a robust and durable immune response that is mos…

Doesn't [4] say exactly that? It seems to indicate that mRNA-1273 vaccination antibodies work better against spike mutation.

> It seems to indicate that mRNA-1273 vaccination antibodies work better against spike mutation.

Yes [4] does kind of say that - but it does not claim that this provides better protection or benefits individual health outcomes.

Here are a few key nuances and limitations:

> We found that the specificity of the mRNA-1273 vaccine-induced RBD-binding antibody response often narrows over time. In contrast, the infection-elicited RBD-binding antibody response often broadens over time.

> Additionally, the overall antibody response is more homogeneous for vaccinated than convalescent individuals.

> another recent study suggests that mRNA vaccination elicits a different distribution of isotypes and fewer antibodies that cross-react to common-cold coronaviruses as compared to infection

> we did not examine effects of mutations or deletions to the N-terminal domain of the spike protein, which can also affect neutralization by vaccine sera.

> Our experiments assayed binding of antibodies to isolated RBD expressed by yeast, and so cannot capture mutational effects on trimer conformation or antibodies with quaternary epitopes

These nuances have implications for viral evolution, and are particularly important in the context of discussions around compulsory mass vaccination and vaccine resistance.

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#68

Post by [deleted] »

xondono wrote: post #52
andi999 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even non sterilizing could be argued, it effects other people if you cannot find an ICU after your car accident because they are full with unvaccinated (and some vaccinated) covid patients.

The problem with this argument is that you can use it to also ban tobacco, and alcohol, and sugar, and red meat, and then you can move to things like sports, and start banning bungee jumping and rock climbing,… There’s no obvious way to draw a line, but you definitely need one.

[deleted]

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#69

Post by criticaltinker »

thurn wrote: post #29
criticaltinker wrote: post #10

I vouched for OP - it is a factual description of a relevant current event that is pertinent to civil liberties. IMO the presented argument is valid and well supported scientifically and legally. It will be very interesting to see if this sets any precedent for other institutions. > GMU and other universities must stop ignoring science and cease forcing mandatory vaccines on even those with naturally acquired immunit…

I'm not precisely sure this where the article's text contains a well-supported legal argument about why the mandate is unconstitutional -- in fact I don't believe there's any discussion at all of the relevant statutes & case law? A link to the decision itself would probably provide more of that information.

Here is the official document that was filed for the civil lawsuit [1], it cites a tremendous amount of case law and statutes.

> the Policy is unmistakably coercive and cannot reasonably be considered anything other than an unlawful mandate. And even if the Policy is not deemed coercive, it still represents an unconstitutional condition being applied to Professor Zywicki’s constitutional rights to bodily integrity and informed medical choice, respectively.

> GMU’s Policy infringes upon Professor Zywicki’s rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution

> In sum, the Policy violates both Professor Zywicki’s constitutional and federal statutory rights

Not sure what the downvotes are for folks, I'm just the messenger - leave a comment if you don't like what you're seeing here so we can at least discuss it.

[1] https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Zywicki-Com...

Re: George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

#70

Post by loxias »

ampgt wrote: post #12

How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body? For the record: I am vaccinated and I always encourage others to do so. But what is the difference between someone choosing to not vaccinate “because of their religion” and just choosing not to vaccinate? Why is one of those OK and the other isn’t?

> "How did we get to a point..."

Every day, we all make tradeoffs as part of the price to pay for living in society. This is not a new thing. (and I assert it's counterproductive and anti-social behavior (harmful to society, the opposite of pro-social, not meaning "introverted") to assert that it is.)

I can't build a DIY rocket powered car and drive it around town. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence.

I can't even drive a store bought car without a drivers license. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence.

I can't open a restaurant and sell food without some sort of license/permit from the city. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence.

(I recently learned the hard way that) I can't even build a new wall in my home without having the design approved and permitted. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence.

I can't attend school (public or private) without DTaP, Polio, and MMR vaccines, making it a de facto requirement of life.

These are all restrictions on personal liberty that we accept up as part of the social contract.

And yet, somehow, there is this (literally!) sickening idea going around that it's a "new thing" to require _this specific_ vaccine. Considering the fact that we know that being un-vaccinated will eventually hurt people (by increasing transmission, and hastening the onset of a disastrous mutation), I'm terrified and enraged that it's not being treated similarly to driving drunk.

Post reply on HN