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

91–100 of 146 posts

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

#91

Post by criticaltinker »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #82
criticaltinker wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the sake of discussion, here are some counter-arguments: > If this was a sterilizing vaccine There's no question that if we had a vaccine that provided sterilizing immunity, the calculus for public health policy would be affected. However, we have to account for the inevitability of viral mutation and evolution. This idea goes hand in hand with the fact that immunity is a spectrum, and just because a vaccine prov…

> Compulsory mass vaccination does not come without significant risks to public health. It's bold of you to keep raising this "anti-vaccination" point verbatim, after it keeps getting flagged, and the responses do not agree with you at all. What is your agenda here? One response: > a shameful misinformation tactic and you should stop doing it immediately So, why did you not stop? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=…

> It's bold of you to keep raising this "anti-vaccination" point

By reducing my statements to simply "anti-vaccination" you're missing the entire nuance of the argument.

I've cited substantial scientific literature which supports the fact that leaky vaccines combined with COMPULSORY mass vaccination can have unexpected and dangerous consequences in terms of viral evolution.

Vaccines are a powerful tool and help save lives, and we should definitely use them. But if used indiscriminately, they can backfire in complex ways. This is extremely pertinent to OP and the discussion on this thread.

It's not charitable or informed of you to reduce my comment to "anti-vaccination" rhetoric. To suggest that I have an "agenda" or that I'm spreading "misinformation" - especially without any supporting references - means your comment is purely ad hominem.

Like you, many others here immediately react negatively to comments that promote anti-vax misinformation. I understand, empathize with, and support that. But after lengthy debate, the person who made the comment you quoted eventually admitted that they over-reacted, and that my argument was more nuanced than they initially realized.

I have not stopped sharing the literature supporting these ideas because many people are completely unaware of the possibility and consequences of vaccine induced immune escape. My comments are in the spirit of fostering sincere and informed debate - nothing more, and nothing less.

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

#92

Post by PostThisTooFast »

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?

Neither is OK. It's not OK to offer yourself up as an incubator for new and more-deadly variants of a global disease.

And that's leaving out the monumental hypocrisy of any anti-vaccine and anti-abortion people. So... it's outrageous to tell people to do with their bodies... unless they're women.

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

#93

Post by s1artibartfast »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #84
s1artibartfast wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if there was a medical treatment prbabisticly reduced aggression, violence, or other antisocial behavior?

If you look at "reducing environmental levels of the metal lead" instead of a "medical treatment" then yes it does exactly that (and other harms). This is the reason for banning of lead in Gasoline, paint, pipes etc etc.

Yes, but this gets away from the bodily autonomy topic which the thread was exploring.

People want bodily autonomy.

People want to be free of the 2nd order harms of the medical decisions others make.

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

#94

Post by true_religion »

josephcsible wrote: post #50
kbenson wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet they can require many things of people that are infringements of rights of expression and autonomy, such as dress codes. If en employee there notified them that they had been infected with a highly infectious disease (think smallpox) and still wanted to go to work, would they have a right to deny that person? If so, what specifically constrains them in a situation like this that wouldn't in a situation like t…

Would you deny a person entrance to your building because they had Ebola or rabies? Would you deny a person entrance to your building because they weren't vaccinated against Ebola or rabies? Why the different answers?

I think it’s okay for a public venue to deny people access due to something being present, but not due to something not being present.

For example, I generally support laws that let people go topless or nude in public. But I’m okay with places banning people due to clothing choices… like all white conical hoods.

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

#95

Post by woofie11 »

andi999 wrote: post #45
Grimm1 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this was a sterilizing vaccine, such that you couldn't spread the virus or be infected after taking it I'd say neither are okay, religious or otherwise, because your personal choice has the potential to affect a wide range of people by getting them sick, making your personal choice not so personal. Your rights end where mine begin and all of that. You shouldn't be able to spread a virus to others without consequen…

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.

It can, but it's a lousy argument. If my body doesn't affect your body, it should be my choice. Freedom is an American value. It's not a world value, and I wouldn't impose it on other countries, but it is an American one.

I'm 100% for vaccine mandates iff vaccines significantly reduce R0.

I'm 100% against them if they do not. Once my vaccination stops affecting the public health, it's my choice.

Banning unsafe things IS a mistake. Yes, I ought to be able to sword fight on a tightrope with sharp swords and no protection over a pit of alligators, if I decide that's what I want to do.

If that's the concern, then triage the unvaccinated COVID19 patients last. But in the long term, capacity expands to meet demand, and it's perfectly okay to change insurance premiums for anti-vaxers, smokers, or otherwise (or sword fighting over a pit of crocodiles, for that matter).

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

#96

Post by woofie11 »

criticaltinker wrote: post #91
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Compulsory mass vaccination does not come without significant risks to public health. It's bold of you to keep raising this "anti-vaccination" point verbatim, after it keeps getting flagged, and the responses do not agree with you at all. What is your agenda here? One response: > a shameful misinformation tactic and you should stop doing it immediately So, why did you not stop? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=…

> It's bold of you to keep raising this "anti-vaccination" point By reducing my statements to simply "anti-vaccination" you're missing the entire nuance of the argument. I've cited substantial scientific literature which supports the fact that leaky vaccines combined with COMPULSORY mass vaccination can have unexpected and dangerous consequences in terms of viral evolution. Vaccines are a powerful tool and help save…

Spirited and informed debate:

Virtually everything I see suggests that the effect is bimodal:

1. Everyone gets vaccinated at the same time, and the disease goes away. Not a lot of disease means not a lot of mutations.

2. No one gets vaccinated, and there is no such effect.

If immune escape is an issue, it seems like the solution would be 100% MANDATORY vaccinations, and to perform vaccinations all at once, region by region, so there are no populations which mix vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

I can't see how making vaccinations non-compulsory will do anything good. Where I live, 2/3 are vaccinated, and 1/3 are not. Virus is spiking, and there are a lot of opportunities for escape from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated. After a few months of similar effect, vaccine effectiveness fell from 95% to around 50%.

I think you gave a very strong argument FOR compulsory vaccination.

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

#98

Post by smorgusofborg »

woofie11 wrote: post #95
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.

It can, but it's a lousy argument. If my body doesn't affect your body, it should be my choice. Freedom is an American value. It's not a world value, and I wouldn't impose it on other countries, but it is an American one. I'm 100% for vaccine mandates iff vaccines significantly reduce R0. I'm 100% against them if they do not. Once my vaccination stops affecting the public health, it's my choice. Banning unsafe things…

> If that's the concern, then triage the unvaccinated COVID19 patients last.

This is an ethics violation.

I don't really get your argument on risk. Non-vaccinated people with natural acquired immunity each got their special card rights by having caused a definite risk to everyone because they computed potential mutations perpetuating the pandemic and most likely perpetuated them. We have too high a population compared to 1918 to even have a that rough equivalent of what happens with a new virus in a pool of any more than 2 billion who aren't vaccinated.

All I hear when I hear anti-vax arguments is a freeloader who refers to natural things that are completely unrelated to the life science is letting them live. If you don't like artificial vaccination, you need to propose how you want to lower the population to pre-science era levels.

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

#99

Post by javagram »

I support vaccine mandates (best way to move society past the pandemic), but an exemption for those with healthy immune systems who can prove via an antibody test or previous positive Covid-19 PCR test that they have naturally developed COVID antibodies after surviving an infection makes sense to me.

In the 19th century, yellow fever survivors were considered to be “acclimated citizens” who were more eligible for jobs, because the employer didn’t have to worry about them catching and dying of yellow fever. The position has historic precedence and seems to stand up, according to current scientists’ analysis of immunity after covid-19 infection being 80% or greater, similar to the J&J vaccine.

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

#100

Post by u801e »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #88
loxias wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

In the case of the parent article, the equivalent framing to add to the list is: I can't rely on my naturally acquired immunity with 80+> efficacy instead of a vaccine with 90% efficacy to go to work. It might hurt people, regardless of my intentions or competence.

What study shows 80% or greater efficacy for primary immunity versus secondary immunity via vaccination? Do they go into detail regarding how long the immunity lasts, and whether it covers varients? Viruses that cause the flu or common cold change from season to season, so immunity (either primary or secondary) doesn't really protect against a subsequent varient.
Post reply on HN