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

England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 460 posts

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#391

Post by himinlomax »

TeeMassive wrote: post #349
snovv_crash wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Full FDA approval has happened though. It was basically just a formality that anti-vaxxers managed to find. At this point the vaccines are known to be safe, they have billions of doses given.

There are no way to know the long terms effects (if you do please provide the plans of your time traveling machine to nearest patent office). The drug companies are not only under total immunity but also will get paid regardless if the vaccine works or not in the long term. The reporting of adverse effects is probably getting suppressed, for example OSHA is now admitting it won't record vaccines adverse effects so it…

> There are no way to know the long terms effects

Vaccines almost never have long term side effects, and there is no reason to believe the vaccines at hand have any reason to have any. But maybe it does. What's the probability? Based on those priors, extremely low. Not zero, but extremely low.

The disease, on the other hand, definitely has long term side effects. We know that.

If the risk of infection was low, you'd have a point. Maybe. But the fact is, without vaccine, everyone stands a very significant chance of getting infected. The very small risk of long term side effects is just ridiculous compared to those of the disease, and unlike the vaccine, the disease does not care about your "freedom."

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#392

Post by rdtwo »

Nexxxeh wrote: post #367
rdtwo wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I checked no for the same reason. Also I don’t want corporations to profit off my body parts. It would be different if they shared the money with my family or they at least got to choose who got them.

But then your organs just go to waste, rather than be used to save lives.

Yeah it’s true but I’d rather not enrich a bunch of middle men. I think the system is unfair and I don’t want to contribute

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#393

Post by pbourke »

ghoward wrote: post #323
pbourke wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You might protest that I could still infect you if I get COVID on the opposite side of town by infecting someone else who infects you. This is false. The person who actually infected you infected you If you had reasonable actions available to you (wearing a mask, getting vaccinated) that you chose not to pursue, then yes, in my view you do bear some responsibility for continuing the chain of infection. If you had t…

Patient zero had reasonable actions they could have done. They could have followed protocols better, so should we still blame them? If I get a vaccine and suffer an adverse reaction, should I receive blame for getting the vaccine? After all, since compensation for adverse reactions are paid for by society (the government), I failed to protect my life and my community, as you say. By the way, hospitals have been under…

> Patient zero had reasonable actions they could have done. They could have followed protocols better

Patient zero being the first person who contracted COVID-19? I wasn't aware that they had been identified.

> If I get a vaccine and suffer an adverse reaction, should I receive blame for getting the vaccine? After all, since compensation for adverse reactions are paid for by society (the government), I failed to protect my life and my community, as you say.

All of the evidence at this point is that the harms from getting vaccinated are orders of magnitude less than the harms from the disease. So no, you should not receive blame because you took the best action known to you at the time.

> By the way, hospitals have been under strain long before COVID. That's how they operate.

They are under strain now because of COVID, out of all proportion to the strain experienced in recent memory from any other cause.

> Also, if I get vaccinated and found get myself tested regularly, I could spread COVID. Is taking a test weekly to prevent spread as a vaccinated person a reasonable action?

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Yes, get tested if you are worried about being exposed to COVID, irrespective of whether you're vaccinated. Leading epidemiologists have long called for widespread rapid antigen testing to prevent asymptomatic spread.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#394

Post by joenot443 »

Nexxxeh wrote: post #375
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We regularly show papers for everyday activities - library card for reading books, ID for a hotel stay, driving license for driving a car, ID to pickup a parcel etc. This is a classic demonstration that "slippery slope" isn't a fallacy. First you need a driving license. Privacy conscious people objected. You don't need to show your driving license to drive, was the response, only if you break traffic laws or get in…

>Privacy conscious people object. Now the response is, hey, you already have to show your driving license if you get pulled over for speeding, what's the difference? The main objections to vaccine passports in England aren't privacy, they're that it discriminates against those who refuse to get vaccinated. >And you don't have to show your vaccine passport if you, um, never go outside again. You'd have to show your va…

>The main objections to vaccine passports in England aren't privacy, they're that it discriminates against those who refuse to get vaccinated.

Plenty of Canadians, like myself, have huge objections to the privacy implications of our passport program.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#395

Post by ghoward »

pbourke wrote: post #393
ghoward wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patient zero had reasonable actions they could have done. They could have followed protocols better, so should we still blame them? If I get a vaccine and suffer an adverse reaction, should I receive blame for getting the vaccine? After all, since compensation for adverse reactions are paid for by society (the government), I failed to protect my life and my community, as you say. By the way, hospitals have been under…

> Patient zero had reasonable actions they could have done. They could have followed protocols better Patient zero being the first person who contracted COVID-19? I wasn't aware that they had been identified. > If I get a vaccine and suffer an adverse reaction, should I receive blame for getting the vaccine? After all, since compensation for adverse reactions are paid for by society (the government), I failed to prot…

> Patient zero being the first person who contracted COVID-19? I wasn't aware that they had been identified.

They haven't. Neither can we identify with certainty who spread COVID to who. Yet you want to blame the unvaccinated.

> All of the evidence at this point is that the harms from getting vaccinated are orders of magnitude less than the harms from the disease. So no, you should not receive blame because you took the best action known to you at the time.

For those who might be at risk for one or more of the adverse events from the vaccine, or have already recovered from COVID, the best action would be to not get the vaccine. Yet you still want to put culpability on their shoulders. Your can't have it both ways.

> They are under strain now because of COVID, out of all proportion to the strain experienced in recent memory from any other cause.

They are under more strain, yes. How much of that is COVID, and how much is that hospitals are not willing to pay enough to stay staffed?

> I don't know what you're trying to say here. Yes, get tested if you are worried about being exposed to COVID, irrespective of whether you're vaccinated. Leading epidemiologists have long called for widespread rapid antigen testing to prevent asymptomatic spread.

I'm saying that if it's reasonable to blame the unvaccinated for spreading COVID, it's also reasonable to blame the vaccinated who don't get tested weekly because getting tested weekly is, in your terms, a "reasonable action." In other words, if you think the unvaccinated are culpable, so are the vaccinated who don't get tested weekly.

If you claim that requiring the vaccinated to get tested weekly is not reasonable, then my answer is that neither is it reasonable to blame the unvaccinated. In fact, in my opinion, it's as reasonable as requiring weekly COVID tests. You and I would have different definitions of reasonable. We are not going to agree.

You want to blame me for COVID and to force me to conform to an orthodoxy that changes daily, and you call that reasonable. I want to be left alone and call that reasonable.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#396

Post by jokethrowaway »

ghaff wrote: post #181
kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In America it’s widely controversial to require ID when voting Yes, one party seems to think those of a non-white skin color are unable (through ignorance or lack of access) to obtain any form of ID so they can vote.

That's rather one-sided. Both major US parties recognize (almost certainly correctly) that the more friction you put in the voting process, however seemingly reasonable, the fewer low-income people will proportionately vote. And one party considers that a bug while the other considers it a feature. ADDED: Is there anything in this statement that is remotely controversial?

As a European, I think it's completely insane not to have to provide an ID to vote.

Of course it's a system that's ripe for fraud if you can't even identify and record voters reliably.

I don't know how you can think this will introduce any more friction for low income people. You need an ID to drive. You may introduce friction for illegal immigrants and mentally handicapped homeless.

Saying this will affect low income people doesn't make any sense. Saying this will affect black people is plain racist.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#397

Post by ghoward »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #343
ghoward wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also hold sober drivers accountable when they cause accidents. Why not vaccinated people when they spread the virus?

Only when they do something reckless, like look at their cellphones or sleep on rhe wheel. Or speed or blow a red light. Otherwise it’s civil penalties at most

So staying unvaccinated counts as reckless now?

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#398

Post by jokethrowaway »

hervature wrote: post #163
junon wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> against free and informed consent This is a problem - it is often not very informed. As for medical history, we have to show vaccination records for a number of things - school, travel sometimes, certain lines of work. Proof of vaccination against a highly mutation-prone virus in the midst of a pandemic doesn't reveal anything more about you than it would about anyone else - which is specifically allowed via HIPAA,…

What about waiting for full FDA approval? I agree that your Facebook Mom groups are full of BS but why are PhD earners more hesitant than only high school educated [1]. [1] - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v...

FDA approval is worthless.

The chance of long term effects is not very high. You'll likely survive covid without pneumonia and you'll likely survive the vaccine without an aneurysm.

The reason I was hesitant was: - It doesn't stop the spread - I already had covid / the risks of covid are mostly minuscole for healthy young people - New variants will drop the efficacy

In the end, I did it only because I was planning to travel (which ended up being wise, given the requirements). And I still had to waste money getting tested.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#399

Post by manquer »

ghaff wrote: post #387
manquer wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airbnb is usually good for those scenarios, they have your details already, and hosts will not ask any further.

It was a bit late at that point. I was near SFO in the evening and needed a room.

of course, you were already at the motel so it made sense to try and negotiate there first.

Airbnbs near SFO at San Mateo or Burlingame is just as expensive as hotels anyway!

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#400

Post by ghaff »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #396
ghaff wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's rather one-sided. Both major US parties recognize (almost certainly correctly) that the more friction you put in the voting process, however seemingly reasonable, the fewer low-income people will proportionately vote. And one party considers that a bug while the other considers it a feature. ADDED: Is there anything in this statement that is remotely controversial?

As a European, I think it's completely insane not to have to provide an ID to vote. Of course it's a system that's ripe for fraud if you can't even identify and record voters reliably. I don't know how you can think this will introduce any more friction for low income people. You need an ID to drive. You may introduce friction for illegal immigrants and mentally handicapped homeless. Saying this will affect low incom…

>Saying this will affect black people is plain racist.

Did you actually just call me a racist for very lightly touching on the fact that there's a whole lot of racial history tied in with voting rights in the US?

Maybe you should just keep your mouth closed until you learn something about what the hell you're talking about because you clearly don't.

And I'll let the rest of your words stand by themselves. Many legal US citizens do not drive and do not have government ID. Is it a lot? Probably not but it's enough to drive political decisions around voting where fraud is actually not a serious problem.

But really, don't care that a European thinks we should be required to have an ID to vote.

Post reply on HN