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

411–420 of 460 posts

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#411

Post by tinus_hn »

jmull wrote: post #404
tinus_hn wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course! Now how is it logical to not allow person A, who has X*1.6 chance of infecting someone else, into a bar without a test, but do allow person B, who has X chance of infecting someone else? Is X chance not a problem, but X*1.6 is? And why is that? Just because the blessed action results in a chance of X? edit by the way the magical number for how effective the popular vaccines are against getting infected and…

Your 42% Pfizer number appears to come from a study that suggests we (1) use Moderna, which is 76% effective, and (2) get boosters, not to not bother with the Vaccines. Also, it's a single study, preprint, and not yet reviewed, so not that appropriate for setting public policy. It looks like your X*1.6 formula is made-up nonsense.

Feel free to show a different study. Whatever the exact number it’s clear that it’s nowhere near 100% (just like 76% is not), and whatever booster scheme you fantasize about has to be accounted for in these vaccine passport schemes, which, surprise surprise, typically is not the case. As long as you did the blessed dance of 2 Pfizer or Moderna shots you’re clear to go.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#412

Post by [deleted] »

hervature wrote: post #331
junon wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not calling them stupid for not having a PhD. GP simply stated that we should be consulting experts in the fields, not laypeople, when it comes to things of a scientific nature. These were your words, not theirs.

They said: > If it’s not a PhD in biochemistry or something similar, then it’s not relevant to their decision making abilities In my opinion, that is much closer to "if you don't have a PhD in biochemistry, you can't don't deserve to make a decision (i.e. stupid)" than "listen to experts".

[deleted]

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#413

Post by arrosenberg »

hervature wrote: post #331
junon wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not calling them stupid for not having a PhD. GP simply stated that we should be consulting experts in the fields, not laypeople, when it comes to things of a scientific nature. These were your words, not theirs.

They said: > If it’s not a PhD in biochemistry or something similar, then it’s not relevant to their decision making abilities In my opinion, that is much closer to "if you don't have a PhD in biochemistry, you can't don't deserve to make a decision (i.e. stupid)" than "listen to experts".

I was responding to the comment of "Even people with PhDs are questioning it...". A PhD in English Lit isn't going to help you understand how vaccines, mRNA or viral transmission models work. Listen to experts in those topics.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#414

Post by jmull »

tinus_hn wrote: post #411
jmull wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your 42% Pfizer number appears to come from a study that suggests we (1) use Moderna, which is 76% effective, and (2) get boosters, not to not bother with the Vaccines. Also, it's a single study, preprint, and not yet reviewed, so not that appropriate for setting public policy. It looks like your X*1.6 formula is made-up nonsense.

Feel free to show a different study. Whatever the exact number it’s clear that it’s nowhere near 100% (just like 76% is not), and whatever booster scheme you fantasize about has to be accounted for in these vaccine passport schemes, which, surprise surprise, typically is not the case. As long as you did the blessed dance of 2 Pfizer or Moderna shots you’re clear to go.

We’re back to nobody said the vaccines are 100% effective. You also don’t address the arguments raised and instead argue against things that aren’t being argued, like “booster scheme” fantasies. I think you’re just trolling.

It’s weird, because to the extent you are able to convince anyone, you can, at best, get some people killed. What even is the point of that? Worse, your mealy arguments could only work on the poorest critical thinkers, so you’re picking on the weak — the very people who need a hand. IDK, I couldn’t feel good about myself, doing what you’re doing.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#415

Post by TeeMassive »

shkkmo wrote: post #371
TeeMassive wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a joke? Japan's Unit 731 The Nazi medical experiments MK Ultra in the US and Canada and elsewhere in the world Lobotomy and the other psychiatric abuses The human atomic bomb and nuclear radiation experiments Tuskegee syphilis experiments Buck v. Bell which game way to +70k forced sterilizations, which by the way relied upon Jacobson v. Massachusetts where the State forced vaccination upon someone who had adv…

Every one of those examples has nothing to do with requiring vaccinations to attend schools. Only the last one has any relation to vaccine mandates at all and the causal link there is somewhat tenous given the sordid particulars of Buck v Bell (including the deliberate incompetence of Buck's lawyer). It isn't clear that case would have gone differently without the Jacobsen v. Massachusetts precedent. Given the streng…

> Every one of those examples has nothing to do with requiring vaccinations to attend schools.

You're making a distinction without making a meaningful difference. They have everything to do with requiring a medical intervention by the state, which has led to abuse in the past. Jacobson led to Bell v. Buck which led to forced sterilizations. And I should have mentioned King Leopold using Congolese as vaccine test subjects.

> Only the last one has any relation to vaccine mandates at all and the causal link there is somewhat tenous given the sordid particulars of Buck v Bell (including the deliberate incompetence of Buck's lawyer). It isn't clear that case would have gone differently without the Jacobsen v. Massachusetts precedent.

Having a bad lawyer is irrelevant the judges still have to know the law. And Jacobson was crucial in the decision because it negated the limit the State has on bodily integrity. Also given that you backup your claims with no arguments, they could simply be dismissed with no arguments, but they needed to be addressed nonetheless.

> Given the strength which which you made your claim, I thought you would have better evidence to support it.

Forced medical procedures lead to abuses. I've given many historical examples. Your counterpoints are not supported by any meaningful counter-examples.

> I do think that the medical attrocities you list have had a lasting and deleterious effect on public trust of government medical ethics and contribute significantly to vaccine hestitancy.

Coercion and total lack of accountability aren't exactly the best marketing strategy.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#416

Post by TeeMassive »

howinteresting wrote: post #401
TeeMassive wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're often not forced for mundane tasks such as going to the restaurant or the gym. And the vaccines were administered for decades prior and for diseases far more dangerous than Covid19.

Both of them are nonessential tasks, definitely far less essential than school.

Freedom and the pursuit of happiness are also essential.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#417

Post by ghoward »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #408
ghoward wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So staying unvaccinated counts as reckless now?

Are you saying that it’s a responsible decision, one that won’t have consequences for people who cannot get vaccinated?

I'm saying it could be a responsible decision for the person making the decision.

The false premise that we should care about other people's health is annoying at this point. The vaccinated can still spread the virus, so we should make the decision to get vaccinated for ourselves, and those who don't make the orthodox decision should not be vilified.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#418

Post by shkkmo »

TeeMassive wrote: post #415
shkkmo wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every one of those examples has nothing to do with requiring vaccinations to attend schools. Only the last one has any relation to vaccine mandates at all and the causal link there is somewhat tenous given the sordid particulars of Buck v Bell (including the deliberate incompetence of Buck's lawyer). It isn't clear that case would have gone differently without the Jacobsen v. Massachusetts precedent. Given the streng…

> Every one of those examples has nothing to do with requiring vaccinations to attend schools. You're making a distinction without making a meaningful difference. They have everything to do with requiring a medical intervention by the state, which has led to abuse in the past. Jacobson led to Bell v. Buck which led to forced sterilizations. And I should have mentioned King Leopold using Congolese as vaccine test subj…

> You're making a distinction without making a meaningful difference.

You made an very strong "always" claim. All that is needed to refute such a claim is a single counter example. I brought up school vaccination requirements because I believe they are an important exception to the principle you put forward. (I could probably have also picked border entry vaccination requirements.)

In my view, you should have made a weaker claim, such as that forced medical interventions have a history of problematic abuse and have lead to atrocities. As a result, new types of forced medical intervention (and generally any type of violation of body sovereignty) should be approached with extre caution.

> Having a bad lawyer is irrelevant the judges still have to know the law.

This is factually and obviously false. If lawyers aren't needed to help judges to decide cases fairly and in accordance with the law, then why so we have them and why do we pay them so much money?

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#419

Post by dkdk8283 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #407
spookthesunset wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing unique or special about covid that requires society to adapt to some dystopian "new normal". There is nothing but fear that stops society from returning back to what life was like in 2019. Many places are completely over this already.

> Many places are completely over this already. For example?

Florida has been open for awhile and Gov DeSantis is actively fighting measures that would require vaccine passports etc.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#420

Post by spookthesunset »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #407
spookthesunset wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing unique or special about covid that requires society to adapt to some dystopian "new normal". There is nothing but fear that stops society from returning back to what life was like in 2019. Many places are completely over this already.

> Many places are completely over this already. For example?

Drive 20 miles outside any blue city and nobody cares.
Post reply on HN