Ask HN: Are any of you still unvaccinated? If so, why? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: Are any of you still unvaccinated? If so, why?

#21

Post by ggm » Sun, Sep 26, 2021, 11:08 PM UTC

electrotype wrote: post #19

ggm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If serology testing can show you have immunity, I would support giving seropositive people the equivalent of a vaccine passport, if the epidemiologists confirm its good immunity. So, I can see a basis for your reasoning. I would personally choose to still get vaccinated in your situation.

> I would personally choose to still get vaccinated in your situation. Why, if I may ask?

Because the certainty around the natural immunity is probably as questionable as the level of immunity from vaccination. Both are subject to epidemiological confirmation.

The potential harm of a re-infection or of infecting others is higher than the personal risk of being vaccinated.

Re: Ask HN: Are any of you still unvaccinated? If so, why?

#22

Post by electrotype » Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 5:44 AM UTC

ggm wrote: post #21

electrotype wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would personally choose to still get vaccinated in your situation. Why, if I may ask?

Because the certainty around the natural immunity is probably as questionable as the level of immunity from vaccination. Both are subject to epidemiological confirmation. The potential harm of a re-infection or of infecting others is higher than the personal risk of being vaccinated.

I understand re-infection is something to think about. But infecting others is not an argument, as vaccinated persons can infect as much as unvacinnated ones. This is proven: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKFWGvvlVLI

Re: Ask HN: Are any of you still unvaccinated? If so, why?

#23

Post by zepto » Mon, Sep 27, 2021, 1:59 PM UTC

nyokodo wrote: post #20

zepto wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That might be true if the people developing and testing the vaccine were the same people belittling natural immunity. Why does it need to be confined to that group? > Lumping them together is just the same behavior of which you accuse them, political. Where do I accuse a group of something? Where do I “lump people together”. > Should we be suspicious of you? You are free to be suspicious of whoever you choose.

> Why does it need to be confined to that group? Because they're the ones actually presenting the vaccines to the world, and being pro-vax doesn't mean being a deceitful natural immunity denier. I.e unless there is a significant overlap of [vaccine producer and vaccine approver], and [deceitful natural immunity denier] in a Venn diagram then it isn't reasonable to lay the suspicion of the deniers onto those who produ…

> Because they're the ones actually presenting the vaccines to the world

No, the drug developers and testers are not the ones ‘presenting’ the vaccines to the world. The vaccines are being presented by politicians and drug companies.

> By being suspicious of the vaccines

Where did I say I was suspicious of the vaccines?

> I don't have to because I can go read the studies myself, and I was personally in one of them.

Being in a study on vaccines doesn’t tell you anything about the population data, but it might create a personal attachment.

In any case, you may be able to read the papers, but most people obviously can’t, and are relying on public communicators to help form their understanding.

In this context, suppression of true information creates distrust.