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

US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

federalregister.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 108 posts

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#91

Post by salawat »

arcticbull wrote: post #23
imperio59 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've only had mRNA vaccines for two years. Also there are starting to be plenty of companies requiring boosters. Do you want to get a new experimental vaccine whose long term effects are poorly known every few months?

> We've only had mRNA vaccines for two years. First off, mRNA was discovered in the 1960s, first used for drug delivery in the 1970s, and vaccines in 1975. [1] The work to create these vaccines has been under way for almost 60 years. It also builds off the work of other coronavirus vaccines that have been in development since SARS and MERS about 20 years ago. If that's for some reason not sufficient, J&J, Covishield…

>given half of America is currently infected

Point of order: the ideal test of a vaccine is:

Given uninfected || infected but early When disease runs course Then Side effects minimized/non-existent Symptoms and severity of disease minimized.

The worst time to test a vaccine is when everyone is in the "Oh snap, infected" situation, as it allows for teasing out of long cycle problems (like say unintentional sterilization or birth defects inducement) before introducing it to the majority of the population.

Life hardly ever is that accommodating however.

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#92

Post by joshuamorton »

merlincorey wrote: post #89
joshuamorton wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are unfortunately projecting an argument onto me. As are you, I never used the term "long term" until you did. My initial comment was "Can you give a coherent biological mechanism by which the vaccine would have health impacts that aren't detectable over the course of say 3 months?" So now that I've attempted to clarify, let's ask the related question: if we agree that any side effect (short-, or long-term) wou…

My original reply to you quoted your sentence which I will requote here: > In other words, the only vaccine side effects possible after a month or so are a strict subset of covid side effects. At this point you're just talking past me -- and maybe I am talking past you as well. I don't personally hold any particular view about short or long term studies, but I do enjoy logic and engaging in discussion. > if we agree…

> At this point you're just talking past me -- and maybe I am talking past you as well.

Right yes, note how I didn't say anything about "long-term" side effects (or studies). I said that side effects would be present after a short period. That's the only claim I made.

Both of the studies you mention show examples of side effects that were present quickly. The 1976 case was a vaccination campaign that started on October 1, 1976 and ended in on December 16th, due to the potential for GBS. In other words, it took ~2 months for the cases to be recognized, studied, and the vaccination program entirely stopped. There was absolutely nothing "long-term" here.

I can't find precise enough dates for the Swine flu vaccine. But it looks like initial trials concluded in late 2009, and the vaccine had been canceled in at least a few countries within a year.

> This is a very long term study and I think we needed it, personally.

Sure, for learning about things. But it doesn't tell us anything new about safety, the safety concerns were known and acted on within 2 months, without any study, much less a "long-term" one.

There's of course the other issue with these things, which is that these kinds of side effects affect 1-in-50 or 100,000 people. To detect that with any power, you need to dose a million people, and at that point its no longer a trial. It's just "the first part of the vaccine rollout".

> after months or years of study... so we should keep studying them

Certainly, but you appear to agree that there's no reason to wait for those studies before getting vaccinated, which is the context this thread began in (in other words, I don't really care, except in the vague sense that they'll hopefully help us better understand physiology)

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#93

Post by merlincorey »

joshuamorton wrote: post #92
merlincorey wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My original reply to you quoted your sentence which I will requote here: > In other words, the only vaccine side effects possible after a month or so are a strict subset of covid side effects. At this point you're just talking past me -- and maybe I am talking past you as well. I don't personally hold any particular view about short or long term studies, but I do enjoy logic and engaging in discussion. > if we agree…

> At this point you're just talking past me -- and maybe I am talking past you as well. Right yes, note how I didn't say anything about "long-term" side effects (or studies). I said that side effects would be present after a short period. That's the only claim I made. Both of the studies you mention show examples of side effects that were present quickly. The 1976 case was a vaccination campaign that started on Octob…

> Certainly, but you appear to agree that there's no reason to wait for those studies before getting vaccinated, which is the context this thread began in (in other words, I don't really care, except in the vague sense that they'll hopefully help us better understand physiology)

I'm not making any argument about whether or not to take a vaccine based on study results.

This is an argument you are having with other people and projecting onto me.

I personally neither agree nor disagree with any position on the subject of whether or not to take a vaccine prior to "long term studies" being conducted -- as a libertarian, I believe that choice is completely up to you whether you choose to take a vaccine or not, just as I believe it should be up to you what substances you do or do not put into your body.

I get the sense you have a different view and it seems like you potentially would disagree that people should have the choice to decide what goes into their bodies if you believe them not putting something in their bodies would potentially affect you.

That's an entirely different debate than what this started with: what's the definition of short term vs long term when it comes to side effects.

I'd still like a definitive answer with regards to your stance on the definition of short vs long term whether or not you think it applies to your more general arguments.

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#94

Post by CrazyStat »

rtkwe wrote: post #69
CrazyStat wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really freedom of religion then, is it? "You can be Muslim (/Sikh/Mormon/etc.), but you can't wear the clothing prescribed by your religion", a la French secularism, is a weak accommodation that allows people to be a little different as long as they aren't too different. It is far short of actual freedom of conscience.

There are various ways around that issue; no prohibitions of purely religious activities, a clause about limiting that no exceptions to laws about health/security etc.

These ways around the problem are not unlike what we have in the US right now.

At that point you are far from "no religious exemptions to any laws."

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#95

Post by foolinaround »

dragonwriter wrote: post #54
LinuxBender wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention this should not even be required given the supreme court struct down the vaccine mandate for everything except medicare/medicaid facilities. [1] [Edit] Apparently federal facilities were not challenged. So only struck down for businesses. [1] - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-blocks-bid...

> Not to mention this should not even be required given the supreme court struct down the vaccine mandate for everything except medicare/medicaid facilities False. There were at least three federal mandates: (1) Federal workforce, (2) Federally-funded healthcare facilities, (3) Large businesses In recent Supreme Court decisions in cases challenging #2 and #3, #3 was struck down and #2 was upheld, #1 was not challenge…

this mandate covers far more than federal employees. In this case, the mandate covers even contractors working for companies that have a federal contract in place, even if they or even their division has nothing to do with the contract.

Eg, several big banks are covered by #1, the way it is written. These banks have as their contractors, large consulting companies - which now enforce on their end.

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#96

Post by joshuamorton »

merlincorey wrote: post #93
joshuamorton wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At this point you're just talking past me -- and maybe I am talking past you as well. Right yes, note how I didn't say anything about "long-term" side effects (or studies). I said that side effects would be present after a short period. That's the only claim I made. Both of the studies you mention show examples of side effects that were present quickly. The 1976 case was a vaccination campaign that started on Octob…

> Certainly, but you appear to agree that there's no reason to wait for those studies before getting vaccinated, which is the context this thread began in (in other words, I don't really care, except in the vague sense that they'll hopefully help us better understand physiology) I'm not making any argument about whether or not to take a vaccine based on study results. This is an argument you are having with other peo…

> I'd still like a definitive answer with regards to your stance on the definition of short vs long term whether or not you think it applies to your more general arguments.

It's totally unrelated, as I've mentioned twice now.

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#97

Post by arcticbull »

salawat wrote: post #87
arcticbull wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I agree, and when we have a bad list we can have that conversation. Tools can be used for good or bad, and that alone shouldn't preclude the use of the tool. I'm not sure the existence of a good list makes a future bad list any more - or any less - likely.

>Tools can be used for good or bad, and that alone shouldn't preclude the use of the tool. Might I ask your views on guns? I ask as I tend to see people making this argument apply it inconsistently between contexts. I've even caught myself doing it, which is why I'm quite sensitive to it. Just curious.

Good question because that was the first thing I thought of as I typed out the sentence. I'm in favor of allowing individuals to have guns, whether that's for sport or hunting - particularly long guns and shotguns - but not sawed-offs, automatic weapons or handguns except in specific situations.

I don't think a national registry is particularly necessary but could be convinced. I am in favor of reasonable restrictions such mandatory licensing, background checks, waiting periods, and excluding folks with violent histories.

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#98

Post by [deleted] »

CrazyStat wrote: post #42
hash872 wrote: post #13

If I were designing a constitutional system for a new country, I'd certainly include freedom of religion as one of the basic rights- while also codifying that there are no religious exemptions to any laws. Regardless of your faith, you are required to follow the same laws as your fellow citizens, without exception. Religious exemptions should not exist. One of my issues with it is that 'religion' can mean whatever yo…

That's not really freedom of religion then, is it? "You can be Muslim (/Sikh/Mormon/etc.), but you can't wear the clothing prescribed by your religion", a la French secularism, is a weak accommodation that allows people to be a little different as long as they aren't too different. It is far short of actual freedom of conscience.

[deleted]

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#99

Post by drewcoo »

hash872 wrote: post #13

If I were designing a constitutional system for a new country, I'd certainly include freedom of religion as one of the basic rights- while also codifying that there are no religious exemptions to any laws. Regardless of your faith, you are required to follow the same laws as your fellow citizens, without exception. Religious exemptions should not exist. One of my issues with it is that 'religion' can mean whatever yo…

Why religion and not freedom of belief, philosophy, custom, or venerable tradition? What makes religion special? Except for those exemptions, I mean.

Re: US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System

#100

Post by mensetmanusman »

azinman2 wrote: post #83
mensetmanusman wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one is young and already had Covid before vaccines were available, there is an ethical argument to be made that you should be allowed to give up your spot in line to the poor who are still waiting all around the world. If you want other people to make your ethical decisions for you when it comes to your own body, we know where that leads.

There is no global waiting list, so whether one in the US takes a vaccine or not isn't going to result in someone else being able to get that same vaccine. Societies make decisions about health of its members all the time in many ways. Which, by the way, has nothing to do with religion and the topic on hand.

As of now, Africa is still waiting for vaccines: https://www.kuow.org/stories/for-the-36-countries-with-the-l...

It would be disinformation to suggest there is an over-abundance globally.

Post reply on HN