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

Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 241 posts

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#81

Post by nwiswell »

TrevorJ wrote: post #76
nwiswell wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> doesn't sound like force to you? Not by the state, no. And withholding a job offer is certainly not force. We generally accept that there are a lot of things that will make you unemployable, like having a swastika on your forehead. It's up to the business owner / recruiter / whatever to determine what the reasonable rejection criteria are. If there's a reason someone can't get vaccinated, like an allergy, I'd consi…

It was due to an executive order, so I don't know how much more 'by the state' you can get. Just because you didn't see it happen doesn't mean it didn't happen. I saw it happen, and I saw it happen to a lot of people at lot of different companies.

OK, so you're talking about 14043 specifically.

No, that is not force. You don't have a right to work for the Federal Government, and the Federal Government does not have a right to require you to work for them.

14043 just says you can't work for the feds anymore if you've voluntarily chosen not to get a vaccine (exemptions available for legitimate religious and medical reasons). It doesn't say "you are unemployable now". That's silly.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#82

Post by jiggawatts »

curmudgeon22 wrote: post #36
adamrezich wrote: post #4

how's everyone else from the control group doing these days? things were never really that bad, discrimination-wise, here in South Dakota, but what was/is it like everywhere else? (edit: wow I thought we were, as a collective, Largely Over It now—guess that's not the case! I'm glad things aren't as bad as they are in this thread where I live! one has to wonder though: how long will this deep-seated emotion-based disc…

I'm in Canada, near Vancouver. It's mostly back to normal now, but for a long time: * couldn't visit restaurants * couldn't fly/take a train/take a ferry Still can't: * Visit my grandparents at their retirement home * Visit the USA The general opinion as that you should be vaccinated, but it mostly doesn't come up now. The government is currently passing legislation so they can better mandate vaccination to medical p…

Most homes for the elderly here require flu vaccinations for all staff, and some even require flu vaccines for visitors.

Why is that okay?

New flu vaccines are developed annually because it’s a seasonal illness, which makes them just as “experimental” or “novel” as many COVID vaccines such as AstraZeneca that aren’t using mRNA technology.

Why is suddenly everyone up in arms about something they were fine with before?

When you can answer this honestly you’ll start to understand the problem.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#83

Post by throwaway22032 »

luckylion wrote: post #58
throwaway22032 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not understanding my point. Shouting people down, restricting their movements, trying to put them out of a job etc. is abusive behaviour. It works if the force is sufficient enough. That doesn't make it right.

Sure, and I wasn't a fan of the approaches they used, but I do understand them. The alternative is either to accept their willful ignorance that will have life-threatening impact on third parties that weren't willfully ignorant, or to cut them off from societal institutions for anything that follows from their decisions. At least in Germany, that was the debate, and the folks who didn't want to get vaccinated didn't…

I'd love to go further into this but I feel that the attitude I expressed in my first post is coming into play here.

I'll give you a short description, I guess.

You're throwing around terms like "willful ignorance".

It may not be conscious on your part, but that's patronising behaviour, and I don't feel a sense of goodwill there.

I'd love to be able to elaborate further and enter into a proper discussion but I'm just tired.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#84

Post by TrevorJ »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #75
adamiscool8 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my age+health cohort, the known and documented risks of the vaccines outweigh the known risks of COVID-19, but you assume “bad reasons” because it’s not a religious objection or medical contraindication. What makes your risk calculus any more valid than mine? I would go so far as to say it’s anti-science to lump 99% of the vaccine rejectors as “uninformed”. I’d venture the average mechanistic knowledge of these pr…

You have a 1/100000 chance of a usually minor condition. Some have a 1/10 chance of dying from COVID. It's your right to avoid the vaccine. It's also moral to prevent you from mixing with the elderly.

Good point, and now that we know the vaccines don't prevent transmission, the same goes for the vaccinated I suppose.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#85

Post by TrevorJ »

nwiswell wrote: post #81
TrevorJ wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was due to an executive order, so I don't know how much more 'by the state' you can get. Just because you didn't see it happen doesn't mean it didn't happen. I saw it happen, and I saw it happen to a lot of people at lot of different companies.

OK, so you're talking about 14043 specifically. No, that is not force. You don't have a right to work for the Federal Government, and the Federal Government does not have a right to require you to work for them. 14043 just says you can't work for the feds anymore if you've voluntarily chosen not to get a vaccine (exemptions available for legitimate religious and medical reasons). It doesn't say "you are unemployable…

I don't work for the Federal government. The order(s) were very broad and reached far far down the chain so as to effect as many people as possible.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#87

Post by ohCh6zos »

ArmandTanzarian wrote: post #45

So everyone on HN feels like the unvaccinated are part of an oppressed caste? I really don't understand the comments I am reading here. There are large groups of people who are unvaccinated by choice, not because of genuine health concerns. A friend of mine is unable to get vaccinated due to serious health concerns, and she is furious that do many people refuse to get it, as it continues to prevent her from living a…

As someone who has a vaccine and all the available boosters. They are absolutely maligned and their freedoms were unreasonably restricted.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#88

Post by jltsiren »

adamiscool8 wrote: post #56
epgui wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm deadly allergic to eggs, and the only flu vaccine easily available to me is made with eggs, so I don't take it. There are many other medically valid reasons to not take a vaccine. There are even some (a very small number) of people whose religious convictions are a valid reason to get an exemption. The issue is that the overwhelming majority (>99%) of people who choose not to vaccinate, do so for bad reasons, whi…

In my age+health cohort, the known and documented risks of the vaccines outweigh the known risks of COVID-19, but you assume “bad reasons” because it’s not a religious objection or medical contraindication. What makes your risk calculus any more valid than mine? I would go so far as to say it’s anti-science to lump 99% of the vaccine rejectors as “uninformed”. I’d venture the average mechanistic knowledge of these pr…

This is one of the reasons why individualism and public health are fundamentally at odds.

Ethical questions become easier if you assume that all actions are intentional and made with full knowledge of the consequences. Unfortunately real people are biological organisms that may shed pathogens wherever they go. Your mere presence may be enough to harm other people, without your intention or knowledge.

Should we as a society allow people to endanger bystanders, if the known preventative measures cause more harm than good to the person taking them? Or should we require everyone to follow the best practices, if the benefits to the society sufficiently outweigh the harm to the individual?

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#89

Post by adamrezich »

adamrezich wrote: post #4

how's everyone else from the control group doing these days? things were never really that bad, discrimination-wise, here in South Dakota, but what was/is it like everywhere else? (edit: wow I thought we were, as a collective, Largely Over It now—guess that's not the case! I'm glad things aren't as bad as they are in this thread where I live! one has to wonder though: how long will this deep-seated emotion-based disc…

in the interest of inclusivity & getting a more complete picture, a followup question: is anyone still continuing to get more "boosters" or whatever? are those still being released? or, if not, at what point did you stop? the second shot? third? fourth? did you ever take/are you still taking one of those non-injectable covid medications?

I'm so out of the loop about this stuff because it hasn't affected my life in any way in months, so this is me genuinely asking to see where people are at with this stuff. I have a feeling that many people got the initial shot and maybe one booster thereafter but since then haven't kept up… but this is just an assumption, and a pretty big one at that. no idea about the non-injectables whatsoever.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#90

Post by TrevorJ »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #73
nwiswell wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> doesn't sound like force to you? Not by the state, no. And withholding a job offer is certainly not force. We generally accept that there are a lot of things that will make you unemployable, like having a swastika on your forehead. It's up to the business owner / recruiter / whatever to determine what the reasonable rejection criteria are. If there's a reason someone can't get vaccinated, like an allergy, I'd consi…

> If there's a reason someone can't get vaccinated, like an allergy, I'd consider it a moral obligation for the prospective employer to take that into account. It depends on the job. If someone can't get vaccinated; and they also want to work with other medically vulnerable people; then they're in the same position as someone who is legally blind and wants to drive a taxi-cab. i.e. While they may want to do it, and i…

I do agree, it depends on the job. I can tell you that this kind of litmus test was not being applied though in many cases.
Post reply on HN