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

91–100 of 241 posts

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#91

Post by nwiswell »

TrevorJ wrote: post #85
nwiswell wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It applies to anyone paid with federal money. That's constructively the same as being employed by the government. Again, free association cuts both ways... If you don't have to work for the government, why should the government be obligated to employ / pay you?

That is the opposite of force.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#92

Post by nwiswell »

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…

> I really don't understand the comments I am reading here.

Selection bias. The people who were/are affected by the mandates are still very upset. Everyone who got the vaccine doesn't care and has moved on with their lives.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#93

Post by epgui »

falcolas wrote: post #22
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…

More importantly, their uninformed medical decision disproportionally hurts the minority groups you called out above. It's not the vaccinated population who I'm concerned about, but those who have legitimate medical reasons to not take the vaccine.

Agreed.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#94

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#95

Post by jiggawatts »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #32

What surprised me the most was just how vicious and cruel the people in my life could be towards the unvaccinated. It went beyond mere schadenfreude. Many of my otherwise tolerant and empathetic friends eagerly ate up any and all news about anti-vaxxers suffering or even outright dying. I don't know how much of this was a result of them getting caught up in the social media bandwagon (Twitter, r/HermanCainAward) or b…

When someone gets in a horrific crash because the were driving 50 over the speed limit, do you feel sorry for them?

Or do you say that they "got what they deserved" not just for being individually reckless, but also for selfishly putting other people on the roads in danger?

Ask yourself: Before COVID, in 2019, if you saw an 18 year old's car wrapped around a tree on the news clearly due to excessive speeding, did you lament their predicament? Did you say "they had an individual right to drive as fast as they thought they could handle", or did you laugh and say that they got what they deserved?

Be honest in your response.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#96

Post by epgui »

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…

My risk calculus is informed by over 12 years of postsecondary education (and expertise) in the biomedical field, and by deferral to expertise on complex issues.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#97

Post by epgui »

TrevorJ wrote: post #84
bryanlarsen wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They do prevent transmission. God, I wish misinformation would not spread so easily.

(Edit: I'm a biochemist, merely relaying a consensus position, in my area of expertise, and getting downvoted. Nice.)

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#98

Post by ls15 »

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…

But the virus sees unvaccinated and vaccinated hosts, so these scenarios are not comparable. A person with full vision can see 100% of the street, while a blind person sees 0%. We cannot even quantify the vaccine's level of protection against transmission with some certainty, but it is certainly not 100% vs 0%. To me it looks more like 51% vs. 49%.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#99

Post by nwiswell »

ls15 wrote: post #98
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

But the virus sees unvaccinated and vaccinated hosts, so these scenarios are not comparable. A person with full vision can see 100% of the street, while a blind person sees 0%. We cannot even quantify the vaccine's level of protection against transmission with some certainty, but it is certainly not 100% vs 0%. To me it looks more like 51% vs. 49%.

> while a blind person sees 0%

For most blind people this is not correct.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#100

Post by [deleted] »

TrevorJ wrote: post #90
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN