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

181–190 of 241 posts

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#181

Post by ls15 »

nwiswell wrote: post #111
ls15 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point. Near 0%.

The legal standard for blindness in the US is 20/200 vision, i.e. someone with "ideal" 20/20 vision sees with the same acuity from 200 feet away as a legally blind person can from 20 feet away. It's really a misconception that most blind people can't see anything , they just aren't able to operate a car safely, have trouble reading signs, etc., and crucially that this is not something that can be fixed with glasses,…

> It's not that you can't transmit, but your risk of doing so is several times lower.

Is that really the case? Even for the early variants, the reduction of transmission risk was https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#182

Post by eastbound »

jfengel wrote: post #52
eastbound wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a large difference between old vaccines and the Covid one in terms of trust.

A fact that has essentially nothing to do with the safety or efficacy of the COVID vaccine. There has been a deliberate ideologically-driven campaign to undermine that trust. Ask a COVID anti-vaxxer to explain their position, and it will almost immediately include at least one outright falsehood. Not a "difference of opinion" or "interpretation" or "risk tolerance", but just an outright lie. And correcting that will…

> ideologically-driven campaign to undermine that trust

I love how pro-vax always have this big Russian conspiracy theory in their mind, ala “a CAMPAIGN must have done that”.

When in fact, it’s the consequences of your own actions. A succession of our doctors/govts saying things as they are proven, then saying the opposite is true, that blew my mind.

My president said we should “go to the theater to fight Covid”. Then 10 days later he locked down everyone because Covid was spreading.

If it wasn’t a lie, it was at least people in position of power saying things without having checked them. Repeatedly. Relentlessly. To convince us of behaving. Ask them, they’ll say they were right to lie to the population, otherwise we wouldn’t have accepted to do x or y. “Covid doesn’t spread in waves” said Facebook’s truthcheckers in April 2020.

We’ve been lied to. Repeatedly. Relentlessly. Today, the vaccine is good for us. We’re sure! No side effect!

Well I ain’t taking advice from the camp who have a proven track of lying, and, when asked, they say they do this for crowd control. They’re not even apologetic about it.

They do not check their sources before speaking up. “Masks are not useful” said my government in May 2020.

Whatever they are saying, I’ll do the opposite, for my own safety. And it’s not an alt-right collusion, it’s just that the vax camp is spewing bullshit all day long.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#183

Post by jiggawatts »

adamiscool8 wrote: post #135
jiggawatts wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

The rate of adverse events seen with the flu shots is a full order of magnitude lower than the COVID-19 vaccines. People are partially up in arms because there is a continued conflation of two very different safety profiles.

The rate of adverse outcomes for COVID is several orders of magnitude higher than for the seasonal flu.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#184

Post by sofixa »

ohCh6zos wrote: post #149
sofixa wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was during a pandemic and in many (all?) countries, an active health crisis which resulted in literally millions of dead (what are we at now, 6 million?). All of us had our freedoms restricted at various levels - lockdowns, travel restrictions, work rules, masks, vaccines. Some of us understood the (potential) gravity of the situation and accepted that, knowing nobody was doing it for fun. Others threw fucking tan…

Shame is you might actually get what you are asking for. Edit: Morally why would someone be obligated to pay attention to the majority? Morality isn't up for mob rule.

> Edit: Morally why would someone be obligated to pay attention to the majority? Morality isn't up for mob rule

During a pandemic and public health crisis? It absolutely is.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#185

Post by eastbound »

archagon wrote: post #172
fein wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this meant to be a snooty response to troll for a reply instead of an actual engagement based on your non elaborated assertions?

> experimental mRNA vaccines may be fairly novel, but the technology is not new. And there are other, more conventional COVID vaccines out there. > rushed How can this argument be made today? The Emergency Use Authorization no longer applies to mRNA vaccines: they're fully approved, and billions of people have been vaccinated. > bullshit And this is just offensive, given the efficacy of COVID vaccines with regard to…

> > rushed > How can this argument be made today? The Emergency Use Authorization no longer applies to mRNA vaccines: they're fully approved

Ok so let’s remove the responsibility exemption from pharma contracts, right? Oh you have an excuse not to do it? It’s the only drug in history that has this exemption.

I trust new things with care, people have a habit of lowballing the side-effects. Many people don’t trust GMO for that reason. I don’t trust a vax that is less than 2 years old, made while governments imposed a defense-confidential seal on the entire process. Governments have admitted to lie to control populations during the last 2 years.

You want trust? Levy the 70-year secret on the way my govt managed Covid, I want to know whether the press was mandated to publish propaganda, and I want to know whether doctors are under duress. The weekly minister meetings have been public since 1945 in France, except for Covid: Levy that. If you have nothing to lie, you have nothing to hide.

This operation displays absolutely no sign of trust on any aspect. I DON’T say that the vaccine isn’t safe. I just say that you aren’t offering trustworthiness guarantees around it. It’s a leap of faith, and I won’t take this leap of faith for the camp that was repeatedly mistaken during the last 2 years.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#186

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

chrismcb wrote: post #179
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whenever I mention that it's cruel to exclude people like him from society, Your friend was at higher risk from COVID due to to their medical condition. It might be cruel to ask them to reduce their social interaction, but many medical conditions are like that. Their feelings don't change the problem or reduce the risk. It does does not seem to be completely unfounded.

I think there is a difference between asking someone to reduce their social interaction and forcing them to reduce their social interaction

> there is a difference between asking someone to reduce their social interaction and forcing them

Is there a difference? In what sense? What distinction is a virus going to make? A virus doesn't see that difference in motivation, it just sees warm cells. What difference would this distinction make to the epidemiology and public health? None.

If you're going to argue the ethical "personal freedom" sense only, then like with smoking in public and my personal freedom to not inhale second-hand smoke, you're going to have to take into account the ethical dimension of saving lives and not transmitting disease to innocent bystanders. In both cases we breath the same air.

A "personal freedom only" approach to public heath when we breath the same air is, and always will be, laughably unworkable: it's simply a category error, the wrong tool. If the COVID pandemic hasn't made that clear then I don't know what will.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#187

Post by Jensson »

anotherevan wrote: post #161
taolegal wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nah in this case all those pedestrians have an anti-car force field

At the risk of really straining the metaphor, one of the arguments is that not all the pedestrians are able to be fitted with those force fields. The force fields are also not 100% full-proof, although they can help reduce the impact.

So then you heckle the pedestrians without a forcefield for not getting one? That is what we are talking about here, why would you do that?

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#188

Post by nwiswell »

ls15 wrote: post #181
nwiswell wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legal standard for blindness in the US is 20/200 vision, i.e. someone with "ideal" 20/20 vision sees with the same acuity from 200 feet away as a legally blind person can from 20 feet away. It's really a misconception that most blind people can't see anything , they just aren't able to operate a car safely, have trouble reading signs, etc., and crucially that this is not something that can be fixed with glasses,…

> It's not that you can't transmit, but your risk of doing so is several times lower. Is that really the case? Even for the early variants, the reduction of transmission risk was https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116597

You might want to read that abstract again because you did not understand it. It says the transmission ratio is 0.50 (i.e., 2x better) vs unvaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 (that's the Pfizer vaccine, the other one is a research vaccine). As we know now, booster doses are necessary for Delta, and reduce that figure well below 0.50.

Furthermore, looking at the main data table in the paper, two-dose BNT162b2 vaccination reduces your odds of contracting Delta (as opposed to transmitting it, once you've already caught it) to 0.19 versus an unvaccinated index. Taken together, you can see how those two factors make a person a much less effective spreader of COVID in their community.

The 7-23% figure you are citing is how much reduction in transmissions rate is explained due to viral load differences between Alpha and Delta.

Just wondering: when you read that it only produced a 23% benefit, you didn't have any immediate doubts that couldn't possibly be correct?

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#189

Post by [deleted] »

Jensson wrote: post #187
anotherevan wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of really straining the metaphor, one of the arguments is that not all the pedestrians are able to be fitted with those force fields. The force fields are also not 100% full-proof, although they can help reduce the impact.

So then you heckle the pedestrians without a forcefield for not getting one? That is what we are talking about here, why would you do that?

[deleted]

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#190

Post by mike_hearn »

poizan42 wrote: post #55
mike_hearn wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few argued that, but it's what happened. Recall that COVID unvaccinated non-citizens still may not enter the USA for any reason.

One of the exceptions from the vaccine requirement listed on https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/proof-of... is: "Persons with documented medical contraindications to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine"

I've never encountered anyone who was able to get a formal medical exemption even when their doctors told them not to take the second shot due to severe reaction, so in practice this condition doesn't mean anything.
Post reply on HN