Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic • Hacker News Board

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#191

Post by anotherevan » Fri, Dec 09, 2022, 10:06 AM UTC

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?

Dropping the metaphor, absolutely not looking to heckle those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons (those pedestrians unable to be fitted with forcefields).

The wilfully unvaccinated (the "ran their car off the road because they perceived (possibly incorrectly) some danger that they were attempting to avoid" group) are making it harder for those that are medically unable and those with chronic health concerns as the less virus circulating the less risk for the more vulnerable among us. While this generates feeling of ill-will within me, I personally am not advocating the heckling of anyone.

My, "not 100% full-proof, although they can help reduce the impact," analogy was addressing that while it is still possible to catch COVID even if you are fully vaccinated, it is less likely and usually the severity will be less than it will have been otherwise if you do catch it.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#192

Post by t0bia_s » Fri, Dec 09, 2022, 10:26 AM UTC

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #186

chrismcb wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

So... Should we ban alcohol, tobacco, cars and force everyone to wear helmets?

Sometimes is just better to not pretend that we are immortal. We forget how to live under the hood of fear from death.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#193

Post by t0bia_s » Fri, Dec 09, 2022, 10:31 AM UTC

epgui wrote: post #145

yucky wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone I know with the vaccine has still gotten (and presumably spread) COVID. Many of them multiple times. So you can't make this statement anymore, it's false.

That's a nice testimonial, but you do realize that anecdotal evidence is one of the weakest forms of evidence, right?

So personal experience is now anecdotal?

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#194

Post by t0bia_s » Fri, Dec 09, 2022, 10:37 AM UTC

disambiguation wrote: post #171

jiggawatts wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This isn't a good analogy given "people driving the speed limit" can also get and spread Covid and cause extremely negative outcomes. Not wearing a seat-belt is perhaps a more accurate metaphor, given the individual assumes the majority of the risk. Regardless all you're doing here is trying to justify a bad attitude, and proving the GPs point.

Wearing sealt-belt still wont protect you from possibly killing anyone.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#195

Post by thiht » Fri, Dec 09, 2022, 11:13 AM UTC

barbariangrunge wrote: post #5

I have a friend who is allergic to many vaccines. A bad reaction as a kid led to him needing years of rehab. He's also high risk for Covid. He's pro-vaccine in general I guess I should add, but his doctor told him to not get the covid shots because the risk was too high Whenever I mention that it's cruel to exclude people like him from society, due to vaccine requirements, when people like him are presumably what all…

> I mention that it's cruel to exclude people like him from society

Which is exactly why we specifically don't exclude people like him from society. There are obviously exemptions in every sane country.

In France there are exemptions for this cases and some people still acted like "BuT wHat AbOUt AlleRgIes", like they cared at all. They just didn't want to get vaccinated.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#196

Post by hotpotamus » Fri, Dec 09, 2022, 1:43 PM UTC

oska wrote: post #176

hotpotamus wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the term didn't exist would suggest it was a fringe belief, wouldn't it? This isn't something where I have a lot of knowledge of history, but I do follow the scientific skepticism movement a bit, and they would probably place the modern pre-covid vaccine denial movement as starting with a discredited paper by Andrew Wakefield in the early 90's that suggested that vaccines were causing greater incidences of autis…

People giving serious credence to 'the flat earth movement' is always a bit of a tell for me. There is no genuine 'flat earth movement'. There are a collection of people who enjoy pretending to believe in a flat earth, with some of them seeing how far they can 'rationally' take their denial that the world is round. It's an exercise in defending a non-defensible belief for fun and winding (earnestly literal) people up…

I'm aware of what a sophist is, but I doubt flat earth is actually a subject they'd have any fun trying to argue because it's too absurd on its face. Do you think Scientology is also a group joke? What about Mormonism - they have their own astronomical hangups (planet Kolob)?

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#197

Post by oska » Fri, Dec 09, 2022, 2:23 PM UTC

hotpotamus wrote: post #196

oska wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People giving serious credence to 'the flat earth movement' is always a bit of a tell for me. There is no genuine 'flat earth movement'. There are a collection of people who enjoy pretending to believe in a flat earth, with some of them seeing how far they can 'rationally' take their denial that the world is round. It's an exercise in defending a non-defensible belief for fun and winding (earnestly literal) people up…

I'm aware of what a sophist is, but I doubt flat earth is actually a subject they'd have any fun trying to argue because it's too absurd on its face. Do you think Scientology is also a group joke? What about Mormonism - they have their own astronomical hangups (planet Kolob)?

> because it's too absurd on its face

I'd suggest its absurdness is exactly what appeals to the people who like to 'argue the case'. I'm not a big Terry Pratchett fan, but my understanding is that his books are set on a flat earth and he has some fun in the books in 'explaining' how this flat earth 'works' (explanations which are of course, playfully absurd). I'm not calling Pratchett a flat earther here but simply suggesting the same 'fun in nonsense' motivation is in operation with flat earthers, while they go further with their nonsense by maintaining that they are being 'absolutely serious'.

Re Scientology and Mormonism - both have are an ideology and have an agenda. (Stating this neutrally; I'm personally not interested in or sympathetic to either religion but some ppl find value in those two ideologies and the values/aims they seek to promote.) Flat Earthism doesn't have any ideology or agenda, as far as I am aware. So the absurd narrative explanation they concoct is harmless (and indeed, I think this is partly why they chose it - it's not harming anyone to 'promote' the idea of a flat earth).

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#198

Post by ashwagary » Fri, Dec 09, 2022, 2:31 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #119

throwaway22032 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What term would you prefer for something that just looks ignorant and no other explanation is given for why the person does it even after information has been shared with them?

There are many people much more educated than you in this field of study that chose not to be vaccinated. Are they ignorant or is it you?

Leaving this decision up to individuals avoids the worst case scenario, which is species extinction because we acted like lemmings.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#199

Post by jrs235 » Fri, Dec 09, 2022, 2:38 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #119

throwaway22032 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What term would you prefer for something that just looks ignorant and no other explanation is given for why the person does it even after information has been shared with them?

A lack of trust and confidence in the information provided and the motives of those prescribing the action?

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#200

Post by throwaway22032 » Fri, Dec 09, 2022, 2:50 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #119

throwaway22032 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What term would you prefer for something that just looks ignorant and no other explanation is given for why the person does it even after information has been shared with them?

When you abuse someone they'll say anything in order to get you to go away and stop. What they actually believe becomes immaterial.

You wanted them to get vaccinated. You failed to convince them that it was in their best interests. So you started attempting to force them. You tried to remove them from friends and family, to prevent them from finding work, to prevent them from accessing escape hatches such as travel. You posted adverts - "get vaccinated to avoid lockdown". The list goes on. Do what I say, or I'll punish you.

All of this is still raw and visceral in my mind. It's not fading.

They didn't want that. So they banded together and started grasping onto anything that would allow them to simply say -

"No."

That might be no to the vaccine. It might be no to one way systems. It might just be "no" to forced isolation. Ultimately, they said no.

You may feel that in the jumbled nonsense they expressed to you, in anger, as a substitute for a boundary, ignorance was expressed. But ultimately you wouldn't recognise their boundaries, you saw them only as an extension of yourself to be manipulated at will.

That's patronising, regardless of the terminology used.