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

201–210 of 241 posts

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#201

Post by luckylion »

ashwagary wrote: post #198
luckylion wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sure there are good reasons to not be vaccinated. Those generally publicly shared (Bill Gates, UN-chips, 5g, radical degrowth by chemical neutering etc etc) were not among them.

And it's like with most things. When 99% of weightlifters tell you that you cannot lift a metric ton, you'll probably want to listen to them and not the 1% who say you do, just because they can lift more weight than you.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#202

Post by adamiscool8 »

jiggawatts wrote: post #183
adamiscool8 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not in all age+health cohorts.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#203

Post by hotpotamus »

oska wrote: post #197
hotpotamus wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

I actually am a big Pratchett fan and have read all the novels in his Discworld universe, some several times. It is a comedic fantasy world, yes, but it's mainly a setting in which he can build a parodic analog of the modern world. The geography of the world doesn't come up much in the stories.

Much of my thinking on the subject comes from Steven Novella and his blog

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/behind-the-cur...

> Another powerful aspect of the film has a similar (but much smaller, in my opinion) climactic moment, but runs in the background throughout the film – the echochamber effect of being in such a movement. The subjects of the film are overwhelmed with confirmation bias, from themselves and each other. They also have the mentality of being in a small beleaguered group, and trying to change the world.

> The underlying motivations for any particular belief are also varied. This film did do a good job of showing a variety of people who have come to the Flat Earth community from different places, for different reasons, and have varying roles to play. The result is a complex mix with no single or simple solution.

He also goes into some of the lengths and surprising expense they go to and rationalizations used to maintain their beliefs. They did not seem like sophists to me, but perhaps it's all just an ever more elaborate joke.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#204

Post by caeril »

anotherevan wrote: post #191
Jensson wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The vaccines were never sterilizing. The best estimates I've seen for transmission attenuation are around 15%, primarily due to shortening the duration of being a carrier, with an additional small effect for viral load reduction.

Fifteen percent transmission attenuation is a huge contrast to the public health messaging during much of the vaccination campaign, which was that vaccination would invariably protect the vulnerable. It never did, and public health experts knew it.

Is 15% better than zero? Sure. But to claim that vaccination would protect others is and was a total lie, or if you want to be more charitable, only 85% of a total lie.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#205

Post by luckylion »

jrs235 wrote: post #199
luckylion wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Possibly, but many of them jumped straight into theories that were very 'out there', so I'm not sure how much of it was because of some considerations vs pure tribal instincts.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#206

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

t0bia_s wrote: post #192
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

All of these things that you mentioned are regulated, some more strictly than others. "ban or permit freely" attitude to them is black-or-white, fallacious thinking.

None of what you wrote is on topic or refutes anything that I said above.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#207

Post by jfengel »

eastbound wrote: post #182
jfengel wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”. The…

I don't think this is a Russian conspiracy theory. I think it's an American conspiracy theory.

The Russian troll farms don't seem to invent things from whole cloth. They're most effective at nudging Americans to exaggerate the differences we make for ourselves. It's hard to tell how effective they actually are. For all I know we'd do the same without them cheering us on.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#208

Post by ls15 »

nwiswell wrote: post #188
ls15 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 vacci…

I doubt most efficacy claims, because they don't line up with the experiences of most of the people that I know. Most people were vaccinated, most people were boostered, most people contracted covid, many obviousy passed it on. I am not saying that the numbers are wrong, but I am saing that the vaccine was marketed with fancy numbers, that don't mean much in the end, because people get vaccinated, but still get covid and pass it on, potentially multiple times. I can get behind the argument of reducing the risk of severe illness, but all the arguments about protecting others do not make any sense to me when there is such a blatant lack of guarantees. Forbidding blind people to drive a car is a much more straight-forward measure.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#209

Post by taolegal »

caeril wrote: post #204
anotherevan wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The vaccines were never sterilizing. The best estimates I've seen for transmission attenuation are around 15%, primarily due to shortening the duration of being a carrier, with an additional small effect for viral load reduction. Fifteen percent transmission attenuation is a huge contrast to the public health messaging during much of the vaccination campaign, which was that vaccination would invariably protect the vu…

And what's worse in my opinion is that we're harassing a minority in society over something that seems much less significant (at this point) than the truly beneficial things (universally - not just covid, and that address things that certainly cost the healthcare system much more) like vitamin D sufficiency, regular exercise and healthy diet.

Re: Discriminatory attitudes against the unvaccinated during a global pandemic

#210

Post by gspencley »

lamontcg wrote: post #167
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 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 Has your friend asked another doctor for a second opinion? It is unlikely that anyone who is allergic to prior vaccines would be allergic to the mR…

My wife is in a similar boat. I'm vaccinated, she is not. We are both very "pro vaccine." But when she was a child she was hospitalized and had a near death experience due an allergic reaction. Our family doctor, the same doctor that recommended that everyone else in our family get vaccinated, told her to err on the side of caution and take other precautions.

Why should she not trust the doctor that knows our family medical history and has taken care of all of us for, in the case of our children, their entire lives?

In other words, let's say a different doctor DID give a second opinion. Why would / should she trust that opinion more?

Post reply on HN