Live data from Hacker News

Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

axios.com

1–10 of 248 posts

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#3
>This removes any opportunity to nudge more people toward getting the shots, he added.“The whole idea behind a good vaccination campaign is making not getting vaccinated the harder choice, and getting vaccinated the easy choice. Right now it’s the exact opposite — it’s easier not to be vaccinated."

So people are supposed to be "nudged" into it? And they are supposed to do it because it is easier, as opposed to safer? So have these people already written off the idea of convincing people that vaccinating is the safer alternative?

I mean, it appears that they are not even trying. But I guess it makes sense, because convincing people is harder, and when you can just put mandates for everything in place, and there is no opposition from people, it is much easier.

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#5
Congratulations to America. You´re heading full speed towards a Nazi-style nation. Take your vaccine, you deserve it. Then afterwards, take a look at Pfizers criminal history of bribery and unethical behaviour:

https://www.corpwatch.org/article/pfizer-admits-bribery-eigh...

https://usareally.com/8550-pfizer-was-fined-nearly-usd-5-bil...

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#6
post #3

>This removes any opportunity to nudge more people toward getting the shots, he added.“The whole idea behind a good vaccination campaign is making not getting vaccinated the harder choice, and getting vaccinated the easy choice. Right now it’s the exact opposite — it’s easier not to be vaccinated." So people are supposed to be "nudged" into it? And they are supposed to do it because it is easier, as opposed to safer?…

It is ridiculous really. I have been vaccinated with Moderna, which didn't even bring anything else to the market as far as I know.

Listening to these people wanting to nudge others I wish I didn't get vaccinated.

I think the damage Covid can cause is significant, but this is an experimental treatment. To my disappointment I didn't get magnetic, but doctors claiming there cannot be any unforseen dangers are lying to you.

If someone forces the vaccine on you, they should be liable for any damages. Perhaps not the manufacturer but government in this case.

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#7

Congratulations to America. You´re heading full speed towards a Nazi-style nation. Take your vaccine, you deserve it. Then afterwards, take a look at Pfizers criminal history of bribery and unethical behaviour: https://www.corpwatch.org/article/pfizer-admits-bribery-eigh... https://usareally.com/8550-pfizer-was-fined-nearly-usd-5-bil...

It's definitely not everyone in the US. I keep thinking that it's around a third of the population that is extremely susceptible to propaganda. There's huge overlap between wokeness and vaccine eagerness, and there's huge overlap between conservatism and vaccine hesitancy (aka not being persuaded to undergo needless medical procedures)

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#8
As a healthy, 30 something year old living in the UK the only reason I took the vaccine (both doses) was in the civic duty which said that once a certain percentage of the population was done, then restrictions could end. Now it looks like that's kinda happening in a week but even so the BMA and others are calling this irresponsible and there's an unsaid expectation of further lockdowns. I'm really starting to wonder why I bothered with the vax. This will just go on and on.

Re: Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

#10

Is seems like a new trend for right wing ideas to be expressed in what would traditionally be considered left-wing concepts and language. Does that mean they lost the culture war or is it just a new phase?

No it means both sides have serious ideological flaws and that their prototypical stances sometimes blur as a result.

For instance, the constitution ensures both the right to vote and the right to bear arms. The liberal stance is that voter ID infringes on rights, but gun ID does not. And the GOP stance is the reverse. Both are logically inconsistent, just different dog whistle topics.

You can feel however you want to about guns and the 2A, but yours intellectually dishonest to argue in favor of ID for one and not the other from a legal perspective.

An independent voter might say that showing ID for both, two very important acts, is not onerous and is an acceptable burden. But most people won’t argue that due to partisan allegiances.

Post reply on HN