Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Plague of the Poor

tabletmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 181 posts

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#121

Post by bayesian_horse »

tasogare wrote: post #59
paulcole wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t it just easier (and with virtually no risk) to require people to vaccinate rather than debate over who did/did not actually have COVID?

> Isn’t it just easier [...] to require people to [do what I think is right] rather than debate [...]? - said every soviet officers ever. You might not believe in democracy, but this is still a better system than autocracy. Even if you were right (hint: you're not), this is setting a very dangerous precedent than can and will be abused down the line.

What a BS argument. It is indeed easier to verify vaccination than natural immunity. That is a cold hard fact, and people who contradict it don't understand how complicated the testing is or how many health providers and labs there are.

Legal requirements are shaped by such "conveniences" all the time. Of course you wouldn't need a driver's license if you could argue with a police officer at a traffic stop that you are qualified to drive, had no DOIs etc. It's a lot easier though to require a driving test and a current license.

Same thing with the vaccination.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#122

Post by rkk3 »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #113
protomyth wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both sides are to blame. I stand by my statement. Any politics directed at vaccines is foolish and unscientific. People should acknowledge that mistakes were made by the government and officials with their foolish statements. CNN and Fox are equal partners in the hysteria. People need to remember the goal is to eliminate the threat, not get everyone vaccinated. These are two different things. Ignoring post-COVID immu…

The "both sides" arguments are total BS here. Fox News clearly entertains lies and factually untrue statements, while actively discouraging the vaccine. You may not like that CNN endorses vaccination, but you'd be hard pressed to catch them in even a simple incorrect statement, much less an intentional lie, let alone at the same order of magnitude. It is hard not to endorse vaccination if you understand the science.

Here's a prominent example of the left politicizing the vaccine...

"If Trump tells us to take it [The Vaccine], I won't" - Kamala Harris

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/2020-vp-debate-kamala-harris-o...

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#123

Post by bayesian_horse »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #74
Aeolun wrote: post #11

I’m willing to read these articles, and even sort of willing to consider other viewpoints, but this is mostly garbage. What stands out is the authors’ favor of natural immunity being better than vaccination. It may well be, but it has this small caveat that you need to have had the virus to become naturally immune. E.g. you need to take that 1-2% of not surviving entirely, and if too many people take that chance at t…

Only one problem with your 1-2% risk calculation. In the US at least 100M people have survived infection. Subsidized vaccination of these people amounts to nothing more than payola on a massive scale.

We actually don't know how many of these people have a current immunity, for several reasons, starting with when the infection happened and not ending with knowing who had what strain of the virus. It's also not clear every one of the 100M people would be able to reliable prove he had Covid-19. Or that it is possible to prevent people from somehow faking that proof.

We do know that a vaccination after recovery results in even better immunity than natural immunity alone.

So it's much cheaper to just vaccinate them and KNOW they are immune, rather than indulge in a massive bureaucratic nightmare about test results...

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#124

Post by bayesian_horse »

pjc50 wrote: post #35
travisparker wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That “1-2%” is FAR too high of an estimate. Although regional numbers vary of course, in my state the death rate by county has averaged between 0.0004 and 0.0032 percent. Or, in decimal notation, 0.000004-0.000032 These numbers were calculated based on the Covid data repository maintained by the New York Times ( https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data ) and US Census data ( http://www.census.gov/ ).

Death rate of people who got covid , not of everyone. Show your working ..

With this virus, especially the Delta variant, you can pretty much assume at least 80% of the population to get infected if there hadn't been all these measures.

Also not necessarily in the first or second wave...

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#125

Post by bayesian_horse »

rc2634 wrote: post #101
tonetheman wrote: post #27

This is antivax propaganda.

The more comments like these I see around reasonable and fact-based discussions on covid and the covid vaccines, the more I am sure that my decision to hold off on getting the vaccine is the right decision. The pro-covid-vaccine movement is a cult just like the anti-all-vaccine movement.

The article contains several false statements and unsound conclusions.

Your comment does sound a lot like confirmation bias.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#126

Post by ineptech »

rkk3 wrote: post #122
bayesian_horse wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "both sides" arguments are total BS here. Fox News clearly entertains lies and factually untrue statements, while actively discouraging the vaccine. You may not like that CNN endorses vaccination, but you'd be hard pressed to catch them in even a simple incorrect statement, much less an intentional lie, let alone at the same order of magnitude. It is hard not to endorse vaccination if you understand the science.

Here's a prominent example of the left politicizing the vaccine... "If Trump tells us to take it [The Vaccine], I won't" - Kamala Harris https://www.cbsnews.com/video/2020-vp-debate-kamala-harris-o...

That's egregiously misleading. In context she clearly said that she would take it, but only when scientists say it's safe, not when Trump says so.

(I will concede that, in implying that Trump would push people to get a vaccine before it was ready, she was wildly wrong.)

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#127

Post by ineptech »

protomyth wrote: post #109
ineptech wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> summation of the concept of evil That's a rather strong way to describe someone who refuses to implement a policy you like. You might be right, a natural immunity exemption might be sound policy. I personally tend to agree. But you can't make the case for it by pretending that opposition to it is based in ignorance or evil, if the opposition is due to the concern that people who would abuse it and the result would…

I can at the point they deviate from the science and truth of the situation. When you concede truth, then you have no basis to implement a public policy. Emotion has no place in a fight against a disease and feeding the emotional argument of anti-vaxers with actual talking points is counterproductive. Fear of abuse is a poor argument because both solutions will be abused (fake vaccine cards are already a thing).

This sounds like a florid way of saying, "I saw a pro-vax lefty lie about something on TV the other day." Okay, feel free to ignore that one guy, but to argue against the vaccine mandate position generally you have to engage with the strongest arguments for it, not the weakest.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#128

Post by bayesian_horse »

rkk3 wrote: post #122
bayesian_horse wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "both sides" arguments are total BS here. Fox News clearly entertains lies and factually untrue statements, while actively discouraging the vaccine. You may not like that CNN endorses vaccination, but you'd be hard pressed to catch them in even a simple incorrect statement, much less an intentional lie, let alone at the same order of magnitude. It is hard not to endorse vaccination if you understand the science.

Here's a prominent example of the left politicizing the vaccine... "If Trump tells us to take it [The Vaccine], I won't" - Kamala Harris https://www.cbsnews.com/video/2020-vp-debate-kamala-harris-o...

What do you want to say with this link? That CBS lied that Harris said that? That Harris lied about her mistrust of Donald Trump and his administration?

She is clearly referring to the potential scenario back last year when Trump could be pushing for a vaccine to be approved and released that did not satisfy scientific medical standards, just to benefit in the election. That stance doesn't fit in a few seconds of sound bite, of course.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#129

Post by rkk3 »

ineptech wrote: post #126
rkk3 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a prominent example of the left politicizing the vaccine... "If Trump tells us to take it [The Vaccine], I won't" - Kamala Harris https://www.cbsnews.com/video/2020-vp-debate-kamala-harris-o...

That's egregiously misleading. In context she clearly said that she would take it, but only when scientists say it's safe, not when Trump says so. (I will concede that, in implying that Trump would push people to get a vaccine before it was ready, she was wildly wrong.)

> I will concede that, in implying that Trump would push people to get a vaccine before it was ready, she was wildly wrong.

Exactly, she (the left) also politicized the vaccine. QED

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#130

Post by rkk3 »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #128
rkk3 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a prominent example of the left politicizing the vaccine... "If Trump tells us to take it [The Vaccine], I won't" - Kamala Harris https://www.cbsnews.com/video/2020-vp-debate-kamala-harris-o...

What do you want to say with this link? That CBS lied that Harris said that? That Harris lied about her mistrust of Donald Trump and his administration? She is clearly referring to the potential scenario back last year when Trump could be pushing for a vaccine to be approved and released that did not satisfy scientific medical standards, just to benefit in the election. That stance doesn't fit in a few seconds of sou…

> What do you want to say with this link?

That the left was also guilty of politicizing the vaccine & throwing doubting on its safety when it was politically expedient.

Post reply on HN