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

141–150 of 181 posts

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#141

Post by bayesian_horse »

rkk3 wrote: post #130
bayesian_horse wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

CNN is not "the left".

Nor did Kamala Harris throw doubt on an existing and proven vaccine. No vaccine had been approved at that point, whereas Trump was blundering through the pandemic response in search of any way to save his political hide. There was a lot of evidence Trump put pressure on public health officials to downplay the pandemic and put people at more risk than necessary.

Trump had already been known to be conman before he was elected. Everything we learned since only put more details on that fact.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#142

Post by krallja »

blacktulip wrote: post #3

> So whose interests are served by mandating a leaky vaccine that prevents neither infection nor transmission of a disease that is chiefly dangerous to people over 75 or with serious preexisting medical conditions? Should I keep reading? I think not

Don’t forget this gem:

> almost half of the COVID-19 cases in hospitals are mild or asymptomatic

Why on earth would asymptomatic people be hospitalized?

And “mild” just means “you are not at immediate risk of death,” not “it’s going to be an easy illness.”

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#143

Post by rc2634 »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #125
rc2634 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please provide a list of all the false statements and sources that prove them to be false statements.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#144

Post by bayesian_horse »

rkk3 wrote: post #129
ineptech wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

She wouldn't have needed to politicize health policy at all if Trump and his administration had shown a basic level of competence and honesty around that topic.

The fear that Trump might push an unproven, unsatisfactory vaccine, was legitimate. Doing so would have damaged the actual vaccination campaign immensely.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#145

Post by labawi »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #117
protomyth wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is always a risk with vaccination as with any medication. It's small, but why take it? Taking a vaccine to make other people feel better is emotional and not scientific. There is no debate, there are blood tests. The same logic has been applied to measles.

You'd find that judging an individual's immunity by a vague notion of prior infection with Covid-19 is probably riskier than the vaccine. Comirnaty had hundreds of millions of doses administered so far, and maybe - maybe - one woman died of myocarditis. This is nothing to potentially hundreds of thousands of prevented fatalities, much less the unpleasant to severe bouts of Covid-19.

How about judging by blood reactivity to virus protein in an ELISA test? [1]

Why is it riskier and to whom?

[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/141777/download

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#146

Post by rkk3 »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #141
rkk3 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

CNN is not "the left". Nor did Kamala Harris throw doubt on an existing and proven vaccine. No vaccine had been approved at that point, whereas Trump was blundering through the pandemic response in search of any way to save his political hide. There was a lot of evidence Trump put pressure on public health officials to downplay the pandemic and put people at more risk than necessary. Trump had already been known to b…

> Nor did Kamala Harris throw doubt on an existing and proven vaccine

They did exist, were 6+ months and several stages into trials & were given temporary authorization only 2 months latter.

She fomented fear & distrust about the safety of vaccines to score talking points in a debate. Not sure why you think she should get a free pass.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#147

Post by labawi »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #121
tasogare wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

Would you please educate me on

> how complicated the testing is or how many health providers and labs there are.

AFAIK, you can actually test blood reactivity to virus protein, proving a positive.

I'm not sure how you would prove that a person actually got vaccinated and it wasn't the case of doctor pouring vaccine down the drain, someone else taking the vaccine instead etc.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#148

Post by labawi »

krallja wrote: post #142
blacktulip wrote: post #3

> So whose interests are served by mandating a leaky vaccine that prevents neither infection nor transmission of a disease that is chiefly dangerous to people over 75 or with serious preexisting medical conditions? Should I keep reading? I think not

Don’t forget this gem: > almost half of the COVID-19 cases in hospitals are mild or asymptomatic Why on earth would asymptomatic people be hospitalized? And “mild” just means “you are not at immediate risk of death,” not “it’s going to be an easy illness.”

Because they are in a hospital with other issues?

Testing patients is reasonable. If they are counted in the statistic, it can easily be misleading. Not sure if that's the case.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#149

Post by JKCalhoun »

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…

> If we fail to resist this establishment now, the harms caused by a medicalized “show your papers” regime will far exceed the threat posed by the virus itself.

Author lost me there, I'm afraid.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#150

Post by bayesian_horse »

labawi wrote: post #147
bayesian_horse wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Would you please educate me on > how complicated the testing is or how many health providers and labs there are. AFAIK, you can actually test blood reactivity to virus protein, proving a positive. I'm not sure how you would prove that a person actually got vaccinated and it wasn't the case of doctor pouring vaccine down the drain, someone else taking the vaccine instead etc.

I don't have time to explain to you the intricacies of antibody testing. However, it is much more difficult than to standardize on what antigens and what titres to pick and how to correlate that for a "positive" result. Testing for neutralizing antibodies is even harder, because it involves isolating the antibodies and testing them against live virus particles and a cell culture.

And yes, standardizing such testing, as complicated and expensive as it is, across all the relevant labs across the country would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

I'm not going to engage with your bullshit about doctors faking vaccinations.

Post reply on HN