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

171–180 of 181 posts

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#171

Post by angelzen »

jtbayly wrote: post #32
stapled_socks wrote: post #29

> Firing thousands of workers for not being vaccinated (including those, to repeat, who have natural immunity through infection) is also unprecedented Is this true in the US? It seems unreasonable. What I've seen in the EU is that antibodies and frequent PCR testing are deemed just as acceptable as vaccination, and I think it makes sense.

Yes. It is true. There is no exception for natural immunity. Some places are theoretically willing to accept weekly PCR testing. But good luck actually keeping your job if you go that route. The whole thing is so politicized that you become one of the deplorables by choosing that route.

Given that vaccinated people can also get infected and transmit the virus, it is bizarre that we have accepted so easily the premise that only unvaccinated people need to take a weekly PCR test.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#172

Post by [deleted] »

protomyth wrote: post #166
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vaccine increases immunity even for people who have already been infected. It makes total sense to have them get vaccinated. The goal isn't to have everyone reach a specific level of immunity. It's to get the highest possible level of immunity that is possible without taking on additional risks.

The vaccine increases immunity even for people who have already been infected. It makes total sense to have them get vaccinated. Any risk is stupid if you already have better immunity than taking the vaccine. Once again, other diseases are handled exactly like this. Vaccine if you haven't had it, and no vaccine if you have. Doctors recognize that adding risk is a bad idea.

[deleted]

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#173

Post by [deleted] »

protomyth wrote: post #85
faster wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference in cost to the organization giving the shots or the antibody tests? My expectation is that they're about the same. If that's true, it's easier and more certain to just require vaccination. Also, this article provides some arguments based more on biology. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-v...

So if it costs a company the same, then workers can take medicine they don't need that has a risk to save someone a buck? How about we stick with science instead of profits?

[deleted]

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#174

Post by Auracle »

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.”

My wife went to the hospital with a mild case. She’s pregnant and had a monoclonal antibody infusion. We went home and she immediately developed a fever/chills/shakes when she hadn’t had any before.

So back to the hospital we went, just in case it was a reaction. They gave her some IV fluids and sent us home after 2 hours.

So there’s one. I bet a good portion of them are people freaking out once they realize they have it as a considerable portion of the population thinks the survival rate is ridiculously low.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#175

Post by ajkdhcb2 »

protomyth wrote: post #169
ajkdhcb2 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define antivax? Pretty sure you would be defined as an antivaxxer by most people as a result of your opinion that some people don't need to get vaccines

That's a really bad way to define ant-vax since that would encompass a lot of people following accepted practices with the measles vaccine along with some others. Anti-vaxers hate all vaccines. Most of this thread is about following actual science and practices used for other vaccines. If you've had it, then don't get the vaccine, otherwise get the vaccine.

I agree with you, but society has recently decided to label anyone with these beliefs as an anti-vaxxer, so we'll have to get used to the new terminology

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#176

Post by generj »

sethammons wrote: post #41
generj wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And sometimes education comes from the rest of society saying “you are welcome to your beliefs, but not welcome to pollute my air at our workplace until you aren’t a danger to me.” We set the precedent for forced vaccination nearly a century ago. There is no slippery slope here, or at least if there is we already slid down the hill and are resting comfortably on flat ground.

From the article, among the points is that this is a slippery slope that led to uninformed sterilization of black and native people: > It is rarely acknowledged that this decision also made possible the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1927 case of Buck v. Bell, in which the court determined: “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” This ruling legitimize…

That’s a fair point, and I hadn’t heard of that Supreme Court ruling.

Without being too flippant, I believe the pro-Eugenics society the court came from would have found a way to twist any precedent or lack thereof to justify eugenics. Some of the same members of that court went on to sanction imprisonment and property theft from thousands of people without even the pretense of crime other than their race.

I also want to point out the current rules (and what most ppl are advocating for) aren’t forced medical proceedings. Truly involuntarily medical proceedings have almost exclusively been abused.

Everyone is free to not receive a vaccine, they just have some negative consequences for doing so.

It turns out the inconvenience of not being able to go to a restaurant was hugely compelling in France, for instance.

I’m sensitive to the fact that threats to livelihood don’t feel very voluntary. In the US, the threat to livelihood isn’t from the government. There is no national vaccine mandate - just an annoying testing mandate the vaccinated get to skip out on.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#177

Post by lebuffon »

cymian wrote: post #161
lebuffon wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole area might fall into the Sam Clemens quote: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics" Since 30 to 40 percent of humans experience no illness with this thing the denominator can be quite different depending on what you use for it. Notwithstanding that... John's Hopkins Website https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/bda759474... USA Total Cases Total Deaths 44,318,179 712,975 1.6% This is with…

CFR (Case Fatality Rate) is very different than IFR (Infection fatality Rate). Many many more people have been infected but only the more severe cases tend to end up and be counted in the hospitals.

Yes, especially in a disease with as much as 40% asymptomatic infections.

So if we correct by that 40% factor the USA goes to 1% death rate or roughly 10X influenza.

Mexico becomes 4.5%. Not insignificant.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#178

Post by bayesian_horse »

labawi wrote: post #158
bayesian_horse wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Iceland accepts either vaccine or previous infection certificates[1][2]. They seemed to handle covid well, being fairly strict. Fake vaccinations[3], including fake certificates are popular, especially when they are forced. If you want a fake vaccination, I know a guy who knows a guy. Point is - it's not bullshit. Yes, checking certificates is easier than testing for antibodies. While harder, I still think antibody t…

Did you notice that Iceland is a slightly smaller country, with probably quite a bit fewer medical labs? Also an island, with islands generally having an easier time with all the pandemic restrictions stuff?

I don't even know how Iceland's health system is organized. But it would be a good bet that it is light years ahead of the mess of the 52 states plus territories and whatever! Much different story.

Re: The Plague of the Poor

#179

Post by bayesian_horse »

labawi wrote: post #160
bayesian_horse wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of testing isn't exactly cheap and it is hard to standardize because of all the variables and the fickleness of the process. The one you link is specific to one particular laboratory. These tests also tend to fail a few weeks or months after the infection. Nor does it actually prove any immunity against disease. You can only assume that these antibodies probe prior contact to the virus and that this prior c…

It's expensive, so noone should have the option even if they pay for it? (friend paid about 20€) It can have false negatives, making people needlessly take a vaccine, so everyone should take the vaccine in the name of equality? Vaccine certificates neither prove you actually got the vaccine (though highly likely), nor do they prove any immunity against disease (though fairly likely). With this level of arguments, I c…

There have been rigorous studies that correlate the specific vaccine with the specific desired outcome of immunity.

You probably can't understand (and don't want to) why that is not the case for people who got infected at some unknown random point in the past and with an unknown, random variant of the Virus. And I don't care to explain it to you.

And you probably also don't want to understand why those lab tests aren't designed, regulated or approved as a proof of immunity. To be rigorous enough, probably every single lab would have to do control studies to find out if their tests predict immunity against reinfection.

Post reply on HN