Linus Torvalds: Get vaccinated. Stop believing the anti-vax lies • Hacker News Board

Re: Linus Torvalds: Get vaccinated. Stop believing the anti-vax lies

#251

Post by JamisonM » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

betwixthewires wrote: post #184

doublea wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't claim it was possible, you claimed it was a certainty: > You would've all still caught it whether she was vaccinated or not I will continue to call you out as long as you continue to purposely misinform people.

"You can still transmit the virus with the vaccine" was my statement. Alright, I misspoke. You could've all still caught it whether she was vaccinated or not. For you to attribute malintent claiming I'm purposefully misleading people is a bit ridiculous. All I'm doing is having a discussion on the internet with people and sharing my personal viewpoints. Quit telling people to shut up just because you disagree with th…

You are quite obviously purposely misleading people, no one is obliged to be so credulous.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Get vaccinated. Stop believing the anti-vax lies

#252

Post by wwweston » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 2:42 PM UTC

textgel wrote: post #250

zuminator wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal isn't to entirely eliminate transmission, which is, as you imply, impossible. The goal is to reduce spread to below R=1 for the general population and any substantial subgroups.

And without the complete abolition of capacity to transmit the disease you're still a risk to that goal.

So many effective measures in the world aren't all or nothing, but still help substantially in managing risk.

60-80% reduced probability of transmission is huge. Sure, you're going to want to be careful not to go to a rave and then get on an airplane before visiting your immunocompromised relative for whom vaccination is contraindicated, and you might want to watch infection rates in your community, and perhaps even take other measures. But that's approaching an order of magnitude reduction in risk.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Get vaccinated. Stop believing the anti-vax lies

#253

Post by textgel » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 2:45 PM UTC

wwweston wrote: post #252

textgel wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And without the complete abolition of capacity to transmit the disease you're still a risk to that goal.

So many effective measures in the world aren't all or nothing, but still help substantially in managing risk. 60-80% reduced probability of transmission is huge. Sure, you're going to want to be careful not to go to a rave and then get on an airplane before visiting your immunocompromised relative for whom vaccination is contraindicated, and you might want to watch infection rates in your community, and perhaps even…

It doesn't matter as nuance and risk management has never been permitted to matter previously. It's still a risk. Lives are at stake and that's the end of the discussion.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Get vaccinated. Stop believing the anti-vax lies

#254

Post by foolinaround » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 3:34 PM UTC

ViViDboarder wrote: post #230

foolinaround wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you’re vaccinated you’re less likely to even catch I don't think so. Can you point me to some studies for the above. I believe you will catch it, and if vaccinated, you will have a milder reaction to the disease

I guess that depends on what you consider catching to mean. If you have such a low amount that you experience no symptoms and not enough to spread, is it caught, or have you staved off the illness?

agree that it is just in degrees - from the asymptomatic person to the vaccinated or even the person previously infected.

In this way, it should just be considered a terrible version of the common cold, and each person should take appropriate steps to protect themselves ( either before the event such as boosting immunity, reducing comorbidities, just not going to high risk areas or at the event - social distancing, masking, etc )

Re: Linus Torvalds: Get vaccinated. Stop believing the anti-vax lies

#255

Post by ViViDboarder » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

ViViDboarder wrote: post #169

landemva wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"kept more of us in isolation longer than we should have been." That was your politicians and your choice. My family went to Florida last November because it was open w/o masks. Don't play the pretend guilt trip about lockups, when nearly all healthy people recover and then have the antibodies. NY politicians forced known C19 carriers into long term care for elderly, causing mass death in this older vulnerable popula…

Miami-Dade county: 18,474 deaths per 100k San Francisco county: 63 deaths per 100k That’s an accounting of the cost associated by not locking things down. What we have yet to see is what the economic impact is. However, the city of San Francisco has a budget surplus right now since economically we did better than expected.

Correction: I copied the wrong value for Miami-Dade. It’s 238 deaths per 100k. The previous number was cases.

Summary:

Miami-Dade: 18,474 cases and 238 deaths per 100k population San Francisco: 4,214 cases and 63 deaths per 100k population

Re: Linus Torvalds: Get vaccinated. Stop believing the anti-vax lies

#256

Post by effie » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 8:46 PM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #215

effie wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the existence of a viable breeding ground for the disease keeps it active in the population, and capable of mutating, and escaping vaccines. You assume that when a person does not get a vaccine, that person is helping to get more people infected. But that does not always happen; many people have natural immunity and in case they are nevertheless infectors, they are quite less effective at infecting others, similar…

Statistically, people who are not vaccinated contribute to the spread of the virus. The fact that any one person who isn't vaccinated may not be infected is not relevant. You're using the existence of a few exceptions to prove the rule. We know there are a few people who were born immune to the HIV virus. Does that mean it's ok for everyone to assume they have this kind of immunity and not practice safe sex? Crazy. >…

> Does that mean it's ok for everyone to assume they have this kind of immunity and not practice safe sex? Crazy.

It is a personal responsibility of the participants. When people have natural (no rubber) sex it is none of anybody else's business to control how they do it, except if there is intentional spreading of disease. You have to prove bad intent to harm or spread disease, then you are right that intervention is justified. Without that, forcing condoms on everybody having sex is an autocratic policy that should have no place in civil democratic society. You can politely suggest getting tested and using condoms though.

> Except that the people who don't get vaccinated overlap with the people who refuse all of the other mitigations -- many antivax people are also anti-mask, anti-social distancing, anti-lockdown, etc.

That may be. Reasonableness of these positions depends highly on actual local health situation. These people are not always wrong as you seem to imply.

> bizarre process: 1) "natural immunity" vs "vaccine immunity"

It's simple: natural immunity is something you get without powerful interests being in control; vaccine is subjecting your health into hands of some other party. Some people do not want to their health to be controlled by powerful interests/institutions in general, some just in case of vaccines. It's perfectly valid and respectable personal stance. It does not matter whether it's scientific, almost no society is run by science, scientists or scientific consensus. We use rather political process and respect individual freedoms even if those are unscientific (religion, refusing transfusion, refusing vaccines, etc.)

Re: Linus Torvalds: Get vaccinated. Stop believing the anti-vax lies

#257

Post by effie » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 8:51 PM UTC

squiggleblaz wrote: post #221

effie wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such people also are recommended to get immunoisolated.

For the rest of their life because someone has an idee fixe? It hardly seems proportionate. The person with the idee fixe will have to suck it up, sunshine. If they _really_ don't want the vaccine, then they should immunoisolate to prevent infecting those cannot get vaccinated.

For the time they prefer to do that. It is recommended by doctors because for such vulnerable people it is the best and easiest to execute strategy to keep them from life-threatening infections.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Get vaccinated. Stop believing the anti-vax lies

#258

Post by effie » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 8:59 PM UTC

squiggleblaz wrote: post #219

effie wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The elderly and immunocompromised people you are related to, spend time with, and care about. Or, hell, even those that you don't, but just happen to come in close contact with. No they aren't, because I can and do limit my risk to such people in other ways. And they can and should limit that risk as well themselves, in other ways than getting others vaccinated. Why? Because the space outside your home isn't some "…

> As a general rule, you are responsible for your health and safety, nobody else is. This is a stupid proposal for a rule. I call it a proposal, because even a cursory study of the evidence shows it is not a description of general practice, and doesn't reflect the laws that most societies have enacted for themselves. If it were the actual rule, then you would never be able to eat any food. Most people have the decenc…

Rules have exceptions, if somebody is in business of providing food, of course there are expectations and rules.

When you go out in the street or to a pub, there is no expectation and no rule that everybody is completely sterile.

Your health is primarily your responsibility, not other random people's you may encounter.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Get vaccinated. Stop believing the anti-vax lies

#259

Post by effie » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 9:01 PM UTC

cma wrote: post #226

effie wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The elderly and immunocompromised people you are related to, spend time with, and care about. Or, hell, even those that you don't, but just happen to come in close contact with. No they aren't, because I can and do limit my risk to such people in other ways. And they can and should limit that risk as well themselves, in other ways than getting others vaccinated. Why? Because the space outside your home isn't some "…

> As a general rule, you are responsible for your health and safety, nobody else is. This is like saying people should be able to drive on the opposite side of the road.

They are able to do that de facto, just in some countries not by the rules. Traffic rules are very different than compulsory vaccination, the benefit/harm is much greater for traffic rules.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Get vaccinated. Stop believing the anti-vax lies

#260

Post by betwixthewires » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 11:36 PM UTC

JamisonM wrote: post #251

betwixthewires wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You can still transmit the virus with the vaccine" was my statement. Alright, I misspoke. You could've all still caught it whether she was vaccinated or not. For you to attribute malintent claiming I'm purposefully misleading people is a bit ridiculous. All I'm doing is having a discussion on the internet with people and sharing my personal viewpoints. Quit telling people to shut up just because you disagree with th…

You are quite obviously purposely misleading people, no one is obliged to be so credulous.

Obviously? If it is so obvious then tell me how. Misleading people, maybe, I could be wrong. I don't think I am, but I could be. Purposely? Show me how you came to that conclusion.

Also not a single one of you has answered my initial question, "selfish how?"