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

Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 437 posts

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#421

Post by castdeath97 »

winocm wrote: post #386
outside1234 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can - I'd dump the voodoo. And there are a vanishingly small number of medical reasons to skip it. Most of the people claiming this are making it up.

Not me. But then again nobody cares about me anyway. Apparently I learned that I’m allergic to my deodorant yesterday, it burned when I applied it to the skin and after a minute it became intolerable. Guess what it contained? PEG-8.

> Not me. But then again nobody cares about me anyway.

Nonsense, Your health system in America might be a steaming pile of garbage, but I'm gald I managed to find you here after I got worried once you deactivated one of your accounts.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#422

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

lamontcg wrote: post #394
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or 30%, to be fair.

published on the CDC site today: 77% (74%-80%) VE for pfizer and 92% (89%-93%) VE for moderna. With only some evidence of reduced VE against delta and/or waning in those > 75 years old: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm

That's a very reassuring result, thanks for sharing.

Interesting that moderna continues to do better, and looking forward to seeing the studies VE versus time since vaccination.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#423

Post by foolinaround »

enkid wrote: post #272
Ancapistani wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vaccine reportedly can also trigger a more severe immune response in people who already have naturally-acquired antibodies. Try to find good statistics on the rates and severity of adverse reactions for people who have already have COVID. I've had very little success.

All evidence is that it still is a greater risk to not get vaccinated if you've had COVID than to get vaccinated. A lot of bullshit "reportedly" happens. That's why the CDC sets guidelines based on the based scientific evidence available and says you should get the vaccine whether or not you had COVID. Stop spreading disinformation.

> All evidence is that it still is a greater risk to not get vaccinated if you've had COVID than to get vaccinated.

Source for the above?

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#424

Post by foolinaround »

enkid wrote: post #274
herbst wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. And generally the possibility of more severe immune responses after vaxing. (Like with dengue for example) It is obvious these are a problem, and it's obvious we do not talk a out that right now. Saying the vaccine is a perfect solution that will solve all our issues is just dellusional

There is no evidence of that with this vaccine, and with the number of people who have received it we would have collected that evidence by now, so stop spreading hypotheticals.

https://logfall.wordpress.com/absence-of-evidence-fallacy/

The questions to ask are -- how do we define rare? how do we define time to elapse before results show up?

When that rare or time-lapsed event occurs, what is its severity?

Most importantly, what is the severity of the original event (covid infection) to the particular individual?

This risk varies widely between individuals, and parts of it are very much subjective.

For an external entity to make an objective judgement without even considering all the factors is the sign of tyranny.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#425

Post by AndrewBissell »

Daishiman wrote: post #110
AndrewBissell wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't pretend to be at all concerned about ICU capacity if you also support mass firings of nurses who won't take the vaccine, which is another of the "prongs" being rolled out by Biden today.

So you support having unvaccinated nurses in hospitals full of people with compromised immune systems? How does that work?

It works just fine because the net effect of the vaccines on transmission is not known, and may even be enhancing.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#426

Post by foolinaround »

kxyvr wrote: post #372
version_five wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, if someone refuses a vaccine, should an emergency room be free to refuse care? This argument doesn't hold up. First, tying availability of medical care to the "right" behavior unconscionable at so many levels. In a developed country, do we really want to create a tier of disabled or unhealthy people that we've denied care to because we don't like their behavior (maybe dont answer that) More practically…

In many ways, I do agree with you. I don't want there to be multiple tiers of healthcare based on someone's lifestyle. I believe strongly that if someone is sick, then they deserve help. At the same time, there are several implications of that ideal that affect us very personally right now. At the moment, a large portion of the hospitals are full. By now, I'm sure we've read the news reports, but in case someone does…

> Hospitals are not full due to smokers nor obese people. They are full due to unvaccinated COVID.

thank you for sharing the anecdote of your wife's work scenario.

But you differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinated in Covid.

Do you do the same for the heart attack victim that did not get the ICU bed? Did he smoke? eat junk food?

Should we categorize this victim as well, and likewise give them different levels of treatment.

taking it further, should'nt we ban cigarettes and junk food -- can't think of anything good coming out of them - except that the timelines for its effects are a little longer than covid?

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#427

Post by foolinaround »

enkid wrote: post #269
version_five wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a libertarian and I think choices should be up to the individual, because it's never ok to have a political group decide for you what is good or bad. It's antithetical to western liberalism. My rant aside, I think there are better and worse ways to infringe on people's liberty when needed. And given the way the winds are blowing, it would be much better to enforce vaccination at the federal level, i.e. compel peo…

This is compelling people by law to get it. Biden is using a law that is on the books to compel people to get it. I don't see the problem here. Any law that would be passed would be just as patch work and also require people to give up medical information. Truthfully, at this point this just sounds like an excuse not to do it.

> Biden is using a law that is on the books to compel people to get it.

Do you just make things up? What law is it? Does he get to write it up? There will be legal challenges for it, no doubt.

It is one thing to debate where mandating is right or wrong under the circumstances, and yet another, claiming legitimacy for the action.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#428

Post by fighterpilot »

kcplate wrote: post #420
fighterpilot wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because I am also rightly not allowed to throw a brick out of my apartment window without looking below, because that might plausibly hit someone in the head. Most bricks that I could throw out my window won't hit someone in the head, but that doesn't mean that it should be legal for me to do it, because it is recklessly endangering people. Same situation if I put a single bullet into a revolver, spun it, and pul…

Drunk driving laws are punitive. They allow the individual freedom of choice. The equivalent in this scenario is locking someone up because they own a car and a liquor cabinet and could drive drunk and kill someone. Then also giving them the keys to the prison bus to drive around the prison yard while providing an unlimited supply of pruno.

You are right that there's a big distinction there. But at the same time, I was attempting to point out that it's not only certainty of outcome where the NAP applies. We all accept that the NAP can validly apply in some situations where an aggression is probabilistic rather than guaranteed.

Let me outline an alternative situation where an individual would have no freedom of choice, but where you might agree with the measures imposed. Suppose we identify the first case of Ebola in the US next year. Do you support forcibly quarantining that person? Such an action is eminently necessary in my opinion. But at the same time, such an action violates the two things you've laid out: (1) it doesn't allow the individual any freedom of choice, (2) it is not guaranteed that they'll spread it and is therefore restricting their freedoms merely on the probability of aggression.

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#429

Post by gr__or »

Dwelve wrote: post #419
thatswrong0 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the long term safety data on catching / surviving COVID itself? Long COVID seems to affect between 10-30% of people who catch COVID. Why do I never hear anti-vaxxers being concerned about that?

Ah yes, Long COVID the self diagnosed symptoms that surprisingly coincide with those that you would expect if you told a society to lockdown for 18 months.

For a nuanced take on long COVID I recommend Scott's post: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/long-covid-much-more-t...

Re: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers

#430

Post by kcplate »

fighterpilot wrote: post #428
kcplate wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drunk driving laws are punitive. They allow the individual freedom of choice. The equivalent in this scenario is locking someone up because they own a car and a liquor cabinet and could drive drunk and kill someone. Then also giving them the keys to the prison bus to drive around the prison yard while providing an unlimited supply of pruno.

You are right that there's a big distinction there. But at the same time, I was attempting to point out that it's not only certainty of outcome where the NAP applies. We all accept that the NAP can validly apply in some situations where an aggression is probabilistic rather than guaranteed. Let me outline an alternative situation where an individual would have no freedom of choice, but where you might agree with the…

But—they have Ebola. The problem with a mandate of an imperfect vaccine on a person presently without Covid is they don’t have Covid. Frankly, I’d be ok quarantines imposed on Covid patients just like your Ebola scenario.

My problem is the whole “Minority Report pre-crimesque” aspect of it all. It’s an unnecessary aggression imposed on an individual to maybe or maybe not prevent a something that maybe or maybe not would have happened anyway.

A vaccine that was 100% effective and was 100% safe is probably the only way you can make an argument work. But if it was a 100% effective and a 100% it’s likely you wouldn’t need to mandate it anyway.

Post reply on HN