531–540 of 1001 posts
People don’t want to take the vaccine because others are trying to force them to. They would say “it’s not FDA approved!” not as the core of their hesitancy, but because they were trying to be appeal to pro-vax peoples decision making framework. I don’t think we should be able to require them to. To many of you here: imagine the Trump admin trying to require you to take the vaccine in November of last year. Cities wo…
People don’t want to take the vaccine because others are trying to force them to. They would say “it’s not FDA approved!” not as the core of their hesitancy, but because they were trying to be appeal to pro-vax peoples decision making framework. I don’t think we should be able to require them to. To many of you here: imagine the Trump admin trying to require you to take the vaccine in November of last year. Cities wo…
we don't require anyone to take the vaccine, and we will never require anyone to take the vaccine. What we should and will do is restrict what someone who is not vaccinated can do to limit the harm they will cause to others. No one is going to bang down your door and force a vaccine into your arm, but if you do not want to get vaccinated you will need to change your life because you will be restricted from participat…
We have made up a huge number of arbitrary rules, some at a very broad scale (for instance, that you must shoes and shirts to go into most businesses), others idiosyncratic and basically between one person and another (no cats in this apartment). They all restrict our choices and our freedom and our actions.
We have also set specific limits on what sort of rules we can make up. You can say "no cats" in an apartment, fine, but you can't say "no pregnant women". You can fire someone for showing up at work one day with a face tattoo but not for changing their religion.
"Not wanting to get a vaccine" or "not wanting to wear a face mask" is not currently a recognized protected class (although not being able to because of a medical condition probably is, but hey, of the many many things I am not, I am not a lawyer). There's nothing saying it couldn't be -- we didn't used to have a concept of "protected class", we just had to make it up at some point -- but that's one way to frame this discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That question might best be prefaced with “here’s what would change my mind… what about yours?” That formulation might come across as more curious and open rather than patronizing. Though I honestly don’t at all understand the mindset of people who don’t want the vaccine, so I have to admit this approach could quite easily still be offensive.
People are mostly worried about long term side effects. Including those who have the vaccine. Understanding that base fear will help bridge the divide between groups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really about you. It's about preventing other, more vulnerable people from getting sick. Living in a society means giving up some of your freedoms in exchange for security, and getting vaccinated as a way to help other people should be part of that exchange.
I don't agree with this, in general. We shouldn't give up our freedoms. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (Benjamin Franklin) We should be motivated by a desire to help one another, and resist when freedoms are removed. That being said, if businesses want to exercise their freedoms to make life more difficult for the unvaccinated, s…
I’m wondering what the odds are that people will pivot from “it’s experimental” to “it was rushed due to politics/greed”. I think a huge factor will be how many employers, colleges, etc. are now willing and legally able to require vaccination. It’s one thing to say you trust something you read on Facebook more than your doctor and quite another to walk away from a job because of it.
> I’m wondering what the odds are that people will pivot from “it’s experimental” to “it was rushed due to politics/greed”. No doubt this will be the case for some. So, you've found a logical flaw in people's stated reasons for not wanting a vaccine. How does that help anything? In these kinds of debates, the actual goals or beliefs of both sides often differ from what they say. For example, the government being able…
This. One hundred times, this. I realize in many regards they already tell us what to do, and that does not make the next time more palatable.
From ones body perspective. What is the reason to take vaccine risk if you are healthy From societal perspective, why would you do it if you can transmit it in the same amount as if you are not vaccinated? Doesn't makes sense to me, but well.. I do think that it's a good thing for people that have disease that can complicate covid recovery and older generations.
The graph shows about a .1% chance of death at age 50 if you catch COVID-19. The chance of hospitalization and potential long-term symptoms is a multiple of that.
Vaccinated folks have a lower chance of catching COVID, so as a whole, they have a lower chance of spreading it.
1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289900/#&gid=article-figur...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This thing was never about protecting people. Thats why it doesn't make sense to you. These health passes will later be called citizen passes or similar, and you won't be able to do any activity without them. And if you are a difficult person with opinions about this, you will get flagged as a security risk and unable to use that citizen pass. People think I'm joking and it will never happen. But I believe that's exa…
These health passes will later be called citizen passes or similar, and you won't be able to do any activity without them. "The key to unlock NYC" just reeks of cheesy marketing department brainstorming doesnt it?
Hacker news is turning into Reddit style comments section. Can we talk about natural immunity and the path forward?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m wondering what the odds are that people will pivot from “it’s experimental” to “it was rushed due to politics/greed”. No doubt this will be the case for some. So, you've found a logical flaw in people's stated reasons for not wanting a vaccine. How does that help anything? In these kinds of debates, the actual goals or beliefs of both sides often differ from what they say. For example, the government being able…
> For example, the government being able to tell you what to do, vs. it not. People end up locking in to trivialities like approval or some study, but they just obscure the real debate. Is government regulatory authority really the "real debate"? That too seems like an projected excuse, trivially proven by the fact that the same people who are most invested in the libertarian framing are the ones who believe a secret…
FWIW, that's not even close to true among the Libertarians I know. And as a Libertarian myself, I know quite a few. The set of people who "believe a secret government agent has been working for the last four and a half years to extrajudiciously round up pedophiles and liberals" may include a few actual Libertarians, but I would posit that most of the so-called "Libertarians" in that group have only the thinnest grasp on what the Libertarian perspective is about, probably haven't read/studied Libertarian ideology extensively (or anything else for that matter), and are merely repeating a few superficial talking points they heard somewhere that may - by happenstance - align with Libertarian perspectives.
But a whole ton of people on "your side" of this debate are quite clearly not serious about regulatory overreach.
Those people sound more like the fringe of the "Tea Party" movement... populist, anti-establishment and perhaps "anti government" only in the sense that they don't like the current government. But these aren't, by and large, people who have rational, well-reasoned, comprehensive arguments for the need to reduce the size and scope of government across the board.
YMMV, of course.
I’m wondering what the odds are that people will pivot from “it’s experimental” to “it was rushed due to politics/greed”. I think a huge factor will be how many employers, colleges, etc. are now willing and legally able to require vaccination. It’s one thing to say you trust something you read on Facebook more than your doctor and quite another to walk away from a job because of it.
The facebook posts typically reference one of several organised groups of hundreds of working doctors, some of whom claim to have directly observed high levels of concerningly-serious adverse reaction, even among small sample groups (eg, small town doctors who vaccinated many in the town). If a doctor is recommending you don't take it based on their experience and expertise, it carries a bit more weight than "somethi…
I highly doubt it.
"Minds are not won by force."
How is it by force? They still have agency in their decision: Job or jab.