591–600 of 600 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good. Do fat people, smokers, and drinkers next.
Except they aren't jamming up hospitals all at once due to their choices. That's the critical difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why your life expectancy is what it is.
Do you really believe this, or was that just a bit of casual and implicit racism to go with your fear mongering? Also, you are aware that pretty much all available evidence so far shows Omicron to indeed be extremely mild, in symptoms little different from a mild flu or a heavier cold? If you've vaccinated yourself and ensured that your loved ones are in the same boat, its absurd to want to strong arm those who decid…
So hospitals getting full of unvaccinated patients "doesn't affect me"?
Service industries losing staff all over doesn't affect me? Increased insurance costs and cancelled flights don't concern me? A huge number of people having long COVID symptoms, record number of people applying for disabilities, doesn't affect me?
There's not enough medical staff to go around treating these idiots.
Your arguements are just one brtual demonstration of ignorance after another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you moving the conversation to something else? Breakthrough cases can be had while still dramatically reducing disease severity, transmissibility, hospitalizations, and chances of long COVID. All those things matter; all those are objectively improved by vaccination, even more by boosters. The only way you can actually ask this is by trying maliciously move the conversation to a nonsensical point. Neither mys…
Perhaps it is amplified by the media’s poor choice of reductive medical terminologies: as in “prevent” vs. “largely prevent”. We both know that vaccine , in general, is intended to “greatly minimize risk”.
Every mainstream medium is telling it loud and clear: 20-fold reduction in ICU admissions and deaths. There is nothing to debate here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really believe this, or was that just a bit of casual and implicit racism to go with your fear mongering? Also, you are aware that pretty much all available evidence so far shows Omicron to indeed be extremely mild, in symptoms little different from a mild flu or a heavier cold? If you've vaccinated yourself and ensured that your loved ones are in the same boat, its absurd to want to strong arm those who decid…
What the hell do you mean, "they won't directly affect me"? So hospitals getting full of unvaccinated patients "doesn't affect me"? Service industries losing staff all over doesn't affect me? Increased insurance costs and cancelled flights don't concern me? A huge number of people having long COVID symptoms, record number of people applying for disabilities, doesn't affect me? There's not enough medical staff to go a…
The same goes for many other industries such as those you refer to, as well as cancelled flights. These are problems caused by irresponsible structural management, not people exercising the basic right of bodily autonomy. As for long COVID, it's still hotly debated how prevalent it is but the numbers are nowhere near enough to justify your own hysterical claim about its importance on a global scale.
Your very dismissal of any nuance and of people who for numerous reasons disagree with mass forced vaccinations and social punishments for those who harbour reasonable doubts about these particular vaccines is also grotesque and childish. Simply referring to those of us who consider this whole range of factors as "idiots" is foolish and arrogant in an absurd way.
Ignorance is blindly, fearfully swallowing a fixed narrative and reducing anything that disagrees with it into simplistic reductions
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While it's very unlikely, we simply don't know if some unknown side-effect will pop up in 10 years and the only way to find out is to wait 10 years and verify empirically.
This is a non-argument. We simply don't know many things before we actually observe them. We don't know whether the stone we let fall a thousand times will still fall after thousand-and-one times. But we can assume it does not, because this wouldn't match the rest of the rules we observed so far. Granted, RNA vaccines are quite new (although a lot older than the pandemic), but the mechanisms behind RNA are older stil…
I don't know enough to judge by myself and agree that it's highly unlikely, but I've noticed that we've been surprised before by these new vaccines: the AZ blood clots came out of the blue and it took about a year for the cause to be discovered - I remember reading that the culprit was accidental injection in the bloodstream after all. Myocarditis is still a mystery.
I call this the "vaccines will turn us into zombies" theory. Quite laughable, but we'll have to wait and see. :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the hell do you mean, "they won't directly affect me"? So hospitals getting full of unvaccinated patients "doesn't affect me"? Service industries losing staff all over doesn't affect me? Increased insurance costs and cancelled flights don't concern me? A huge number of people having long COVID symptoms, record number of people applying for disabilities, doesn't affect me? There's not enough medical staff to go a…
They shouldn't affect me, or anyone else who can show a bit of mental amplitude. Hospitals are for one thing in many cases not getting nearly as saturated as hysterias have predicted (even though they been have in certain contexts) and secondly, the world's governments, medical institutions and NGOs have had nearly two years to ramp up certain preparations, instead of throwing mass blame onto unvaccinated people as i…
You seriously want to claim your arguement is nuanced but you haven't heard the most important point about this? You can just wave a magic wand and you suddenly get thousands more doctors in a year?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mass vaccination is the standard way to minimize the spread of viral infections. For example, there were routine outbreaks of varicella infections amongst children despite the fact more than 99.5% Of the adult population had natural immunity to it. After the vaccine became part of the standard schedule, outbreaks are virtually unheard of. The same can happen with COVID-19 if the percentage of the population that's va…
the scenario you described is for vaccines that prevent infection. This is now obviously not the case with covid and 75% of the pop vaccinated, which still catch and transmit the disease enough to get the numbers we have now.
Looking at the natural immunity scenario, one can consider the history of varicella. Prior to widespread vaccination, there were yearly outbreaks amongst children, despite the fact that more than 99% of the adult population had immunity due to prior infection. That is, despite the fact that the adult population was largely immune, there were still outbreaks among children.
Once the varicella vaccine became part of the standard vaccine schedule, those outbreaks essentially ceased. That doesn't mean that the virus isn't still being transmitted. It does mean that if enough people refuse getting the vaccine for their children, then there is a risk of another outbreak precisely because the percentage of people immune to the infection dipped below the herd immunity level.
Similarly, with COVID-19, if we can get the vaccination percentage up to more than 90 to 95% (or whatever percentage the data supports), then outbreaks will cease, but the virus will still be out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then how about you practice your own damn rules? This one in particular Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. In the strongest possible interpretation (had you assumed good faith) my comment is NOT inflamatory. I am pointing out that pandemics are a PvE (Player vs Environment) game, not PvP (Player vs Player) game…
Interpretations can differ, obviously, but I wouldn't say that was a borderline call. Your comment was snarky and aggressive on a divisive topic. That's a flamewar comment. There's an interesting phenomenon where, in responding to moderation comments, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would have been much better to say in the first place. It seems to me you did that here: > pandemics are…
I am surprised tha this surprises you. It is generally true that in responding to any evolving dialogue, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would've been much better to say in the first place.
Because that's how dialogue works, and that's what dialogue is for. Elucidating meaning.
What is baffling me in this interaction is that you seem perfectly aware of the fact that my meaning is in my head, but then you also expected to find it in my words without any dialogue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interpretations can differ, obviously, but I wouldn't say that was a borderline call. Your comment was snarky and aggressive on a divisive topic. That's a flamewar comment. There's an interesting phenomenon where, in responding to moderation comments, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would have been much better to say in the first place. It seems to me you did that here: > pandemics are…
>There's an interesting phenomenon where, in responding to moderation comments, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would have been much better to say in the first place. I am surprised tha this surprises you. It is generally true that in responding to any evolving dialogue, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would've been much better to say in the first place. B…
Having something substantive in your head does not justify posting a snarky low-information comment. You need to make the substantive comment explicitly, and without the snark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There's an interesting phenomenon where, in responding to moderation comments, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would have been much better to say in the first place. I am surprised tha this surprises you. It is generally true that in responding to any evolving dialogue, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would've been much better to say in the first place. B…
Perhaps this will be clearer: (1) don't post snarky, low-information comments to HN; (2) do say something thoughtful and substantive. Having something substantive in your head does not justify posting a snarky low-information comment. You need to make the substantive comment explicitly, and without the snark.
I heard you have a rule about that. Maybe you could lead by example.
>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.