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

Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

ntdca.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#991

Post by Tiktaalik »

throw__away7391 wrote: post #979
Tiktaalik wrote: post #907

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is no longer about fighting a disease, if it ever was, this is about securing access to resources and power for one group over another. yeah it's all a big conspiracy to put the bars and restaurants out of business for sinister reasons that are beyond imagination.

Don't be daft. This is exactly the kind of parroted narrative I'm talking about. It's obvious to any objective observer how this has played out. Initially, three weeks of shutdown, combined with a stimulus program, was going to be painful but bearable. We laid off a bunch of people, cancelled raises, and prepared for a recession. When the "elite" saw how well their stocks, companies, and real estate holdings were doi…

You haven't really explained how the rich elites are benefiting from mask mandates and restaurant capacity limits. It's actually really annoying to rich people.

If you're suggesting that this was all a big opportunity to lay people off, well, the problem with this theory is that the economy has rebounded and (at least in Canada) we're back at full economic capacity and have re-hired everyone.

> “Employment is now 102.1% above pre-pandemic levels and is among the highest in Canada. This means 56,000 more people are employed in B.C. today compared to before the pandemic. https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2022JERI0001-000017

Dealing with the pandemic cost the government a fortune in new debt, which elites generally don't like.

If the pandemic was some scheme by the ultra rich elites to enrich themselves they probably would have done nothing and let the poors die.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#992

Post by res0nat0r »

umvi wrote: post #761
eloff wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've also noticed this. I have covid right now. I'm double vaccinated. I was planning to get my booster shot, but now that I've had covid what's the point. It's not likely to increase my immunity and it comes with risks. At some point the government will probably change the definition of fully vaccinated to three shots and then I'll be in that unvaccinated group I usually make fun of. Somebody I know lost their job b…

Around half of my immediate family members had pretty bad reactions to the booster (fever/chills, aches for several days). And all of them got omicron anyway and had the same symptoms as family members who hadn't gotten the booster. I'm debating getting the booster but part of me thinks "why punish myself with high probability of fever/chills if in all likelihood I'm just going to get omicron anyway and suffer the sa…

But they're still alive...The entire point of getting vaccinated is to keep you out of the hospital from severe symptoms or dying. A small chance of a slight cold for a few days is worth the tradeoff vs. suffocating to death from a preventable airborne disease.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#993

Post by res0nat0r »

samuelstancl wrote: post #977
eloff wrote: post #972

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data so far suggests that the booster grants substantial protection against severe disease with omicron. If anecdotally there doesn't appear much difference in your circle, that's much weaker evidence. I would still recommend it. Also my parents got the booster with no side effects of note, so not everybody reacts that way.

> If anecdotally there doesn't appear much difference in your circle, that's much weaker evidence You can't compare studies looking at the population average with someone's specific social circle. Young people have a near-zero chance of getting severe disease anyway . "substantial protection against severe disease with omicron" is irrelevant when the chance of severe disease is so low.

COVID was the #1 cause of death in the USA in 2020. Not just for morbidly obese 70+ year olds etc. Anyone saying that something which has killed near 1 million people just in the USA in the last two years is a minor risk are just flat wrong.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#994

Post by hogrider »

quaffapint wrote: post #66

I'm vaccinated and boostered by my own choice. My problem with mandates is where does it end? Why this mandate and not other mandates? Who gets to decide that?

You are already under hundreds of health regulations or "mandates". Pasteurized milk, refrigerated meat, measles vaccine required at admision get to school is standard in a lot of places.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#996

Post by chronofar »

eloff wrote: post #972
umvi wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Around half of my immediate family members had pretty bad reactions to the booster (fever/chills, aches for several days). And all of them got omicron anyway and had the same symptoms as family members who hadn't gotten the booster. I'm debating getting the booster but part of me thinks "why punish myself with high probability of fever/chills if in all likelihood I'm just going to get omicron anyway and suffer the sa…

The data so far suggests that the booster grants substantial protection against severe disease with omicron. If anecdotally there doesn't appear much difference in your circle, that's much weaker evidence. I would still recommend it. Also my parents got the booster with no side effects of note, so not everybody reacts that way.

Does it really? Across age demographics and other risk factors when compared with those with 2 shots (who from data I’ve seen aren’t getting severe disease because of the protection from the vaccination)? That would surprise me and isn’t what I’ve seen. Would love to see what you’re referring to.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#997

Post by throw__away7391 »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #991
throw__away7391 wrote: post #979

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be daft. This is exactly the kind of parroted narrative I'm talking about. It's obvious to any objective observer how this has played out. Initially, three weeks of shutdown, combined with a stimulus program, was going to be painful but bearable. We laid off a bunch of people, cancelled raises, and prepared for a recession. When the "elite" saw how well their stocks, companies, and real estate holdings were doi…

You haven't really explained how the rich elites are benefiting from mask mandates and restaurant capacity limits. It's actually really annoying to rich people. If you're suggesting that this was all a big opportunity to lay people off, well, the problem with this theory is that the economy has rebounded and (at least in Canada) we're back at full economic capacity and have re-hired everyone. > “Employment is now 102…

You're arguing that I'm claiming this was a premeditated attempt to crush small businesses, but that's clearly not the case. The pandemic response is likely a net loss, trillions has been spent, the opportunity costs are incalculable, the handful of upsides would have a lot to do to make up for this, but there are winners and losers and some of the winners are winning big.

A large contingent of big winners from the pandemic are highly educated upper middle class social elite who tend to have a lot of assets that have dramatically appreciated in value, jobs that they are able to work from home, and work in industries that have benefited from shifts in spending resulting from the pandemic. This was not enough though, and they have now crafted a moral narrative around the necessity and efficacy of these measures that intentionally lack nuance or any consideration of the needs of people who aren't part of their cohort.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#998

Post by chaostheory »

nomel wrote: post #926
chaostheory wrote: post #917

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want periodic exposure to all the proteins, to keep my immunity up and minimize my risk for now and future variants. I think this makes sense to say now that the new variants are becoming less and less lethal. At the same time, this sounds similar to anti-vaccine arguments.

> At the same time, this sounds similar to anti-vaccine arguments. I don't see how, since I didn't mention vaccination. Vaccination for initial immunity reduces the risk incredibly, with boosters reducing it even more. Also, it would be very unlikely that all all anti-vaccine arguments are wrong, since that would require the vaccines to be risk free and perfect. We know they aren't, since people have died directly fr…

You don't have to mention vaccination. That is pretty much anti-vax rationale for not getting vaccinated. You just applied it to masking.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#999

Post by sharken »

keithnz wrote: post #941
animal_spirits wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what they are suggesting is that natural immunity + vaccine is also more protective than just natural immunity

yes, vaccine + natural immunity gives you super immunity by a large factor, they also found that it doesn't matter if you get the virus, then get vaccinated, or get vaccinated then get the virus, you'll end up with super immunity.

Super immunity is not a scientific concept, it would be nice to have some numbers or studies to show the difference.

Natural immunity as a personal choice should have been possible. But that has not been an option, for someone who wants to be part of society.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#1000

Post by PickledHotdog »

reedjosh wrote: post #845
PickledHotdog wrote: post #806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So every government, the world over, even those at war with each other, all decided to push a "get vaccinated" message for reasons other than health? I mean, governments want to ensure their income stream (tax payers) are alive to pay taxes, but that's hardly "corrupt" and is still to do, indirectly, with public health

> So every government, the world over, even those at war with each other, all decided Yes, it's quite a possibility. Please read into the growing concentration of world power via corporations and un-elected organization like the WEF and WHO. Further, please read into puplic-private partnerships. Our world is a global one these days and nearly every government is corrupted by a form of corporatism.

But orgs like WHO don't have any real power - they make recommendations and (western) countries, in the main, either accept or reject them.

I think it's a stretch to suggest all the countries are in on this together as some sort of 'control' method.

Public/Private partnerships are a modern necessity in countries that choose to keep their citizens happy through low-tax policies. There's room for corruption there sure, but that doesn't lend itself to all countries agreeing to go with this wild covid idea as an exercise in exerting greater control over their populaces

Post reply on HN