8 ms·

I would expect vaccination to be fully booked for a while, since it's going to be the most important thing in life to do for anyone not suffering from other ser

by devit 6y ago

I would expect vaccination to be fully booked for a while, since it's going to be the most important thing in life to do for anyone not suffering from other serious issues and without anti-vaccination beliefs.

djsumdog 6y ago
> without anti-vaccination beliefs Please don't start creating this back-and-fourth. It's like saying "all drugs are good and have never had issues." I'm concerned about a vaccine developed and tested in less than a year. There are safety concerns. There are people under 40 who may not consider the risk high enough to take. (Look at what happened in the the 1970s with the Swing Flu vaccine that wasn't very effective, and although safely administered to millions, left 3,000 ~ 4,000 is long term neurological issues). I'm glad this vaccine is coming out and I think people in high risk groups should evaluate if they want to take the vaccine after weighing the risks. I do not want to see forced vaccinations for people who are concerned about safety.
- igorkraw 6y ago
  Since you opened this "back-and-forth" I feel I need to correct the perception with some sources and point out your framing: 1. I couldn't find a source for your 3-4 k number,if you can point me to it I'd be greatful. I did find a a source of 532 developing Guillan-Barré https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18014-swine-flu-myth-the-vaccine-isnt-safe-it-has-been-rushed-through-tests-and-the-last-time-there-was-a-swine-flu-scare-the-vaccine-hurt-people-why-take-the-risk-to-prevent-mild-flu/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18014-swine-flu-myth-... 2. That same source lays out why worrying about this risk is not rational (in this case) 3. No-one is seriously calling for forced vaccination for corona 4. (my opinion) by over-emphasizing the "personal choice" angle we are letting anti-vaxxination pseudo science and conspiracy beliefs spread without being challenged. Some things are more wrong than others and the science for the harm of vaccines has oveerwhelmingly failed to arrive. So using the term "without anti-vaccination beliefs" is fair in this case, since I will argue the only reason why you'd reject a vaccine that is recommended by a physician is an irrational belief not grounded in evidence
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    >3. No-one is seriously calling for forced vaccination for corona That is not true: https://nysba.org/new-york-state-bar-association-calls-upon-state-to-consider-mandating-a-safe-and-effective-vaccine-if-voluntary-measures-fail-to-protect-public-health/ https://nysba.org/new-york-state-bar-association-calls-upon-... >>The New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) is recommending that the state consider mandating a COVID-19 vaccine once a scientific consensus emerges that it is safe, effective and necessary.
  - grawprog 6y ago
    >since I will argue the only reason why you'd reject a vaccine that is recommended by a physician is an irrational belief not grounded in evidence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy https://ijme.in/articles/deaths-in-a-trial-of-the-hpv-vaccine/ https://ijme.in/articles/deaths-in-a-trial-of-the-hpv-vaccin... https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30352154 https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30352154 Vaccine manufacturers have a poor track record of releasing dangerous barely tested vaccines onto populations, causing deaths and avoiding lawsuits. Personally, I am skeptical about this vaccine, or any other rushed out for a disease with a 97% survival rate. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdUOA?Si https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=home... I've had lots of vaccines in my life, the thing is, all those were for diseases that had a high risk of crippling or killing me. Why would I want a vaccine that is actually less effective than my chances of surviving? If I get the vaccine, there's a 95% chance it'll work, if I get covid, there's a 97% chance i'll live. All I know is, if you told someone they had a 97% chance of winning at a casino, they'd be down there in a flash. Why would I choose to have some barely tested vaccine with not fully studied long term side effects made by companies who have extremely poor track records with medication in general? Pfizer is bascially responsible for the oxycontin epidemic. Their reps bribe doctors into pushing their drugs. Moderna's some secretive biotech company that just appeared out of nowhere with this whole covid thing. What reason do I have to trust any of these companies over the 97% survival rate I can expect from getting covid?
    - e12e 6y ago
- devit 6y ago
  The alternative is a high chance of becoming ill with COVID, which according to the data available so far is much riskier than the vaccine (1-2% hospitalization risk even for healthy young adults, evidence of long term issues at least in some people). Unless of course your alternative plan is full isolation for years, in which case not taking the vaccine is the correct choice, but such isolation is only reasonable if you don't care about going outside anyway at all.
  - Nuzzerino 6y ago
    What is the average hospitalization and fatality rate among cases where the patient was taking a high dose vitamin D regimen?
    - junipertea 6y ago
      I'm not sure about the combination of covid + vitamin D. But you can also overdose on vitamin D since it's fat soluble. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/vitamin-d-side-effects#6.-Kidney-failure https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/vitamin-d-side-effects#...
    - mcguire 6y ago
      Anyone remember hydroxychloroquine?
    - hosh 6y ago
      There's a recent quasi-exprimental study on that, showing that vitamin-d is likely one of the central factors in better outcomes for severe cases of covid-19: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096007602030296X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096007602... According to this study, vitamin-d gives better outcome than the other treatments, including hospitalization: "Regarding care dedicated to COVID-19, only the proportion of patients who received a bolus of vitamin D3 during or just before COVID-19 differed between deceased participants and survivors, with a higher prevalence in survivors (respectively 92.2 % versus 66.7 %, P = 0.023). In contrast, there was no between-group difference in the proportion of patients treated with corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine or dedicated antibiotics, or hospitalized for COVID-19." And this has to do with Vitamin-D's role with the ACE2 receptor. SARS-CoV-2 has a binding affinity to ACE2, aggressively invading cells with proportionally higher ACE2 receptors (including the lungs). In fact, someone had tried injecting hrsACE2 into someone as a treatment -- that is, letting the virus bind to hrsACE2 instead of the ACE2 receptors in the cells. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-020-00374-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-020-00374-6 A treatment with hrsACE2 isn't generally-available, and needs a lot more study. The logsitics in producing them at scale would need to be solved, if this is a viable treatment. But this looks promising to me.
- nindalf 6y ago
  > forced vaccination There won’t be enough vaccines to go around, so no one will be forced to take anything for at least a year. By then we might be at 60-70% of the population vaccinated, at which point the R0 of the virus would be much lower. Don’t worry about it for now, the rest of us will take the risk so you don’t have to.
  - hvdfhbj 6y ago
    Would you? Thanks, that would be great! I feel like we are about to enter the variation on the prisoner's dilemma where we all get a massive benefit if at least 70% of us get the vaccine, but getting the vaccine has a cost (please roll a D20 to select your random side effect) so everyone has an incentive to be one of the shirkers. I foresee things getting ugly as we collectively all get together to shame, bully and trick the shirkers into compliance.
    - nthj 6y ago
      The immunocompromised and the economy get a benefit if we get to 70% vaccinated; I get a benefit for myself just by getting the vaccine. I’ll allow that there is seemingly a significant portion of the population who believes they don’t personally benefit from a vaccine, but your comment said -everyone- is incentivized to shirk: that’s just not true.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - hvdfhbj 6y ago
        That is fair. But I think that the fraction of people who individually benefit from getting the vaccine is less than the 70% who need to get it, do there's going to be a gap that will need to be filled with lies, bullying and shaming. Of course this depends on the unknown factor of how bad the side effects are, if they are nonexistent then it's a different story, but if they are on average as bad as a flu shot then it becomes tricky. I suppose I'm really thinking in the context of countries like Australia which have essentially eradicated the virus. My risk of getting the virus right now is practically zero, so my only incentive to get vaccinated is that we can eventually reopen our borders once enough people are vaccinated. And personally I'm in no hurry to get flooded by foreign tourists anyway.
- hosh 6y ago
  Agreed. I think vaccines are generally a good idea, but that there are risks involved in beta testing them. Also, there are some interesting treatments targeting the ACE2 receptors that SARS-CoV-2 binds to which looks like they are reducing mortality rates, and perhaps long-term scarring in the lungs. Among these are Vitamin-D (which people are probably nutritionally-deficient anyways), and human recombinant soluable ACE2 (basically, injecting a form of ACE2 into the body so that the virus binds to that, instead of to cells with a lot of ACE2 receptors, thus short-circuiting the replication pathway). I would be interested to see if nutritionally-sufficient vitamin-d is better at preventing severe cases of covid-19 than masking or social distancing. My own opinion is that it is foolish to pin all the hopes on a single strategy (prevention, via vaccination), which is not guaranteed to work or guaranteed to be safe. To add forced vaccination is folly. I think it is better to see a depth of prevention and treatment options (including vaccination).
  - Gene_Parmesan 6y ago
    One of my concerns is what happened with the SARS vaccine (meaning, the original SARS.) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/ The study described findings of antibody-dependent enhancement with the original SARS. I am no expert, but my understanding is that when test subjects were given the vaccine, and then later 'challenged' by the SARS virus, they developed a pathological response. In other words, taking the vaccine had a potential to make their response to SARS and potentially other coronaviruses worse. The study I linked therefore recommended caution in giving the vaccine to humans. Obviously this is something that vaccine researchers are aware of (see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-00789-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-00789-5), but I think it's something that is perfectly rational to be concerned about given the time and money pressures available with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
    - inglor_cz 6y ago
      I believe this entire category of vaccines is no longer considered for human use at all, precisely because of this concerning result.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Looking at your individual risk profile is a good way to decide who ought to get vaccinated first its a poor way to decide who gets vaccinated at all. There are some parties including those who are too young to vaccinate or who have poor immune systems whom are only protected by the surrounding population not passing around virii like baseball cards. Having a large enough host population to sustain an outbreak means those vulnerable parties are fucked and the rest of the population even those for whom the vaccine is 90% effective are at still at some risk. Worse the selection pressure among millions of vectors to develop a strain that can infect the previously safe population is high and the possibility is real. This is to say that the proper assessment of safety is the likely net effect on the entire population of an increasingly large portion of society not vaccinating. Existing precedent would seem to suggest that its impossible to force you to vaccinate but possible to prevent you from participating in society if you do not. For example the state can put you in jail for not putting your kid in school but not let you do so unless you vaccinate your kid. I would not be terribly surprised if people, especially vulnerable people argued that a work allowing anti vaxxers to work alongside them violated their right to a safe workplace. Imagine one lawsuit from someones family that lost a baby or a family member resulting in an 7-8 figure settlement. There wont have to be a law. The lawsuits will be from anti vaxxers alleging that this violates their rights and will take place over the following 2 years after every major workplace in America adopts such rules giving American workers the choice between employment and remaining an antivaxxer.
  - wolco2 6y ago
    Wouldn't the overvaxxers be protected? Wouldn't a baby be less likely to get covid or die from covid? Parents homeschool kids in states that force vaccinations. Parents get in trouble when they are registered to a school and the kid doesn't show up.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      A little, but when you are talking about my baby that is going to the part with older kids. A lot of kids do look at my baby first learning to crawl and run up to get a close look.
  - 6y ago
tzs 6y ago
I presume that like most vaccines, there is a gap between you receiving it and developing immunity? I hope everyplace offering vaccinations will have something in place to prevent anyone who comes in who is already infected but asymptomatic from infecting others there. Given some states' track records on how they handled other things that attracted a lot of people, such as in-person voting, I'm not at all confident that we won't have some states that manage to turn vaccination clinics into super spreader events, which should be deeply embarrassing. A good way to handle it is the way Kaiser handled flu vaccinations this year in western Washington. They had 10 minute windows available. You reserved online your spot in one of those windows. When you arrived a person at the door asked your name, checked you off the list, and gave you a pre-printed label with your information, and sent you in. There were two or three people administering the vaccine, so two or three people for each 10 minute window. You went an stood in line with the others who shared your window, with the line very spread out. When it was your turn you went in to get the vaccination, gave the person their your label, got vaccinated, and were sent out a side or back door so you would not cross paths with the people waiting or arriving.
- freeopinion 6y ago
  Several food trucks have sprung up in my neighborhood that seem to have an even better impromptu system. You walk up to the window, they hand you a small device and send you back to your car. When your device lights up, you go to the pickup window. There is no line at all. I don't know how many hundred dollars it cost them to buy a couple dozen devices or how much it costs to wipe each one down and put it back under the infrared/anti-cootie lamp each use. But there are orders going out the window about every 2 minutes and no customers within 50 feet of each other.
  - johnmaguire2013 6y ago
    I assume these are the same devices some restaurants use to tell you when your table is ready? Honestly, I'd prefer to be texted - no need to pass around a hot potato.
    - 6y ago
noncoml 6y ago
> other serious issues and without anti-vaccination beliefs This was redundant. Anti-vaccination “belief“ is a serious, mental, issue. Against HN rules, but it’s time to stop being so easy on people who try to distort science and reality and call them for what it is. You cannot have a eye to eye conversation with anti-vacciners, flat-earthers, climate-change deniers, election-fraud believers and Trump supporters. The more leeway we give the more they try to win public opinion and damage our world.
- ericd 6y ago
  Really don't think being less tolerant is the answer here. It certainly doesn't help change minds, you're not going to force your beliefs on them.
  - hunter2_ 6y ago
    Done right, being less tolerant of speech/behavior that can be detrimental to the common good does change minds for the better. Any "code of conduct" is precisely this: directly calling out detrimental behavior as vile with no tolerance for it. The fact that nearly half of voters in the United States support Trump does not change this.
    - hvdfhbj 6y ago
      How can you be sure that the censors will always be on the side of the angels? Follow-up question: how can you be sure that you, personally, are on the side of the angels? Especially if you have never been allowed to hear the opposing point of view? Seriously, the growing support for censorship in the previously libertarianish Tech community has been the worst development of the last decade.
      - hunter2_ 6y ago
        Actually, I don't care for censorship. I'd rather let the idea be presented and let the intolerance for it drown it out by way of copious rebuttals, not removal. I won't know if I'm on the side of the angels, but I'll know I'm in good company and I'll have heard both sides at levels roughly proportionate to the size of the population interested in defending each side. In hindsight, I see how citing codes of conduct implies support for censorship, when my actual intent was simply to demonstrate another example of "intolerance" having noble goals.
jgalt212 6y ago
really? My fear that is that not enough folks will take the vaccine. I've been hearing a lot about anti-vaxxers lately. interesting bunch.
- Florin_Andrei 6y ago
  > I've been hearing a lot about anti-vaxxers lately. interesting bunch. Reason is not a universal attribute of human beings. Some of us have it. Some don't (they just simulate it more or less successfully).
  - hvdfhbj 6y ago
    Out of curiosity, which category do you think you fall into? And how do you know?
    - Siira 6y ago
      Every single human being can be assumed to think they fall in the reasonable bunch. This is a combination of hardwired bootstrapping (seems unavoidable), self-serving biases, and the fact that most mistakes won’t be recognized even in hindsight (so much for saying hindsight is 20/20).
      - neuroanalysis 6y ago
        Let's also accept that many judgements on outcome are not only subjective but culturally biased. Assuming we both agreed on values and we were analyzing identical scenarios then you could argue that a difference in choice would boil down to differences in the effective use of reasoning
        hvdfhbj 6y ago
        Most people disagreeing on most subjects have probably barely applied any sort of reasoning to get there. Most pro-vaxxers have simply picked up the dominant opinion from the surrounding society -- not a bad heuristic in practice. Most anti-vaxxers have picked up an opinion from a persuasive single source and then read some other sources that back it up. I admit I'm in the first category, I certainly vaccinate my own children, but I can't really claim that I've come to this decision after a thorough understanding of immunology, I have simply followed the path of least resistance.

by devit 6y ago

djsumdog 6y ago

> without anti-vaccination beliefs Please don't start creating this back-and-fourth. It's like saying "all drugs are good and have never had issues." I'm concerned about a vaccine developed and tested in less than a year. There are safety concerns. There are people under 40 who may not consider the risk high enough to take. (Look at what happened in the the 1970s with the Swing Flu vaccine that wasn't very effective, and although safely administered to millions, left 3,000 ~ 4,000 is long term neurological issues). I'm glad this vaccine is coming out and I think people in high risk groups should evaluate if they want to take the vaccine after weighing the risks. I do not want to see forced vaccinations for people who are concerned about safety.

igorkraw 6y ago
Since you opened this "back-and-forth" I feel I need to correct the perception with some sources and point out your framing: 1. I couldn't find a source for your 3-4 k number,if you can point me to it I'd be greatful. I did find a a source of 532 developing Guillan-Barré https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18014-swine-flu-myth-the-vaccine-isnt-safe-it-has-been-rushed-through-tests-and-the-last-time-there-was-a-swine-flu-scare-the-vaccine-hurt-people-why-take-the-risk-to-prevent-mild-flu/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18014-swine-flu-myth-... 2. That same source lays out why worrying about this risk is not rational (in this case) 3. No-one is seriously calling for forced vaccination for corona 4. (my opinion) by over-emphasizing the "personal choice" angle we are letting anti-vaxxination pseudo science and conspiracy beliefs spread without being challenged. Some things are more wrong than others and the science for the harm of vaccines has oveerwhelmingly failed to arrive. So using the term "without anti-vaccination beliefs" is fair in this case, since I will argue the only reason why you'd reject a vaccine that is recommended by a physician is an irrational belief not grounded in evidence
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  >3. No-one is seriously calling for forced vaccination for corona That is not true: https://nysba.org/new-york-state-bar-association-calls-upon-state-to-consider-mandating-a-safe-and-effective-vaccine-if-voluntary-measures-fail-to-protect-public-health/ https://nysba.org/new-york-state-bar-association-calls-upon-... >>The New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) is recommending that the state consider mandating a COVID-19 vaccine once a scientific consensus emerges that it is safe, effective and necessary.
- grawprog 6y ago
  >since I will argue the only reason why you'd reject a vaccine that is recommended by a physician is an irrational belief not grounded in evidence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy https://ijme.in/articles/deaths-in-a-trial-of-the-hpv-vaccine/ https://ijme.in/articles/deaths-in-a-trial-of-the-hpv-vaccin... https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30352154 https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30352154 Vaccine manufacturers have a poor track record of releasing dangerous barely tested vaccines onto populations, causing deaths and avoiding lawsuits. Personally, I am skeptical about this vaccine, or any other rushed out for a disease with a 97% survival rate. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdUOA?Si https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=home... I've had lots of vaccines in my life, the thing is, all those were for diseases that had a high risk of crippling or killing me. Why would I want a vaccine that is actually less effective than my chances of surviving? If I get the vaccine, there's a 95% chance it'll work, if I get covid, there's a 97% chance i'll live. All I know is, if you told someone they had a 97% chance of winning at a casino, they'd be down there in a flash. Why would I choose to have some barely tested vaccine with not fully studied long term side effects made by companies who have extremely poor track records with medication in general? Pfizer is bascially responsible for the oxycontin epidemic. Their reps bribe doctors into pushing their drugs. Moderna's some secretive biotech company that just appeared out of nowhere with this whole covid thing. What reason do I have to trust any of these companies over the 97% survival rate I can expect from getting covid?
  - e12e 6y ago
devit 6y ago
The alternative is a high chance of becoming ill with COVID, which according to the data available so far is much riskier than the vaccine (1-2% hospitalization risk even for healthy young adults, evidence of long term issues at least in some people). Unless of course your alternative plan is full isolation for years, in which case not taking the vaccine is the correct choice, but such isolation is only reasonable if you don't care about going outside anyway at all.
- Nuzzerino 6y ago
  What is the average hospitalization and fatality rate among cases where the patient was taking a high dose vitamin D regimen?
  - junipertea 6y ago
    I'm not sure about the combination of covid + vitamin D. But you can also overdose on vitamin D since it's fat soluble. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/vitamin-d-side-effects#6.-Kidney-failure https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/vitamin-d-side-effects#...
  - mcguire 6y ago
    Anyone remember hydroxychloroquine?
  - hosh 6y ago
    There's a recent quasi-exprimental study on that, showing that vitamin-d is likely one of the central factors in better outcomes for severe cases of covid-19: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096007602030296X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096007602... According to this study, vitamin-d gives better outcome than the other treatments, including hospitalization: "Regarding care dedicated to COVID-19, only the proportion of patients who received a bolus of vitamin D3 during or just before COVID-19 differed between deceased participants and survivors, with a higher prevalence in survivors (respectively 92.2 % versus 66.7 %, P = 0.023). In contrast, there was no between-group difference in the proportion of patients treated with corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine or dedicated antibiotics, or hospitalized for COVID-19." And this has to do with Vitamin-D's role with the ACE2 receptor. SARS-CoV-2 has a binding affinity to ACE2, aggressively invading cells with proportionally higher ACE2 receptors (including the lungs). In fact, someone had tried injecting hrsACE2 into someone as a treatment -- that is, letting the virus bind to hrsACE2 instead of the ACE2 receptors in the cells. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-020-00374-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-020-00374-6 A treatment with hrsACE2 isn't generally-available, and needs a lot more study. The logsitics in producing them at scale would need to be solved, if this is a viable treatment. But this looks promising to me.
nindalf 6y ago
> forced vaccination There won’t be enough vaccines to go around, so no one will be forced to take anything for at least a year. By then we might be at 60-70% of the population vaccinated, at which point the R0 of the virus would be much lower. Don’t worry about it for now, the rest of us will take the risk so you don’t have to.
- hvdfhbj 6y ago
  Would you? Thanks, that would be great! I feel like we are about to enter the variation on the prisoner's dilemma where we all get a massive benefit if at least 70% of us get the vaccine, but getting the vaccine has a cost (please roll a D20 to select your random side effect) so everyone has an incentive to be one of the shirkers. I foresee things getting ugly as we collectively all get together to shame, bully and trick the shirkers into compliance.
  - nthj 6y ago
    The immunocompromised and the economy get a benefit if we get to 70% vaccinated; I get a benefit for myself just by getting the vaccine. I’ll allow that there is seemingly a significant portion of the population who believes they don’t personally benefit from a vaccine, but your comment said -everyone- is incentivized to shirk: that’s just not true.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - hvdfhbj 6y ago
      That is fair. But I think that the fraction of people who individually benefit from getting the vaccine is less than the 70% who need to get it, do there's going to be a gap that will need to be filled with lies, bullying and shaming. Of course this depends on the unknown factor of how bad the side effects are, if they are nonexistent then it's a different story, but if they are on average as bad as a flu shot then it becomes tricky. I suppose I'm really thinking in the context of countries like Australia which have essentially eradicated the virus. My risk of getting the virus right now is practically zero, so my only incentive to get vaccinated is that we can eventually reopen our borders once enough people are vaccinated. And personally I'm in no hurry to get flooded by foreign tourists anyway.
hosh 6y ago
Agreed. I think vaccines are generally a good idea, but that there are risks involved in beta testing them. Also, there are some interesting treatments targeting the ACE2 receptors that SARS-CoV-2 binds to which looks like they are reducing mortality rates, and perhaps long-term scarring in the lungs. Among these are Vitamin-D (which people are probably nutritionally-deficient anyways), and human recombinant soluable ACE2 (basically, injecting a form of ACE2 into the body so that the virus binds to that, instead of to cells with a lot of ACE2 receptors, thus short-circuiting the replication pathway). I would be interested to see if nutritionally-sufficient vitamin-d is better at preventing severe cases of covid-19 than masking or social distancing. My own opinion is that it is foolish to pin all the hopes on a single strategy (prevention, via vaccination), which is not guaranteed to work or guaranteed to be safe. To add forced vaccination is folly. I think it is better to see a depth of prevention and treatment options (including vaccination).
- Gene_Parmesan 6y ago
  One of my concerns is what happened with the SARS vaccine (meaning, the original SARS.) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/ The study described findings of antibody-dependent enhancement with the original SARS. I am no expert, but my understanding is that when test subjects were given the vaccine, and then later 'challenged' by the SARS virus, they developed a pathological response. In other words, taking the vaccine had a potential to make their response to SARS and potentially other coronaviruses worse. The study I linked therefore recommended caution in giving the vaccine to humans. Obviously this is something that vaccine researchers are aware of (see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-00789-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-00789-5), but I think it's something that is perfectly rational to be concerned about given the time and money pressures available with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    I believe this entire category of vaccines is no longer considered for human use at all, precisely because of this concerning result.
michaelmrose 6y ago
Looking at your individual risk profile is a good way to decide who ought to get vaccinated first its a poor way to decide who gets vaccinated at all. There are some parties including those who are too young to vaccinate or who have poor immune systems whom are only protected by the surrounding population not passing around virii like baseball cards. Having a large enough host population to sustain an outbreak means those vulnerable parties are fucked and the rest of the population even those for whom the vaccine is 90% effective are at still at some risk. Worse the selection pressure among millions of vectors to develop a strain that can infect the previously safe population is high and the possibility is real. This is to say that the proper assessment of safety is the likely net effect on the entire population of an increasingly large portion of society not vaccinating. Existing precedent would seem to suggest that its impossible to force you to vaccinate but possible to prevent you from participating in society if you do not. For example the state can put you in jail for not putting your kid in school but not let you do so unless you vaccinate your kid. I would not be terribly surprised if people, especially vulnerable people argued that a work allowing anti vaxxers to work alongside them violated their right to a safe workplace. Imagine one lawsuit from someones family that lost a baby or a family member resulting in an 7-8 figure settlement. There wont have to be a law. The lawsuits will be from anti vaxxers alleging that this violates their rights and will take place over the following 2 years after every major workplace in America adopts such rules giving American workers the choice between employment and remaining an antivaxxer.
- wolco2 6y ago
  Wouldn't the overvaxxers be protected? Wouldn't a baby be less likely to get covid or die from covid? Parents homeschool kids in states that force vaccinations. Parents get in trouble when they are registered to a school and the kid doesn't show up.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    A little, but when you are talking about my baby that is going to the part with older kids. A lot of kids do look at my baby first learning to crawl and run up to get a close look.
- 6y ago

tzs 6y ago

I presume that like most vaccines, there is a gap between you receiving it and developing immunity? I hope everyplace offering vaccinations will have something in place to prevent anyone who comes in who is already infected but asymptomatic from infecting others there. Given some states' track records on how they handled other things that attracted a lot of people, such as in-person voting, I'm not at all confident that we won't have some states that manage to turn vaccination clinics into super spreader events, which should be deeply embarrassing. A good way to handle it is the way Kaiser handled flu vaccinations this year in western Washington. They had 10 minute windows available. You reserved online your spot in one of those windows. When you arrived a person at the door asked your name, checked you off the list, and gave you a pre-printed label with your information, and sent you in. There were two or three people administering the vaccine, so two or three people for each 10 minute window. You went an stood in line with the others who shared your window, with the line very spread out. When it was your turn you went in to get the vaccination, gave the person their your label, got vaccinated, and were sent out a side or back door so you would not cross paths with the people waiting or arriving.

freeopinion 6y ago
Several food trucks have sprung up in my neighborhood that seem to have an even better impromptu system. You walk up to the window, they hand you a small device and send you back to your car. When your device lights up, you go to the pickup window. There is no line at all. I don't know how many hundred dollars it cost them to buy a couple dozen devices or how much it costs to wipe each one down and put it back under the infrared/anti-cootie lamp each use. But there are orders going out the window about every 2 minutes and no customers within 50 feet of each other.
- johnmaguire2013 6y ago
  I assume these are the same devices some restaurants use to tell you when your table is ready? Honestly, I'd prefer to be texted - no need to pass around a hot potato.
  - 6y ago

noncoml 6y ago

> other serious issues and without anti-vaccination beliefs This was redundant. Anti-vaccination “belief“ is a serious, mental, issue. Against HN rules, but it’s time to stop being so easy on people who try to distort science and reality and call them for what it is. You cannot have a eye to eye conversation with anti-vacciners, flat-earthers, climate-change deniers, election-fraud believers and Trump supporters. The more leeway we give the more they try to win public opinion and damage our world.

ericd 6y ago
Really don't think being less tolerant is the answer here. It certainly doesn't help change minds, you're not going to force your beliefs on them.
- hunter2_ 6y ago
  Done right, being less tolerant of speech/behavior that can be detrimental to the common good does change minds for the better. Any "code of conduct" is precisely this: directly calling out detrimental behavior as vile with no tolerance for it. The fact that nearly half of voters in the United States support Trump does not change this.
  - hvdfhbj 6y ago
    How can you be sure that the censors will always be on the side of the angels? Follow-up question: how can you be sure that you, personally, are on the side of the angels? Especially if you have never been allowed to hear the opposing point of view? Seriously, the growing support for censorship in the previously libertarianish Tech community has been the worst development of the last decade.
    - hunter2_ 6y ago
      Actually, I don't care for censorship. I'd rather let the idea be presented and let the intolerance for it drown it out by way of copious rebuttals, not removal. I won't know if I'm on the side of the angels, but I'll know I'm in good company and I'll have heard both sides at levels roughly proportionate to the size of the population interested in defending each side. In hindsight, I see how citing codes of conduct implies support for censorship, when my actual intent was simply to demonstrate another example of "intolerance" having noble goals.

jgalt212 6y ago

really? My fear that is that not enough folks will take the vaccine. I've been hearing a lot about anti-vaxxers lately. interesting bunch.

Florin_Andrei 6y ago
> I've been hearing a lot about anti-vaxxers lately. interesting bunch. Reason is not a universal attribute of human beings. Some of us have it. Some don't (they just simulate it more or less successfully).
- hvdfhbj 6y ago
  Out of curiosity, which category do you think you fall into? And how do you know?
  - Siira 6y ago
    Every single human being can be assumed to think they fall in the reasonable bunch. This is a combination of hardwired bootstrapping (seems unavoidable), self-serving biases, and the fact that most mistakes won’t be recognized even in hindsight (so much for saying hindsight is 20/20).
    - neuroanalysis 6y ago
      Let's also accept that many judgements on outcome are not only subjective but culturally biased. Assuming we both agreed on values and we were analyzing identical scenarios then you could argue that a difference in choice would boil down to differences in the effective use of reasoning
      - hvdfhbj 6y ago
        Most people disagreeing on most subjects have probably barely applied any sort of reasoning to get there. Most pro-vaxxers have simply picked up the dominant opinion from the surrounding society -- not a bad heuristic in practice. Most anti-vaxxers have picked up an opinion from a persuasive single source and then read some other sources that back it up. I admit I'm in the first category, I certainly vaccinate my own children, but I can't really claim that I've come to this decision after a thorough understanding of immunology, I have simply followed the path of least resistance.