9 ms·

I did have covid (not diagnosed while active but shown in antibody test), and I got vaccinated significantly later. This was not driven by belief in medical nee

I did have covid (not diagnosed while active but shown in antibody test), and I got vaccinated significantly later. This was not driven by belief in medical need, but by social/rules need. You get no "points" for being recovered like you do for a proof of vaccination.

joshuahughes 5y ago
Sounds uncomfortably like coercion...
- isaacremuant 5y ago
  It is coercion. People have been coerced at every step of this crisis, by the threat of police violence, by the threat of reputation or job loss, by the the threat of fines and more. Hopefully, like we see with the wuhan lab theory suppression, as time goes on, a lot of what people suffered will come to light, and be contrasted by the benefit of the elite and political class during all this.
  - version_five 5y ago
    I agree 100% - whatever reaction posts like yours get, it's important to realize that a lot of people think this way, quite possibly a majority if you could talk to them on their own, despite efforts to pretend anyone against whatever government / corporate orthodoxy is pushing this week is some kind of conspiracy nut
    - e67f70028a46fba 5y ago
      Many many people agree with both of you. Don’t feel alone.
      - version_five 5y ago
        Thanks! That's why I posted a reply instead of just upvoting, I think its important to show people that they're not alone, and what they are thinking is normal.
    - brailsafe 5y ago
      There are a tremendous amount of people who have just been fed the same compounding stuff on YouTube or wherever based on their previous clicks. There's a difference between considering the nature of X with a way to validate or think about it, and simply having watched a netflix documentary while high on acid. The latter of which become conspiracy nuts, and they're really draining to listen to, probably as much as big L liberals droning on about whatever pet topic they have
      - version_five 5y ago
        I think I agree with what you're saying. The more recent challenge though is that calling someone a conspiracy theorist got a lot of traction for shutting down discussions, so it gets applied very liberally to any point of view that the mainstream disagrees with as a lazy way of avoiding debate.
        brailsafe 5y ago
        That's true, and I don't necessarily think it's a good thing to shut down debate, but I don't think it's also perfectly valid to take whatever action you want to avoid argumentation if you choose. I don't want to go do something I enjoy, but feel less inclined to do so on the basis I might get into an argument with some jackass. Not everything requires me to debate in my daily life, and ignoring people I don't care to engage with changes nothing about the outcomes of the subject matter, most of the time.
      - prohobo 5y ago
        That's the nature of the internet and decentralized information sources. The vast majority of people are consuming propaganda or crazy shit (MSM and conspiracy theories) but don't know how to filter the info to find a narrative that most accurately represents reality. Because of this, the mainstream media will ALWAYS be able to dismiss strawman arguments and label dissidents as conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists will also ALWAYS be able to poke holes in the propaganda and spin convincing alternate narratives. In any valid disagreement with the popular narrative, you WILL find conspiracy theorists. One caveat to this situation is that IF the mainstream institutions were able to rebuild trust (by telling the truth), then you would have far less people poking holes in their narratives and therefore fewer conspiracy theories. So, I don't get angry at conspiracy theorists because I understand that they're created by a lying state and media - they're canaries not a cancer.
  - somewhereoutth 5y ago
    You have been, and will continue to be, coerced (as you put it) every day of your life. For good reason.
    - version_five 5y ago
      What a sad way of looking at life. We used to have "if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you too?", talk about people as sheep, and generally look down on people giving in to peer pressure. Now it seems to be a badge of honor, or at least a popular opinion, amongst educated people, to lean in to being part of a herd. Doing stuff because it makes sense is one thing, but praising the abstract act of being peer pressured is ridiculous.
      - mlyle 5y ago
        There's all kinds of things we don't do because of social pressure and legal constraints (that are there, in general, because in aggregate they make sense). I close my mouth when I chew because of social pressure. Someone might choose not to pick their nose in public because of social pressure. Someone else might put the toilet seat down because of social pressure. The amount of time I spend changing lanes before a turn is because of social pressure. And yet someone else may not take the last helping of a treat because of social pressure.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    COVID restrictions have been coercion just like drunk driving laws are coercion: rules that prevent innocent people from being hurt by reckless people’s bad decisions. A fundamental part of any civilized system is that bad behavior that is likely to hurt others is punished in order to try to deter that bad behavior. Reckless behavior during a worldwide deadly pandemic is similar to reckless behavior on the road.
    - rimliu 5y ago
      I see this comparison often and it is wrong. Imagine if every driver is suddenly forced to take a breathalizer test every time before driving, even if they never had a DUI case.
  - jquery 5y ago
    And then there’s guys who believed in the Wuhan lab theory from the start, and also think the vast majority of the so-called “vaccine hesitant” have absolutely nothing of value to say about Covid-19 and have no business arguing with public health authorities on the issue. They should put the donut down, forego the lunchtime cheeseburger and the evening beer, and stop worrying about incredibly small chance of something bad happening because they wore a seatbelt (got vaxxed).
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  The government specialises in coercion. Pay your taxes or you'll be fined. Pay your fines or we'll throw you in a cage. It's time to fight guys from that country or we'll throw you in a cage. Obey our rules or we'll throw you in a cage. I hope if something good comes up out of covid, it will be people realising that and vote for limiting government's power.
  - mbg721 5y ago
    That outcome seems unlikely in the US in the near term, given how neatly people's opinions on COVID restrictions lined up with their existing politics. The lesson that seems to be sticking is that it feels great to have the full weight of public institutions on your side of the culture war, so win at all costs.
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
For the EU certificate, proof of prior infection can be used, although I believe you need a positive PCR test for that, an antibody test is not sufficient.
- TacticalCoder 5y ago
  > ... although I believe you need a positive PCR test for that, an antibody test is not sufficient. Most countries in the EU just relaxed the requirements to travel before the summer vacations. You don't need a PCR test anymore to travel: just an antibody test (at least for Spain / France / Belgium but I take it many others are doing the same). And there's no requirement to be vaccinated. They also raised the age at which you need a test from 6 to 12 years old. Source: always living/traveling across France/Belgium/Spain. Fun fact: when you travel by car in the EU they typically do not bother to check. You can cross several countries and they're not verifying anything. Another fun thing: test is supposed to be less than 72 hours old, so if you're traveling over more than 3 days, you need to get re-tested during your trip.
  - gcbirzan 5y ago
    The DGC doesn't have any such type of certificate, so there's that (which, obviously, doesn't mean countries cannot accept antibody tests). As for the traveling, that's weird, as I thought most countries exempt you from needing a test if you're just transiting.
  - lorenzhs 5y ago
    Antigen tests (the rapid test kit, results in ~15 minutes, sample taken from the nose or thread) are not the same as antibody tests (blood test for prior infection, has to go to the lab). You need the former for travel. Afaik, the latter is not accepted as proof of prior infection, you need a positive PCR test from at least 28-ish days ago.
jquery 5y ago
Antibody test is not proof of prior infection.
- nradov 5y ago
  What do you mean by that? The false positive rate is extremely low. It's as close to proof as we're going to get.
  - lorenzhs 5y ago
    What they might have meant is that many countries accept a positive PCR from >= 4 weeks ago as proof of prior infection (and therefore, presumed immunity), but not an antibody test. I'm not familiar with the error rates of the latter, but for the purposes of travel a positive antibody test is rather useless. Where I live, you need to meet one of three conditions for things like indoor dining: - proof of a full course of vaccination (2 weeks after the final shot) - proof of prior infection - antibody test not accepted, only positive PCR between 1 and 6 months ago - proof of an antigen test (rapid test) that's at most 24h old
Brendinooo 5y ago
Same. Covid in January, J&J a few weeks ago. I don't really think it was necessary, but the risk of taking it balanced out the risk of reinfection, both of which seemed really low.
paedubucher 5y ago
Getting a vaccination just for "the points" looks like a bad idea to me, because "the health" should be the only point to be considered.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  Welcome to regulations-ville, where nothing makes sense and clueless bureaucrats decide how many times you need to jump to get your freedom
  - paedubucher 5y ago
    Glad to see that I'm not the only one thinking this way.

joshuahughes 5y ago

Sounds uncomfortably like coercion...

isaacremuant 5y ago
It is coercion. People have been coerced at every step of this crisis, by the threat of police violence, by the threat of reputation or job loss, by the the threat of fines and more. Hopefully, like we see with the wuhan lab theory suppression, as time goes on, a lot of what people suffered will come to light, and be contrasted by the benefit of the elite and political class during all this.
- version_five 5y ago
  I agree 100% - whatever reaction posts like yours get, it's important to realize that a lot of people think this way, quite possibly a majority if you could talk to them on their own, despite efforts to pretend anyone against whatever government / corporate orthodoxy is pushing this week is some kind of conspiracy nut
  - e67f70028a46fba 5y ago
    Many many people agree with both of you. Don’t feel alone.
    - version_five 5y ago
      Thanks! That's why I posted a reply instead of just upvoting, I think its important to show people that they're not alone, and what they are thinking is normal.
  - brailsafe 5y ago
    There are a tremendous amount of people who have just been fed the same compounding stuff on YouTube or wherever based on their previous clicks. There's a difference between considering the nature of X with a way to validate or think about it, and simply having watched a netflix documentary while high on acid. The latter of which become conspiracy nuts, and they're really draining to listen to, probably as much as big L liberals droning on about whatever pet topic they have
    - version_five 5y ago
      I think I agree with what you're saying. The more recent challenge though is that calling someone a conspiracy theorist got a lot of traction for shutting down discussions, so it gets applied very liberally to any point of view that the mainstream disagrees with as a lazy way of avoiding debate.
      - brailsafe 5y ago
        That's true, and I don't necessarily think it's a good thing to shut down debate, but I don't think it's also perfectly valid to take whatever action you want to avoid argumentation if you choose. I don't want to go do something I enjoy, but feel less inclined to do so on the basis I might get into an argument with some jackass. Not everything requires me to debate in my daily life, and ignoring people I don't care to engage with changes nothing about the outcomes of the subject matter, most of the time.
    - prohobo 5y ago
      That's the nature of the internet and decentralized information sources. The vast majority of people are consuming propaganda or crazy shit (MSM and conspiracy theories) but don't know how to filter the info to find a narrative that most accurately represents reality. Because of this, the mainstream media will ALWAYS be able to dismiss strawman arguments and label dissidents as conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists will also ALWAYS be able to poke holes in the propaganda and spin convincing alternate narratives. In any valid disagreement with the popular narrative, you WILL find conspiracy theorists. One caveat to this situation is that IF the mainstream institutions were able to rebuild trust (by telling the truth), then you would have far less people poking holes in their narratives and therefore fewer conspiracy theories. So, I don't get angry at conspiracy theorists because I understand that they're created by a lying state and media - they're canaries not a cancer.
- somewhereoutth 5y ago
  You have been, and will continue to be, coerced (as you put it) every day of your life. For good reason.
  - version_five 5y ago
    What a sad way of looking at life. We used to have "if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you too?", talk about people as sheep, and generally look down on people giving in to peer pressure. Now it seems to be a badge of honor, or at least a popular opinion, amongst educated people, to lean in to being part of a herd. Doing stuff because it makes sense is one thing, but praising the abstract act of being peer pressured is ridiculous.
    - mlyle 5y ago
      There's all kinds of things we don't do because of social pressure and legal constraints (that are there, in general, because in aggregate they make sense). I close my mouth when I chew because of social pressure. Someone might choose not to pick their nose in public because of social pressure. Someone else might put the toilet seat down because of social pressure. The amount of time I spend changing lanes before a turn is because of social pressure. And yet someone else may not take the last helping of a treat because of social pressure.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  COVID restrictions have been coercion just like drunk driving laws are coercion: rules that prevent innocent people from being hurt by reckless people’s bad decisions. A fundamental part of any civilized system is that bad behavior that is likely to hurt others is punished in order to try to deter that bad behavior. Reckless behavior during a worldwide deadly pandemic is similar to reckless behavior on the road.
  - rimliu 5y ago
    I see this comparison often and it is wrong. Imagine if every driver is suddenly forced to take a breathalizer test every time before driving, even if they never had a DUI case.
- jquery 5y ago
  And then there’s guys who believed in the Wuhan lab theory from the start, and also think the vast majority of the so-called “vaccine hesitant” have absolutely nothing of value to say about Covid-19 and have no business arguing with public health authorities on the issue. They should put the donut down, forego the lunchtime cheeseburger and the evening beer, and stop worrying about incredibly small chance of something bad happening because they wore a seatbelt (got vaxxed).
jokethrowaway 5y ago
The government specialises in coercion. Pay your taxes or you'll be fined. Pay your fines or we'll throw you in a cage. It's time to fight guys from that country or we'll throw you in a cage. Obey our rules or we'll throw you in a cage. I hope if something good comes up out of covid, it will be people realising that and vote for limiting government's power.
- mbg721 5y ago
  That outcome seems unlikely in the US in the near term, given how neatly people's opinions on COVID restrictions lined up with their existing politics. The lesson that seems to be sticking is that it feels great to have the full weight of public institutions on your side of the culture war, so win at all costs.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago

For the EU certificate, proof of prior infection can be used, although I believe you need a positive PCR test for that, an antibody test is not sufficient.

TacticalCoder 5y ago
> ... although I believe you need a positive PCR test for that, an antibody test is not sufficient. Most countries in the EU just relaxed the requirements to travel before the summer vacations. You don't need a PCR test anymore to travel: just an antibody test (at least for Spain / France / Belgium but I take it many others are doing the same). And there's no requirement to be vaccinated. They also raised the age at which you need a test from 6 to 12 years old. Source: always living/traveling across France/Belgium/Spain. Fun fact: when you travel by car in the EU they typically do not bother to check. You can cross several countries and they're not verifying anything. Another fun thing: test is supposed to be less than 72 hours old, so if you're traveling over more than 3 days, you need to get re-tested during your trip.
- gcbirzan 5y ago
  The DGC doesn't have any such type of certificate, so there's that (which, obviously, doesn't mean countries cannot accept antibody tests). As for the traveling, that's weird, as I thought most countries exempt you from needing a test if you're just transiting.
- lorenzhs 5y ago
  Antigen tests (the rapid test kit, results in ~15 minutes, sample taken from the nose or thread) are not the same as antibody tests (blood test for prior infection, has to go to the lab). You need the former for travel. Afaik, the latter is not accepted as proof of prior infection, you need a positive PCR test from at least 28-ish days ago.

jquery 5y ago

Antibody test is not proof of prior infection.

nradov 5y ago
What do you mean by that? The false positive rate is extremely low. It's as close to proof as we're going to get.
- lorenzhs 5y ago
  What they might have meant is that many countries accept a positive PCR from >= 4 weeks ago as proof of prior infection (and therefore, presumed immunity), but not an antibody test. I'm not familiar with the error rates of the latter, but for the purposes of travel a positive antibody test is rather useless. Where I live, you need to meet one of three conditions for things like indoor dining: - proof of a full course of vaccination (2 weeks after the final shot) - proof of prior infection - antibody test not accepted, only positive PCR between 1 and 6 months ago - proof of an antigen test (rapid test) that's at most 24h old

Brendinooo 5y ago

Same. Covid in January, J&J a few weeks ago. I don't really think it was necessary, but the risk of taking it balanced out the risk of reinfection, both of which seemed really low.

paedubucher 5y ago

Getting a vaccination just for "the points" looks like a bad idea to me, because "the health" should be the only point to be considered.

jokethrowaway 5y ago
Welcome to regulations-ville, where nothing makes sense and clueless bureaucrats decide how many times you need to jump to get your freedom
- paedubucher 5y ago
  Glad to see that I'm not the only one thinking this way.