5 ms·

99.97% survival rate for our demographic. When we can sue should we suffer an adverse reaction, then the cost-benefit analysis may even out. Right now, it’s all

by vacjrj 5y ago

99.97% survival rate for our demographic. When we can sue should we suffer an adverse reaction, then the cost-benefit analysis may even out. Right now, it’s all but downside.

gilbetron 5y ago
Because you can still transmit it, this isn't hard, just read a little.
63 5y ago
As always though, it's not about you, it's about the people around you and the people around them. If we all acted selfishly all the time we'd all die.
- COGlory 5y ago
  How many documented cases of mass, true altruism are there, out of curiosity? I'm in agreeance that people should get the vaccine, but I'm under no illusion that for a normal (selfish) person, the cost-benefit is a little wonky.
  - riedel 5y ago
    Any kind of donation. But getting a 70% for a single thing is hard if it not the absolute social norm. Probably only churches achieve this. But it works for other vaxxines too. but it might take another 10 years given the doubts a new vaxxine might raise. We need people that we trust telling us that this is safe and that they expect this from us to get the cost benefit to work for the 70% . So all please all high karma HN posters: call for people to get vaxxed and put reports of risks in a statistical context...
  - vacjrj 5y ago
    Again, I’ll be altruistic once I have recourse. Why must I waive my legal rights?
    - alisonkisk 5y ago
      You can't sue anyone if you get the coronavirus either, and thats >1000x more likely.
    - igetspam 5y ago
      Your rights end where the rights of another begin. Put putting others at risk, you are potentially denying them the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Don't get vaccinated and stay home. I support that. Going out in public as a spreader is not a right and the people you infect should be able to hold you legally liable.
      - alisonkisk 5y ago
        That logic bans driving a car, which puts innocent lives at risk.
        sellyme 5y ago
        We do prevent people from driving a car at all until they pass a test proving that they can do so competently, and even then they typically have strong restrictions on what they can do while driving for several years to help further reduce the risk they can pose. Perhaps a fair comparison would be if we required those who do not wish to get vaccinated to have a relevant medical degree to prove that they know what they're doing?
      - foolinaround 5y ago
        > Your rights end where the rights of another begin. Agree with this statement as such. Except that you do not have a right to force others to do anything that they are not in agreement with. You have a right to protect yourself and stay home. I support that. ( Just putting it the way opposite to how you have phrased it ) > Going out in public as a spreader is not a right Anyone out in public could be a spreader, vaccinated or not. The science is not as clear yet. You should protect yourself. > the people you infect should be able to hold you legally liable Why only for Covid-19?
      - premium-komodo 5y ago
- vacjrj 5y ago
  What is more moral: - Asking the tiny fraction of the population who are immunocompromised to remain locked down until the safety of vaccines has been empirically verified? - Or asking healthy humans to take an experimental vaccine with no recourse should they suffer adverse effects?
  - stevewodil 5y ago
    Viruses mutate. Healthy humans won't stay healthy forever. The vaccines are not experimental. The moral thing to do is protect idiots from their own stupidity because we value their lives still, but recently I'm questioning that.
    - vacjrj 5y ago
      > The vaccines are not experimental Then why can’t I sue should I have an adverse effect?
      - stevewodil 5y ago
        Would you consider roads to be experimental too? Governments have sovereign immunity, they can't be sued for damages you incur due to poor road conditions unless they willfully allow themselves to be sued. The definition of experimental has no relation to the ability to be sued.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    - Or ask people over 50 to remain in a lockdown instead of putting millions of people out of jobs due to the shutdowns
  - koyote 5y ago
    > safety of vaccines has been empirically verified > experimental vaccine When is the vaccine safe and no longer experimental, according to you? We have now given over 2 billion vaccine doses around the world.
  - igetspam 5y ago
- effie 5y ago
  My body is not about me? Which people around me are more affected when I take vaccine than me?
  - colinmorelli 5y ago
    The elderly and immunocompromised people you are related to, spend time with, and care about. Or, hell, even those that you don't, but just happen to come in close contact with. Also, nobody said your body is not about you. GP suggested the vaccine is not about you. Indeed, it's not. We vaccinate not to protect ourselves, but to protect society by reducing the spread of disease. The fact that it will also protect you is of course great as well. This is nothing new, and has been the same for every other vaccine.
    - effie 5y ago
      > The elderly and immunocompromised people you are related to, spend time with, and care about. Or, hell, even those that you don't, but just happen to come in close contact with. No they aren't, because I can and do limit my risk to such people in other ways. And they can and should limit that risk as well themselves, in other ways than getting others vaccinated. Why? Because the space outside your home isn't some "safe space" where you won't ever get infected. As a general rule, you are responsible for your health and safety, nobody else is. There are other people with different health strategies out there, even people who are not afraid to get infected. > We vaccinate not to protect ourselves, but to protect society Society changes, and it does not need protection via compulsory vaccines, except the 1984 kind. People and their rights need protection.
      - squiggleblaz 5y ago
        > As a general rule, you are responsible for your health and safety, nobody else is. This is a stupid proposal for a rule. I call it a proposal, because even a cursory study of the evidence shows it is not a description of general practice, and doesn't reflect the laws that most societies have enacted for themselves. If it were the actual rule, then you would never be able to eat any food. Most people have the decency to stay home when they're sick, unless they fear for their security by doing so, out of consideration for other people's health. Most people take reasonable measures when making and storing food, even in the absence of laws creating some obligation, because they have consideration for the health of those who will eat it.
- carlgreene 5y ago
  Right, so those who are high risk get vaccinated…what’s the problem?
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
    Some people are immunocompromised or immunosuppressed.
    - effie 5y ago
      Such people also are recommended to get immunoisolated.
      - squiggleblaz 5y ago
        For the rest of their life because someone has an idee fixe? It hardly seems proportionate. The person with the idee fixe will have to suck it up, sunshine. If they _really_ don't want the vaccine, then they should immunoisolate to prevent infecting those cannot get vaccinated.
        effie 5y ago
        For the time they prefer to do that. It is recommended by doctors because for such vulnerable people it is the best and easiest to execute strategy to keep them from life-threatening infections.
- CheezeIt 5y ago
  You can counter the community micromorts of not getting vaccinated by donating several dollars to the Against Malaria Foundation.
- jsight 5y ago
  If the people around him vaccinate, the vast majority of them will be in at least as safe of a group. I'll admit that this does nothing for high-risk groups that can't safely vaccinate for one reason or another, but I don't see that as a good reason to try to encourage someone to do it that isn't comfortable.
  - throwaway2048 5y ago
    Because if a large percentage of people are uncomfortable, the pandemic keeps going. It is fundamentally selfish.
spicymaki 5y ago
May I ask, what is our demographic?
Someone1234 5y ago
Sorry, what is "our" demographic?
- King-Aaron 5y ago
  "Human beings between the ages of 0 and 100" I'm guessing, which would make the comment false
kevinventullo 5y ago
Presumably the survival rate for getting the vaccine is higher?
lamontcg 5y ago
the risks of vaccination are basically zero for everyone regardless of age group. and the hospitalization rate of catching the virus are much higher than the death rate for 20 year olds. death rates drop off halving roughly every 8 years. hospitalization rates only half roughly every 16 years. so as a 20 year old you run ~1/200th of the risk of death as an 80 year, but you run 1/13th the risk of hospitalization compared to an 80 year old. that is still very non-zero. there's literally no downside for any age group to getting the vaccination. even with 12-18 year old kids the risk of hospitalization and MIS-C is around 1-in-12,000 and the rate of side effects from the vaccines are much lower. not to mention that we don't know how often the real virus triggers things like type 1 diabetes in kids and things that they'll carry around for the rest of their lives (which we expect to happen because other viruses cause them, and SARS-CoV-2 against completely naive immune system with no inherited T-cells is almost certain to be worse).

by vacjrj 5y ago

99.97% survival rate for our demographic. When we can sue should we suffer an adverse reaction, then the cost-benefit analysis may even out. Right now, it’s all but downside.

gilbetron 5y ago

Because you can still transmit it, this isn't hard, just read a little.

63 5y ago

As always though, it's not about you, it's about the people around you and the people around them. If we all acted selfishly all the time we'd all die.

COGlory 5y ago
How many documented cases of mass, true altruism are there, out of curiosity? I'm in agreeance that people should get the vaccine, but I'm under no illusion that for a normal (selfish) person, the cost-benefit is a little wonky.
- riedel 5y ago
  Any kind of donation. But getting a 70% for a single thing is hard if it not the absolute social norm. Probably only churches achieve this. But it works for other vaxxines too. but it might take another 10 years given the doubts a new vaxxine might raise. We need people that we trust telling us that this is safe and that they expect this from us to get the cost benefit to work for the 70% . So all please all high karma HN posters: call for people to get vaxxed and put reports of risks in a statistical context...
- vacjrj 5y ago
  Again, I’ll be altruistic once I have recourse. Why must I waive my legal rights?
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
    You can't sue anyone if you get the coronavirus either, and thats >1000x more likely.
  - igetspam 5y ago
    Your rights end where the rights of another begin. Put putting others at risk, you are potentially denying them the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Don't get vaccinated and stay home. I support that. Going out in public as a spreader is not a right and the people you infect should be able to hold you legally liable.
    - alisonkisk 5y ago
      That logic bans driving a car, which puts innocent lives at risk.
      - sellyme 5y ago
        We do prevent people from driving a car at all until they pass a test proving that they can do so competently, and even then they typically have strong restrictions on what they can do while driving for several years to help further reduce the risk they can pose. Perhaps a fair comparison would be if we required those who do not wish to get vaccinated to have a relevant medical degree to prove that they know what they're doing?
    - foolinaround 5y ago
      > Your rights end where the rights of another begin. Agree with this statement as such. Except that you do not have a right to force others to do anything that they are not in agreement with. You have a right to protect yourself and stay home. I support that. ( Just putting it the way opposite to how you have phrased it ) > Going out in public as a spreader is not a right Anyone out in public could be a spreader, vaccinated or not. The science is not as clear yet. You should protect yourself. > the people you infect should be able to hold you legally liable Why only for Covid-19?
    - premium-komodo 5y ago
vacjrj 5y ago
What is more moral: - Asking the tiny fraction of the population who are immunocompromised to remain locked down until the safety of vaccines has been empirically verified? - Or asking healthy humans to take an experimental vaccine with no recourse should they suffer adverse effects?
- stevewodil 5y ago
  Viruses mutate. Healthy humans won't stay healthy forever. The vaccines are not experimental. The moral thing to do is protect idiots from their own stupidity because we value their lives still, but recently I'm questioning that.
  - vacjrj 5y ago
    > The vaccines are not experimental Then why can’t I sue should I have an adverse effect?
    - stevewodil 5y ago
      Would you consider roads to be experimental too? Governments have sovereign immunity, they can't be sued for damages you incur due to poor road conditions unless they willfully allow themselves to be sued. The definition of experimental has no relation to the ability to be sued.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  - Or ask people over 50 to remain in a lockdown instead of putting millions of people out of jobs due to the shutdowns
- koyote 5y ago
  > safety of vaccines has been empirically verified > experimental vaccine When is the vaccine safe and no longer experimental, according to you? We have now given over 2 billion vaccine doses around the world.
- igetspam 5y ago
effie 5y ago
My body is not about me? Which people around me are more affected when I take vaccine than me?
- colinmorelli 5y ago
  The elderly and immunocompromised people you are related to, spend time with, and care about. Or, hell, even those that you don't, but just happen to come in close contact with. Also, nobody said your body is not about you. GP suggested the vaccine is not about you. Indeed, it's not. We vaccinate not to protect ourselves, but to protect society by reducing the spread of disease. The fact that it will also protect you is of course great as well. This is nothing new, and has been the same for every other vaccine.
  - effie 5y ago
    > The elderly and immunocompromised people you are related to, spend time with, and care about. Or, hell, even those that you don't, but just happen to come in close contact with. No they aren't, because I can and do limit my risk to such people in other ways. And they can and should limit that risk as well themselves, in other ways than getting others vaccinated. Why? Because the space outside your home isn't some "safe space" where you won't ever get infected. As a general rule, you are responsible for your health and safety, nobody else is. There are other people with different health strategies out there, even people who are not afraid to get infected. > We vaccinate not to protect ourselves, but to protect society Society changes, and it does not need protection via compulsory vaccines, except the 1984 kind. People and their rights need protection.
    - squiggleblaz 5y ago
      > As a general rule, you are responsible for your health and safety, nobody else is. This is a stupid proposal for a rule. I call it a proposal, because even a cursory study of the evidence shows it is not a description of general practice, and doesn't reflect the laws that most societies have enacted for themselves. If it were the actual rule, then you would never be able to eat any food. Most people have the decency to stay home when they're sick, unless they fear for their security by doing so, out of consideration for other people's health. Most people take reasonable measures when making and storing food, even in the absence of laws creating some obligation, because they have consideration for the health of those who will eat it.
carlgreene 5y ago
Right, so those who are high risk get vaccinated…what’s the problem?
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  Some people are immunocompromised or immunosuppressed.
  - effie 5y ago
    Such people also are recommended to get immunoisolated.
    - squiggleblaz 5y ago
      For the rest of their life because someone has an idee fixe? It hardly seems proportionate. The person with the idee fixe will have to suck it up, sunshine. If they _really_ don't want the vaccine, then they should immunoisolate to prevent infecting those cannot get vaccinated.
      - effie 5y ago
        For the time they prefer to do that. It is recommended by doctors because for such vulnerable people it is the best and easiest to execute strategy to keep them from life-threatening infections.
CheezeIt 5y ago
You can counter the community micromorts of not getting vaccinated by donating several dollars to the Against Malaria Foundation.
jsight 5y ago
If the people around him vaccinate, the vast majority of them will be in at least as safe of a group. I'll admit that this does nothing for high-risk groups that can't safely vaccinate for one reason or another, but I don't see that as a good reason to try to encourage someone to do it that isn't comfortable.
- throwaway2048 5y ago
  Because if a large percentage of people are uncomfortable, the pandemic keeps going. It is fundamentally selfish.

spicymaki 5y ago

May I ask, what is our demographic?

Someone1234 5y ago

Sorry, what is "our" demographic?

King-Aaron 5y ago
"Human beings between the ages of 0 and 100" I'm guessing, which would make the comment false

kevinventullo 5y ago

Presumably the survival rate for getting the vaccine is higher?

lamontcg 5y ago

the risks of vaccination are basically zero for everyone regardless of age group. and the hospitalization rate of catching the virus are much higher than the death rate for 20 year olds. death rates drop off halving roughly every 8 years. hospitalization rates only half roughly every 16 years. so as a 20 year old you run ~1/200th of the risk of death as an 80 year, but you run 1/13th the risk of hospitalization compared to an 80 year old. that is still very non-zero. there's literally no downside for any age group to getting the vaccination. even with 12-18 year old kids the risk of hospitalization and MIS-C is around 1-in-12,000 and the rate of side effects from the vaccines are much lower. not to mention that we don't know how often the real virus triggers things like type 1 diabetes in kids and things that they'll carry around for the rest of their lives (which we expect to happen because other viruses cause them, and SARS-CoV-2 against completely naive immune system with no inherited T-cells is almost certain to be worse).