4 ms·

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 th

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
    Suppose I think you're putting the lives of others at risk by going outside without having meditated a few thousand hours. All the same arguments apply: getting your meditation card is your path to freedom, be responsible and protect others by doing your meditation, get your free brain scan today, etc. Or, if you want to be selfish, that's OK -- just stay in your house forever. Keep paying for the infrastructure of the city, of course, but you won't be able to enter any kind of event without having done your meditation, and of course the un-meditated will have to sit separately from the good people. Sound good? Or is this notion of placing new responsibilities onto others without a vote a power you'd like to keep for yourself, and not for others to wield the same way?

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
  Suppose I think you're putting the lives of others at risk by going outside without having meditated a few thousand hours. All the same arguments apply: getting your meditation card is your path to freedom, be responsible and protect others by doing your meditation, get your free brain scan today, etc. Or, if you want to be selfish, that's OK -- just stay in your house forever. Keep paying for the infrastructure of the city, of course, but you won't be able to enter any kind of event without having done your meditation, and of course the un-meditated will have to sit separately from the good people. Sound good? Or is this notion of placing new responsibilities onto others without a vote a power you'd like to keep for yourself, and not for others to wield the same way?