6 ms·

No, actually the complaint was that a central authority could, under the pretext of some obscure rule, forbid you access to certain or public services. The same

No, actually the complaint was that a central authority could, under the pretext of some obscure rule, forbid you access to certain or public services. The same concept applies here, whether it's open source or not.

neither_color 5y ago
We're not over it, the discussions were consistently buried and we skipped that part to "here's how the new QR systems work" to give the illusion of consent. They didn't even bother manufacturing consent this time. There was no healthy public discourse on it, just some states/countries banning them pre-emptively and some states taking for granted that you would accept it.
Spooky23 5y ago
Requirements for public health aren't new. Most countries, for example, require vaccination for contagious diseases for a variety of public functions like attending school. The need to validate vaccination status for functions like boarding airplanes or attending large stadium events is just common sense, as certain populations are refusing vaccination for mostly irrational reasons. These digital credentials allow people to conveniently provide this documentation in a reliable way.
- logicchains 5y ago
  >certain populations are refusing vaccination for mostly irrational reasons. It's not irrational for people to be cautious about a new treatment for which there's absolutely no data about long-term safety (can't know the 2-3 year effects of something that's only been around one year), which has bypassed normal treatment approval processes (the covid vaccines only have FDA emergency use authorisation, and have not yet passed the requirements for full FDA approval, requirements which are strict for a reason), for which some previous attempts have failed significantly (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22536382/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22536382/), to prevent a disease that for many people has less than a 1/100,000 to 1/1,000,000 fatality rate (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.17.20097410v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.17.20097410v...), ten to a hundred times less dangerous than giving birth.
  - fabian2k 5y ago
    The vaccines have regular approval in the EU by the EMA, the US approval is the odd case here. And there is no reason to expect a significant risk for side effects that only appear after several years, for vaccines they generally appear reasonably close to the date of the vaccination. And you're seriously downplaying the risks of COVID-19 here, of course it is relatively harmless for very young people. But it is seriously dangerous for a large part of the population that is older.
    - logicchains 5y ago
      >And you're seriously downplaying the risks of COVID-19 here, of course it is relatively harmless for very young people. But it is seriously dangerous for a large part of the population that is older. It's not only "very young" people. Did you look at the link I provided? For people 20-30, it's around one in a hundred thousand. For people 30-50, it's around one in ten thousand (similar to giving birth). When someone's making a rational decision, it's with regard to their individual risk; the risk of covid to an eighty-year-old is irrelevant to a twenty-year-old deciding whether to take the vaccine, especially given the vaccine doesn't prevent them infecting others if they get it (see this data from the Singapore government: https://covid.viz.sg/ https://covid.viz.sg/ ). >for vaccines they generally appear reasonably close to the date of the vaccination. The MRNA vaccines are quite different from normal dead/live virus vaccines and have never been used at scale.
      - johncolanduoni 5y ago
        > The MRNA vaccines are quite different from normal dead/live virus vaccines and have never been used at scale. Their closer relative, the viral vector vaccines (like J&J’s), have been. You’re right about calculating risk, but when’s the last time a vaccine in normal, longer term stage three trials resulted in a higher fatality rate than COVID (for any age group)? The link for the SARS vaccine candidate was a failure that was caught in a mouse model, which unsurprisingly they also did with the new vaccines before the human trials started. To echo the parent comment, these were immediate side effects on challenge (which would likely been caught in stage 2 trials even if they only happened in humans and not in animal models). If we want to go with unusual reactions that only show up over time, what about the chance that whatever long term side effect you’re imagining from the vaccines instead happens for people who have been infected with COVID 5 years from now? Once you decide to make decisions based on rare and novel events with unquantifiable risks, you’ll find they show up absolutely everywhere if you’re being intellectually honest. > given the vaccine doesn't prevent them infecting others if they get it (see this data from the Singapore government That data’s N is a little low, but let’s take it seriously for a moment. The vast majority of vaccinated people in that dataset did not go on to infect others, and none of them were epicenters for super-spreader events. Eyeballing it, it’s consistent with a sterilizing immunity in excess of 80%. If the vaccines turn out to be that effective at preventing transmission, that’s an excellent outcome (it is higher than most vaccines).
- logicchains 5y ago
  >refusing vaccination for mostly irrational reasons Depending on age and condition the risk to an individual can vary from one in ten million to under one in a hundred. In your mind, what is the risk that an individual must face from covid to make it rational to take a novel treatment with no long-term safety data that hasn't passed the standard FDA approval process? In any other context, would people here be so confident that there's a less than one in ten million risk from a novel MRNA treatment?
  - hvac 5y ago
    >Depending on age and condition the risk to an individual can vary from one in ten million to under one in a hundred You're off by several orders of magnitude here. See "current best estimate": https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
- WC3w6pXxgGd 5y ago
  Saying something isn't new doesn't mean it's good.
supermatt 5y ago
Pretty sure the complaints were as I mentioned - feel free to give links to the other discussions. The "central authority" already do forbid you from accessing certain or public services for the same rules - only you need to provide the relevant paper documents. This is effectively the paperless version thereof. You may personally disagree with the concept of proof of vaccination, but thats completely aside from the technical discussion we are having here.
- justinmchase 5y ago
  Its not an aside, its centrally related. The technical version of the app enables the problematic activity to scale and thus the moral and ethical implications are centrally related to the technical implmenetation.
  - miohtama 5y ago
    Would you be happier by checking equivalent paper printouts, check done by hand?
  - mbesto 5y ago
    > are centrally related to the technical implmenetation. You mean just like a centrally fabricated ID card that's used for entering an airport, making certain purchases, verifying ID for a CC purchase, entering the country, etc?
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  What public service does the government forbid me to access without my papers (except the ones where the document is needed to charge the state for the service - eg. medical stuff)? Just a year ago, saying that the governments will require you to produce a "vaccination passport" to enter a restaurant was laughed at as a crazy conspiracy theory, and currently, the difference between a "crazy conspiracy theory" and "reality" is about 6-12 months.
  - supermatt 5y ago
    "certain or public services" was the phrase the parent used. I just said the same rules apply as before. Maybe you are better off asking them for examples.

neither_color 5y ago

We're not over it, the discussions were consistently buried and we skipped that part to "here's how the new QR systems work" to give the illusion of consent. They didn't even bother manufacturing consent this time. There was no healthy public discourse on it, just some states/countries banning them pre-emptively and some states taking for granted that you would accept it.

Spooky23 5y ago

Requirements for public health aren't new. Most countries, for example, require vaccination for contagious diseases for a variety of public functions like attending school. The need to validate vaccination status for functions like boarding airplanes or attending large stadium events is just common sense, as certain populations are refusing vaccination for mostly irrational reasons. These digital credentials allow people to conveniently provide this documentation in a reliable way.

logicchains 5y ago
>certain populations are refusing vaccination for mostly irrational reasons. It's not irrational for people to be cautious about a new treatment for which there's absolutely no data about long-term safety (can't know the 2-3 year effects of something that's only been around one year), which has bypassed normal treatment approval processes (the covid vaccines only have FDA emergency use authorisation, and have not yet passed the requirements for full FDA approval, requirements which are strict for a reason), for which some previous attempts have failed significantly (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22536382/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22536382/), to prevent a disease that for many people has less than a 1/100,000 to 1/1,000,000 fatality rate (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.17.20097410v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.17.20097410v...), ten to a hundred times less dangerous than giving birth.
- fabian2k 5y ago
  The vaccines have regular approval in the EU by the EMA, the US approval is the odd case here. And there is no reason to expect a significant risk for side effects that only appear after several years, for vaccines they generally appear reasonably close to the date of the vaccination. And you're seriously downplaying the risks of COVID-19 here, of course it is relatively harmless for very young people. But it is seriously dangerous for a large part of the population that is older.
  - logicchains 5y ago
    >And you're seriously downplaying the risks of COVID-19 here, of course it is relatively harmless for very young people. But it is seriously dangerous for a large part of the population that is older. It's not only "very young" people. Did you look at the link I provided? For people 20-30, it's around one in a hundred thousand. For people 30-50, it's around one in ten thousand (similar to giving birth). When someone's making a rational decision, it's with regard to their individual risk; the risk of covid to an eighty-year-old is irrelevant to a twenty-year-old deciding whether to take the vaccine, especially given the vaccine doesn't prevent them infecting others if they get it (see this data from the Singapore government: https://covid.viz.sg/ https://covid.viz.sg/ ). >for vaccines they generally appear reasonably close to the date of the vaccination. The MRNA vaccines are quite different from normal dead/live virus vaccines and have never been used at scale.
    - johncolanduoni 5y ago
      > The MRNA vaccines are quite different from normal dead/live virus vaccines and have never been used at scale. Their closer relative, the viral vector vaccines (like J&J’s), have been. You’re right about calculating risk, but when’s the last time a vaccine in normal, longer term stage three trials resulted in a higher fatality rate than COVID (for any age group)? The link for the SARS vaccine candidate was a failure that was caught in a mouse model, which unsurprisingly they also did with the new vaccines before the human trials started. To echo the parent comment, these were immediate side effects on challenge (which would likely been caught in stage 2 trials even if they only happened in humans and not in animal models). If we want to go with unusual reactions that only show up over time, what about the chance that whatever long term side effect you’re imagining from the vaccines instead happens for people who have been infected with COVID 5 years from now? Once you decide to make decisions based on rare and novel events with unquantifiable risks, you’ll find they show up absolutely everywhere if you’re being intellectually honest. > given the vaccine doesn't prevent them infecting others if they get it (see this data from the Singapore government That data’s N is a little low, but let’s take it seriously for a moment. The vast majority of vaccinated people in that dataset did not go on to infect others, and none of them were epicenters for super-spreader events. Eyeballing it, it’s consistent with a sterilizing immunity in excess of 80%. If the vaccines turn out to be that effective at preventing transmission, that’s an excellent outcome (it is higher than most vaccines).
logicchains 5y ago
>refusing vaccination for mostly irrational reasons Depending on age and condition the risk to an individual can vary from one in ten million to under one in a hundred. In your mind, what is the risk that an individual must face from covid to make it rational to take a novel treatment with no long-term safety data that hasn't passed the standard FDA approval process? In any other context, would people here be so confident that there's a less than one in ten million risk from a novel MRNA treatment?
- hvac 5y ago
  >Depending on age and condition the risk to an individual can vary from one in ten million to under one in a hundred You're off by several orders of magnitude here. See "current best estimate": https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...
WC3w6pXxgGd 5y ago
Saying something isn't new doesn't mean it's good.

supermatt 5y ago

Pretty sure the complaints were as I mentioned - feel free to give links to the other discussions. The "central authority" already do forbid you from accessing certain or public services for the same rules - only you need to provide the relevant paper documents. This is effectively the paperless version thereof. You may personally disagree with the concept of proof of vaccination, but thats completely aside from the technical discussion we are having here.

justinmchase 5y ago
Its not an aside, its centrally related. The technical version of the app enables the problematic activity to scale and thus the moral and ethical implications are centrally related to the technical implmenetation.
- miohtama 5y ago
  Would you be happier by checking equivalent paper printouts, check done by hand?
- mbesto 5y ago
  > are centrally related to the technical implmenetation. You mean just like a centrally fabricated ID card that's used for entering an airport, making certain purchases, verifying ID for a CC purchase, entering the country, etc?
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
What public service does the government forbid me to access without my papers (except the ones where the document is needed to charge the state for the service - eg. medical stuff)? Just a year ago, saying that the governments will require you to produce a "vaccination passport" to enter a restaurant was laughed at as a crazy conspiracy theory, and currently, the difference between a "crazy conspiracy theory" and "reality" is about 6-12 months.
- supermatt 5y ago
  "certain or public services" was the phrase the parent used. I just said the same rules apply as before. Maybe you are better off asking them for examples.