16 ms·

Some states push to ban “discrimination” against unvaccinated people

23 points by IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago

trompetenaccoun 5y ago
Scary that it has to come to this. The pandemic has vividly demonstrated how close we are even in "developed" countries to barbarism and mob rule.
forcry 5y ago
>This removes any opportunity to nudge more people toward getting the shots, he added.“The whole idea behind a good vaccination campaign is making not getting vaccinated the harder choice, and getting vaccinated the easy choice. Right now it’s the exact opposite — it’s easier not to be vaccinated." So people are supposed to be "nudged" into it? And they are supposed to do it because it is easier, as opposed to safer? So have these people already written off the idea of convincing people that vaccinating is the safer alternative? I mean, it appears that they are not even trying. But I guess it makes sense, because convincing people is harder, and when you can just put mandates for everything in place, and there is no opposition from people, it is much easier.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  It is ridiculous really. I have been vaccinated with Moderna, which didn't even bring anything else to the market as far as I know. Listening to these people wanting to nudge others I wish I didn't get vaccinated. I think the damage Covid can cause is significant, but this is an experimental treatment. To my disappointment I didn't get magnetic, but doctors claiming there cannot be any unforseen dangers are lying to you. If someone forces the vaccine on you, they should be liable for any damages. Perhaps not the manufacturer but government in this case.
  - LifeIsThermal 5y ago
    I´m less worried by vaccine safety than the vaccine strategy. You don´t normally vaccinate in an ongoing pandemic, usually you vaccinate when a virus is not in circulation. By vaccinating in this way, in an already infected population, you add selection pressure that creates an advantage for more contagious vaccine-resistant strains. This is the real danger in my opinion, but of course side effects of this new vaccine technology can emerge. We´ve already seen Pfizers vaccine downgraded to 64% efficacy in Israel due to the Delta-variant, so vaccine resistant mutations are a real thing. There´s one scientist that predicted this development perfectly, Geert Vanden Bosschen. He´s the only one so far that has made correct predictions in this pandemic. He said that mass-vaccinating during ongoing pandemic will result in rising numbers of cases among fully vaccinated people a couple of months after vaccination, caused by selective pressure leading to vaccine resistant mutations dominating. He also warns strongly against vaccinating children. But he praises the new vaccine technology, so he´s not antivaxx.
    - anshorei 5y ago
      > But he praises the new vaccine technology, so he´s not antivaxx. It's sad how this has to be stated every time one brings up criticism of the current vaccine strategy. For many people there's only two possible stances: "I've already taken the vaccine" and "I'm an anti-vaxxer". I also remember that back when Trump was boasting "We'll have the vaccine soon! It'll be the greatest vaccine. And then we can all go back to normal!" there was a healthy skepticism on the left of promoting nation-wide use of a rushed vaccine, but as soon as Biden took over this disappeared.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      Yes, I think Mareks disease is theorized to be a prime example for this. It is deadly by now for any unvaccinated chickens and it probably was caused by a leaky vaccine and the Covid vaccines are too.
    - dtech 5y ago
      What's the alternative? Let the pandemic rage on for a few more years, wait till everyone has been affected or dead, and then vaccinate? Oh wait, that will have the exact same problem, because as more and more people get natural immunity the same selective pressure arises causing new variants. See cold or flu viruses. Congratulations, you've just caused much more suffering, death and economic damage and achieved nothing by waiting with vaccinations. Good job!
    - Pyramus 5y ago
      > He´s the only one so far that has made correct predictions in this pandemic. How likely do you think is it, that a vast field of virologists, immunologists, molecular biologists, medical doctors and scientists in general are all wrong but this one person is right?
      - forcry 5y ago
        He is not alone in making that connection regarding vaccinating in the middle of a pandemic As you can see here. I am not sure what the exact time is, but they also suggest this possibility. It appears to me that this is common knowledge.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-RuvUkcyJI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-RuvUkcyJI
  - stefan_ 5y ago
    There have been hundreds of millions of vaccinations. What unforseen danger is there at this point? Be precise.
    - LifeIsThermal 5y ago
      See my post below.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      Be precise about something that is unknowable? We take a risk with this plain and simple. It might be small, but so is risk from the disease itself.
    - AYBABTME 5y ago
      What if there's unpredictable long term consequences? Like, turns out XYZ compounds gives cancer but that only become detectable after 18+ months. Although I admit I don't know if regular trials would uncover these either. I have no dog in this fight, I'm just providing a possible answer.
      - Nursie 5y ago
        All of the components have been used before, these things aren't that new. mRNA tech itself has been in development since the 80s, and for immunisation since about 2012. It's gone from the body within a few hours AFAICT. If you're that worried, go for the J&J or AZ vaccines, which are more 'traditional' and don't use mRNA.
        AYBABTME 5y ago
        I'm not worried at all, I'm eager to be able to get a mRNA vaccine, but no vaccine at all is available to my age group where I live. I envy y'all.
        dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
        Being new or not is not the crucial point. What matters is that it's in the interest of the society at large that as many people as possible are vaccinated quickly. This might present certain incentives to treat possible side effects in a political way, basically downplaying them. I'm not saying this is what is happening now, but it has definitely happened in the past. When you read the history of Pandemrix[0][1], you will note that: > In August 2010 the Swedish MPA issued a statement which included the following: "An investigation is ongoing, but any relationship between the vaccination and the reported symptoms can not be concluded." and: > In the Irish parliament, TD Clare Daly commented that, “The Health Service Executive (HSE) decided to purchase Pandemrix and continued to distribute it even after they knew it was dangerous and untested, and before most of the public in Ireland received it.” [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix [1] https://www.thelocal.se/20201126/why-some-young-swedes-are-wary-of-new-vaccines-after-swine-flu-campaign/ https://www.thelocal.se/20201126/why-some-young-swedes-are-w...
  - johnisgood 5y ago
    > doctors claiming there cannot be any unforseen dangers are lying to you We have to sign a paper that we cannot hold anyone liable for any potential harm that might come from the vaccine (any time in the future). 5.6 million people have signed it and got the vaccine.
- chii 5y ago
  > because convincing people is harder why do they need convincing, when it is quite self-evident that getting vaccinated, if you can, is better? If the people holding out won't listen to evidence, no amount of evidence-based convincing is going to change their mind. So the alternative should be to "nudge" by policy.
  - forcry 5y ago
    > If the people holding out won't listen to evidence Different people have different definitions for "evidence". Something that can convince me, might not be enough to convince you. That does not mean I can force my trust in a certain evidence upon you.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
LifeIsThermal 5y ago
Congratulations to America. You´re heading full speed towards a Nazi-style nation. Take your vaccine, you deserve it. Then afterwards, take a look at Pfizers criminal history of bribery and unethical behaviour: https://www.corpwatch.org/article/pfizer-admits-bribery-eight-countries https://www.corpwatch.org/article/pfizer-admits-bribery-eigh... https://usareally.com/8550-pfizer-was-fined-nearly-usd-5-billion-for-healthcare-related-offenses-and-drug-or-medical-equipment-safety-violation https://usareally.com/8550-pfizer-was-fined-nearly-usd-5-bil...
- premium-gecko 5y ago
  It's definitely not everyone in the US. I keep thinking that it's around a third of the population that is extremely susceptible to propaganda. There's huge overlap between wokeness and vaccine eagerness, and there's huge overlap between conservatism and vaccine hesitancy (aka not being persuaded to undergo needless medical procedures)
- dang 5y ago
  We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of ideology, because it destroys what the site is supposed to be for. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
irish_guy_uk 5y ago
As a healthy, 30 something year old living in the UK the only reason I took the vaccine (both doses) was in the civic duty which said that once a certain percentage of the population was done, then restrictions could end. Now it looks like that's kinda happening in a week but even so the BMA and others are calling this irresponsible and there's an unsaid expectation of further lockdowns. I'm really starting to wonder why I bothered with the vax. This will just go on and on.
- LifeIsThermal 5y ago
  There´s only one reason for taking the vaxx, to protect yourself from severe disease. You should not take it because you want restrictions to end, it has been clear for a long time that the restrictions will not go away. If you´re young and healthy, and maybe even already had covid, you benefit as much from the vaccine as you do from a tinfoil hat.
  - irish_guy_uk 5y ago
    I already had covid. Extremely mild. The first vax does had me in bed for a day, missed work with chills, shakes and the worst "hangover" ever. The other main reason I got it is that I want to see my parents (abroad) and the vaccine status will no doubt factor into that. Not for another couple of months hopefully but I haven't seen them in nearly two years.
    - rich_sasha 5y ago
      In the UK, most people getting into hospitals now with severe Covid are young and unvaccinated. So while yes, the risks are much lower for young people, there are enough of them getting seriously ill.
      - LifeIsThermal 5y ago
        Not much different from how influenza also gets some young people in hospitals then? We don´t vaccinate young people against influenza either, because the risk is so low. Let the children build up natural immunity, they´ll benefit from that in the future. Vaccinate people at risk, elderly and sick people. Just like we always do. Changing strategy from what´s already known to work, when the stakes are this high, is very reckless.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Is seems like a new trend for right wing ideas to be expressed in what would traditionally be considered left-wing concepts and language. Does that mean they lost the culture war or is it just a new phase?
- qeternity 5y ago
  No it means both sides have serious ideological flaws and that their prototypical stances sometimes blur as a result. For instance, the constitution ensures both the right to vote and the right to bear arms. The liberal stance is that voter ID infringes on rights, but gun ID does not. And the GOP stance is the reverse. Both are logically inconsistent, just different dog whistle topics. You can feel however you want to about guns and the 2A, but yours intellectually dishonest to argue in favor of ID for one and not the other from a legal perspective. An independent voter might say that showing ID for both, two very important acts, is not onerous and is an acceptable burden. But most people won’t argue that due to partisan allegiances.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    I wpuld say that's an opposite example. You can or cant do X because of a legalistic reading of an old document seems like a more classic liberal approach. (And in both cases you coukd argue that the original document was explicit in excluding specific groups from these "rights") The classic left position would be about disenfranchisment of certain groups and changing the rules to fix it.
  - qmmmur 5y ago
    I think you're also missing a key nuance to the reality of arguing for voter ID. Right wing didn't want to provide it but agreed it could be mandatory to vote,so it's reasonable to reneg and highlight the issues with that.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    The constitution does not obviously guarantee a right for individuals to own guns. Nor a right to vote. The second amendment is explicitly predicated on, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State". You can easily now read that predicate as false in the contemporary united states, and hence, the derivative right not obtaining. Ie., the 2nd A. says, "given it is necessary for Militia, individuals need arms". But there no militia, and there need be none. The US has police forces now, and a standing army. The citizens do not form Militias when the US is under attack, nor to police themselves. As for a right to vote, the 15th A. says only what grounds are invalid for denying it -- it can, and is, denied for other grounds (eg., being convicted of a crime). The US constitution, as far as I'm aware, is not a "democratic" document in the sense of establishing anything like an electoral democracy. The US constitution is a series of essentially jointly-incoherent political principles and stipulations that provide the judiciary independent means of constraining the legislature and the executive. There isn't a particularly coherent contemporary political stand point which makes sense of it all. And certainly modern political principles like "individual rights to arms" and "voting rights" are not really to be found in the constitution in anything like a contemporary form.
AYBABTME 5y ago
Forgive me for asking a dumb question, and I mean no wrongthought in asking it: if I'm vaccinated, why should I care if others aren't? Does it change anything for my life from here? EDIT: thanks for the answers, exactly the info I needed to update my prior beliefs.
- checkyoursudo 5y ago
  Variants develop primarily in unvaccinated people. Your vaccine may not be effective against future variants.
  - underseacables 5y ago
    Where there is a drug company there will always be another vaccine. Worry not.
- shaftway 5y ago
  There's a non-zero chance that the vaccine wasn't effective for you. Herd immunity reduces the amount of virus in the wild below a certain tipping point, making it far less likely that you could contract the virus if you happened to be one of the people it wasn't effective for.
- adriancr 5y ago
  1. you can still catch things as vaccines are not 100% (some are 50-60% effective, mRNA are 90-95% so far) 2. It can mutate in people that catch it to avoid vaccine / cause other issues. Imagine if it started causing blindness... would you care then of being forced to take a 5-10% / 50% chance of catching it? 3. No chance of wiping it out without everyone vaccinated. 4. Some people can't get vaccinated or it wont work on them. They will catch it and die if others are not getting it / spreading it.
  - Pyramus 5y ago
    > 4. Some people can't get vaccinated or it wont work on them. They will catch it and die if others are not getting it / spreading it. I think that needs to be highlighted more. It's like wearing seatbelts, but for other people. I would consider that the fabric that most societies are made of, taking care of the people that can't for themselves, and in many cases through no fault of their own (e.g. genetics).
aaron695 5y ago
Anyone who remembers the discrimination against people with HIV (which still exists) is obviously cautious here. WHO is against discrimination based on covid vaccine passports. I suspect because they deal with disease based discrimination all the time. So you can be one of those people screaming at school meetings to kick out the kid with HIV in the 80's or take a step back. Perhaps it is ok to discriminate, but it's not simple. This also should not involve heath care workers, as the article mentions these laws exclude them. I would be surprised if the next best step to controlling this is to start discrimination.
- jollybean 5y ago
  The discrimination against people with AIDS was based on irrational fear of getting AIDS by touching or interacting with them. The discrimination against non-vaxxed people is based on the fact they are non-vaxxed and potential sources of risk. It's a little bit like discriminating against those who don't have a drivers license who want to drive a car i.e. reasonable grounds for discriminating. Obviously, it's more complicated than that. British Coloumbia (at least at some point) refused to enact discrimination policies for public serves over fears of inequity in vaccine access for example. But the nominal issues is legit: non-vaxxed people at least today, represent some kind of risk factor.
  - forcry 5y ago
    >The discrimination against non-vaxxed people is based on the fact they are non-vaxxed and potential sources of risk. Poor people can be thought of a being more risky to be around, because they have low standard of living, can't afford prompt health care and so on, so there are chances that they might be carriers of contagious diseases.. So you can argue that being around poor people is riskier than being around rich people. Do you want to discriminate against them based on that? No, if you don't want to be around poor people, you are free to do that. But you should not be able to mandate that poor people must not show up in community places. >It's a little bit like discriminating against those who don't have a drivers license who want to drive a car i.e. reasonable grounds for discriminating. Driving a car is not a fundamental right. Freedom is.
BurnGpuBurn 5y ago
The amount of unsubstantiated and scientifically unproven or even completely unstudied claims in this thread is truly staggering. These mRNA vaccines are safe for children? How on earth would you know that if the vaccines have only been studied on a handful of healthy kids for a couple of months. Does nobody understand the amount of time needed to do this kind of study properly and thoroughly? I'd also love some scientific studies that prove that the following claims are true, because as far as I know they aren't: "No chance of wiping it out without everyone vaccinated." "It's like wearing seatbelts, but for other people." "Variants develop primarily in unvaccinated people" "The main goal of all these actions is to end the pandemic in just a few years." "In the UK, most people getting into hospitals now with severe Covid are young and unvaccinated" Oh and I expect to be thoroughly downvoted for this because, you know, group think and all.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- oshkarr 5y ago
  "Truly staggering" is 4 million dead people and maybe 61 million more who are dealing with "long-Covid" symptoms. The quotes you cited are just people being considerate of others. Sometimes doing the right thing doesn't need—or hasn't time—to be scientifically proven.
  - johnisgood 5y ago
    There is no right thing. I can fight rhetoric with rhetoric, too. Say: "Those who are afraid can stay home, mandating a new vaccine with no long-term track record is pure evil.". I am saying this because of such statements: > From a societal standpoint, he said people who skip the vaccine could compromise the safety of others. > I hear everyone saying deciding to get vaccinated is an individual choice, but the calculus in that choice is twofold — one is to vaccinate yourself and the other is protect others. I think we have a responsibility to protect our communities. It is absolutely disgusting to appeal to emotions and shame to make me have something injected into me that has not been extensively studied and of what we have literally no clue with regarding to its long-term effects[1] especially given that I have an immunologic autoimmune disorder. In any case, what happens to those who cannot get the vaccine passport due to not being able to get the vaccine due to health reasons? Nobody seems to talk about this, or at least I am not informed on this. [1] On top of that, recent evidence seems to be piling up about their serious adverse effects that are coming to light now. I am expecting more to come.
underseacables 5y ago
A quick Google search shows there are a lot of fake cards that you can download, and since the card is essentially a public document, I’m surprised more people are not just faking it. Maybe they are?
- dariusj18 5y ago
  Forging a vaccination card is a Federal crime with up to 5 years of prison. Of course there may only be one or two high profile cases to come from such an abuse, but maybe it would dissuade at least a few people.

23 points by IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago

Scary that it has to come to this. The pandemic has vividly demonstrated how close we are even in "developed" countries to barbarism and mob rule.

forcry 5y ago

>This removes any opportunity to nudge more people toward getting the shots, he added.“The whole idea behind a good vaccination campaign is making not getting vaccinated the harder choice, and getting vaccinated the easy choice. Right now it’s the exact opposite — it’s easier not to be vaccinated." So people are supposed to be "nudged" into it? And they are supposed to do it because it is easier, as opposed to safer? So have these people already written off the idea of convincing people that vaccinating is the safer alternative? I mean, it appears that they are not even trying. But I guess it makes sense, because convincing people is harder, and when you can just put mandates for everything in place, and there is no opposition from people, it is much easier.

raxxorrax 5y ago
It is ridiculous really. I have been vaccinated with Moderna, which didn't even bring anything else to the market as far as I know. Listening to these people wanting to nudge others I wish I didn't get vaccinated. I think the damage Covid can cause is significant, but this is an experimental treatment. To my disappointment I didn't get magnetic, but doctors claiming there cannot be any unforseen dangers are lying to you. If someone forces the vaccine on you, they should be liable for any damages. Perhaps not the manufacturer but government in this case.
- LifeIsThermal 5y ago
  I´m less worried by vaccine safety than the vaccine strategy. You don´t normally vaccinate in an ongoing pandemic, usually you vaccinate when a virus is not in circulation. By vaccinating in this way, in an already infected population, you add selection pressure that creates an advantage for more contagious vaccine-resistant strains. This is the real danger in my opinion, but of course side effects of this new vaccine technology can emerge. We´ve already seen Pfizers vaccine downgraded to 64% efficacy in Israel due to the Delta-variant, so vaccine resistant mutations are a real thing. There´s one scientist that predicted this development perfectly, Geert Vanden Bosschen. He´s the only one so far that has made correct predictions in this pandemic. He said that mass-vaccinating during ongoing pandemic will result in rising numbers of cases among fully vaccinated people a couple of months after vaccination, caused by selective pressure leading to vaccine resistant mutations dominating. He also warns strongly against vaccinating children. But he praises the new vaccine technology, so he´s not antivaxx.
  - anshorei 5y ago
    > But he praises the new vaccine technology, so he´s not antivaxx. It's sad how this has to be stated every time one brings up criticism of the current vaccine strategy. For many people there's only two possible stances: "I've already taken the vaccine" and "I'm an anti-vaxxer". I also remember that back when Trump was boasting "We'll have the vaccine soon! It'll be the greatest vaccine. And then we can all go back to normal!" there was a healthy skepticism on the left of promoting nation-wide use of a rushed vaccine, but as soon as Biden took over this disappeared.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Yes, I think Mareks disease is theorized to be a prime example for this. It is deadly by now for any unvaccinated chickens and it probably was caused by a leaky vaccine and the Covid vaccines are too.
  - dtech 5y ago
    What's the alternative? Let the pandemic rage on for a few more years, wait till everyone has been affected or dead, and then vaccinate? Oh wait, that will have the exact same problem, because as more and more people get natural immunity the same selective pressure arises causing new variants. See cold or flu viruses. Congratulations, you've just caused much more suffering, death and economic damage and achieved nothing by waiting with vaccinations. Good job!
  - Pyramus 5y ago
    > He´s the only one so far that has made correct predictions in this pandemic. How likely do you think is it, that a vast field of virologists, immunologists, molecular biologists, medical doctors and scientists in general are all wrong but this one person is right?
    - forcry 5y ago
      He is not alone in making that connection regarding vaccinating in the middle of a pandemic As you can see here. I am not sure what the exact time is, but they also suggest this possibility. It appears to me that this is common knowledge.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-RuvUkcyJI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-RuvUkcyJI
- stefan_ 5y ago
  There have been hundreds of millions of vaccinations. What unforseen danger is there at this point? Be precise.
  - LifeIsThermal 5y ago
    See my post below.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Be precise about something that is unknowable? We take a risk with this plain and simple. It might be small, but so is risk from the disease itself.
  - AYBABTME 5y ago
    What if there's unpredictable long term consequences? Like, turns out XYZ compounds gives cancer but that only become detectable after 18+ months. Although I admit I don't know if regular trials would uncover these either. I have no dog in this fight, I'm just providing a possible answer.
    - Nursie 5y ago
      All of the components have been used before, these things aren't that new. mRNA tech itself has been in development since the 80s, and for immunisation since about 2012. It's gone from the body within a few hours AFAICT. If you're that worried, go for the J&J or AZ vaccines, which are more 'traditional' and don't use mRNA.
      - AYBABTME 5y ago
        I'm not worried at all, I'm eager to be able to get a mRNA vaccine, but no vaccine at all is available to my age group where I live. I envy y'all.
      - dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
        Being new or not is not the crucial point. What matters is that it's in the interest of the society at large that as many people as possible are vaccinated quickly. This might present certain incentives to treat possible side effects in a political way, basically downplaying them. I'm not saying this is what is happening now, but it has definitely happened in the past. When you read the history of Pandemrix[0][1], you will note that: > In August 2010 the Swedish MPA issued a statement which included the following: "An investigation is ongoing, but any relationship between the vaccination and the reported symptoms can not be concluded." and: > In the Irish parliament, TD Clare Daly commented that, “The Health Service Executive (HSE) decided to purchase Pandemrix and continued to distribute it even after they knew it was dangerous and untested, and before most of the public in Ireland received it.” [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix [1] https://www.thelocal.se/20201126/why-some-young-swedes-are-wary-of-new-vaccines-after-swine-flu-campaign/ https://www.thelocal.se/20201126/why-some-young-swedes-are-w...
- johnisgood 5y ago
  > doctors claiming there cannot be any unforseen dangers are lying to you We have to sign a paper that we cannot hold anyone liable for any potential harm that might come from the vaccine (any time in the future). 5.6 million people have signed it and got the vaccine.
chii 5y ago
> because convincing people is harder why do they need convincing, when it is quite self-evident that getting vaccinated, if you can, is better? If the people holding out won't listen to evidence, no amount of evidence-based convincing is going to change their mind. So the alternative should be to "nudge" by policy.
- forcry 5y ago
  > If the people holding out won't listen to evidence Different people have different definitions for "evidence". Something that can convince me, might not be enough to convince you. That does not mean I can force my trust in a certain evidence upon you.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

LifeIsThermal 5y ago

Congratulations to America. You´re heading full speed towards a Nazi-style nation. Take your vaccine, you deserve it. Then afterwards, take a look at Pfizers criminal history of bribery and unethical behaviour: https://www.corpwatch.org/article/pfizer-admits-bribery-eight-countries https://www.corpwatch.org/article/pfizer-admits-bribery-eigh... https://usareally.com/8550-pfizer-was-fined-nearly-usd-5-billion-for-healthcare-related-offenses-and-drug-or-medical-equipment-safety-violation https://usareally.com/8550-pfizer-was-fined-nearly-usd-5-bil...

premium-gecko 5y ago
It's definitely not everyone in the US. I keep thinking that it's around a third of the population that is extremely susceptible to propaganda. There's huge overlap between wokeness and vaccine eagerness, and there's huge overlap between conservatism and vaccine hesitancy (aka not being persuaded to undergo needless medical procedures)
dang 5y ago
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of ideology, because it destroys what the site is supposed to be for. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

irish_guy_uk 5y ago

As a healthy, 30 something year old living in the UK the only reason I took the vaccine (both doses) was in the civic duty which said that once a certain percentage of the population was done, then restrictions could end. Now it looks like that's kinda happening in a week but even so the BMA and others are calling this irresponsible and there's an unsaid expectation of further lockdowns. I'm really starting to wonder why I bothered with the vax. This will just go on and on.

LifeIsThermal 5y ago
There´s only one reason for taking the vaxx, to protect yourself from severe disease. You should not take it because you want restrictions to end, it has been clear for a long time that the restrictions will not go away. If you´re young and healthy, and maybe even already had covid, you benefit as much from the vaccine as you do from a tinfoil hat.
- irish_guy_uk 5y ago
  I already had covid. Extremely mild. The first vax does had me in bed for a day, missed work with chills, shakes and the worst "hangover" ever. The other main reason I got it is that I want to see my parents (abroad) and the vaccine status will no doubt factor into that. Not for another couple of months hopefully but I haven't seen them in nearly two years.
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    In the UK, most people getting into hospitals now with severe Covid are young and unvaccinated. So while yes, the risks are much lower for young people, there are enough of them getting seriously ill.
    - LifeIsThermal 5y ago
      Not much different from how influenza also gets some young people in hospitals then? We don´t vaccinate young people against influenza either, because the risk is so low. Let the children build up natural immunity, they´ll benefit from that in the future. Vaccinate people at risk, elderly and sick people. Just like we always do. Changing strategy from what´s already known to work, when the stakes are this high, is very reckless.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

Is seems like a new trend for right wing ideas to be expressed in what would traditionally be considered left-wing concepts and language. Does that mean they lost the culture war or is it just a new phase?

qeternity 5y ago
No it means both sides have serious ideological flaws and that their prototypical stances sometimes blur as a result. For instance, the constitution ensures both the right to vote and the right to bear arms. The liberal stance is that voter ID infringes on rights, but gun ID does not. And the GOP stance is the reverse. Both are logically inconsistent, just different dog whistle topics. You can feel however you want to about guns and the 2A, but yours intellectually dishonest to argue in favor of ID for one and not the other from a legal perspective. An independent voter might say that showing ID for both, two very important acts, is not onerous and is an acceptable burden. But most people won’t argue that due to partisan allegiances.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  I wpuld say that's an opposite example. You can or cant do X because of a legalistic reading of an old document seems like a more classic liberal approach. (And in both cases you coukd argue that the original document was explicit in excluding specific groups from these "rights") The classic left position would be about disenfranchisment of certain groups and changing the rules to fix it.
- qmmmur 5y ago
  I think you're also missing a key nuance to the reality of arguing for voter ID. Right wing didn't want to provide it but agreed it could be mandatory to vote,so it's reasonable to reneg and highlight the issues with that.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  The constitution does not obviously guarantee a right for individuals to own guns. Nor a right to vote. The second amendment is explicitly predicated on, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State". You can easily now read that predicate as false in the contemporary united states, and hence, the derivative right not obtaining. Ie., the 2nd A. says, "given it is necessary for Militia, individuals need arms". But there no militia, and there need be none. The US has police forces now, and a standing army. The citizens do not form Militias when the US is under attack, nor to police themselves. As for a right to vote, the 15th A. says only what grounds are invalid for denying it -- it can, and is, denied for other grounds (eg., being convicted of a crime). The US constitution, as far as I'm aware, is not a "democratic" document in the sense of establishing anything like an electoral democracy. The US constitution is a series of essentially jointly-incoherent political principles and stipulations that provide the judiciary independent means of constraining the legislature and the executive. There isn't a particularly coherent contemporary political stand point which makes sense of it all. And certainly modern political principles like "individual rights to arms" and "voting rights" are not really to be found in the constitution in anything like a contemporary form.

AYBABTME 5y ago

Forgive me for asking a dumb question, and I mean no wrongthought in asking it: if I'm vaccinated, why should I care if others aren't? Does it change anything for my life from here? EDIT: thanks for the answers, exactly the info I needed to update my prior beliefs.

checkyoursudo 5y ago
Variants develop primarily in unvaccinated people. Your vaccine may not be effective against future variants.
- underseacables 5y ago
  Where there is a drug company there will always be another vaccine. Worry not.
shaftway 5y ago
There's a non-zero chance that the vaccine wasn't effective for you. Herd immunity reduces the amount of virus in the wild below a certain tipping point, making it far less likely that you could contract the virus if you happened to be one of the people it wasn't effective for.
adriancr 5y ago
1. you can still catch things as vaccines are not 100% (some are 50-60% effective, mRNA are 90-95% so far) 2. It can mutate in people that catch it to avoid vaccine / cause other issues. Imagine if it started causing blindness... would you care then of being forced to take a 5-10% / 50% chance of catching it? 3. No chance of wiping it out without everyone vaccinated. 4. Some people can't get vaccinated or it wont work on them. They will catch it and die if others are not getting it / spreading it.
- Pyramus 5y ago
  > 4. Some people can't get vaccinated or it wont work on them. They will catch it and die if others are not getting it / spreading it. I think that needs to be highlighted more. It's like wearing seatbelts, but for other people. I would consider that the fabric that most societies are made of, taking care of the people that can't for themselves, and in many cases through no fault of their own (e.g. genetics).

aaron695 5y ago

Anyone who remembers the discrimination against people with HIV (which still exists) is obviously cautious here. WHO is against discrimination based on covid vaccine passports. I suspect because they deal with disease based discrimination all the time. So you can be one of those people screaming at school meetings to kick out the kid with HIV in the 80's or take a step back. Perhaps it is ok to discriminate, but it's not simple. This also should not involve heath care workers, as the article mentions these laws exclude them. I would be surprised if the next best step to controlling this is to start discrimination.

jollybean 5y ago
The discrimination against people with AIDS was based on irrational fear of getting AIDS by touching or interacting with them. The discrimination against non-vaxxed people is based on the fact they are non-vaxxed and potential sources of risk. It's a little bit like discriminating against those who don't have a drivers license who want to drive a car i.e. reasonable grounds for discriminating. Obviously, it's more complicated than that. British Coloumbia (at least at some point) refused to enact discrimination policies for public serves over fears of inequity in vaccine access for example. But the nominal issues is legit: non-vaxxed people at least today, represent some kind of risk factor.
- forcry 5y ago
  >The discrimination against non-vaxxed people is based on the fact they are non-vaxxed and potential sources of risk. Poor people can be thought of a being more risky to be around, because they have low standard of living, can't afford prompt health care and so on, so there are chances that they might be carriers of contagious diseases.. So you can argue that being around poor people is riskier than being around rich people. Do you want to discriminate against them based on that? No, if you don't want to be around poor people, you are free to do that. But you should not be able to mandate that poor people must not show up in community places. >It's a little bit like discriminating against those who don't have a drivers license who want to drive a car i.e. reasonable grounds for discriminating. Driving a car is not a fundamental right. Freedom is.

BurnGpuBurn 5y ago

The amount of unsubstantiated and scientifically unproven or even completely unstudied claims in this thread is truly staggering. These mRNA vaccines are safe for children? How on earth would you know that if the vaccines have only been studied on a handful of healthy kids for a couple of months. Does nobody understand the amount of time needed to do this kind of study properly and thoroughly? I'd also love some scientific studies that prove that the following claims are true, because as far as I know they aren't: "No chance of wiping it out without everyone vaccinated." "It's like wearing seatbelts, but for other people." "Variants develop primarily in unvaccinated people" "The main goal of all these actions is to end the pandemic in just a few years." "In the UK, most people getting into hospitals now with severe Covid are young and unvaccinated" Oh and I expect to be thoroughly downvoted for this because, you know, group think and all.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
oshkarr 5y ago
"Truly staggering" is 4 million dead people and maybe 61 million more who are dealing with "long-Covid" symptoms. The quotes you cited are just people being considerate of others. Sometimes doing the right thing doesn't need—or hasn't time—to be scientifically proven.
- johnisgood 5y ago
  There is no right thing. I can fight rhetoric with rhetoric, too. Say: "Those who are afraid can stay home, mandating a new vaccine with no long-term track record is pure evil.". I am saying this because of such statements: > From a societal standpoint, he said people who skip the vaccine could compromise the safety of others. > I hear everyone saying deciding to get vaccinated is an individual choice, but the calculus in that choice is twofold — one is to vaccinate yourself and the other is protect others. I think we have a responsibility to protect our communities. It is absolutely disgusting to appeal to emotions and shame to make me have something injected into me that has not been extensively studied and of what we have literally no clue with regarding to its long-term effects[1] especially given that I have an immunologic autoimmune disorder. In any case, what happens to those who cannot get the vaccine passport due to not being able to get the vaccine due to health reasons? Nobody seems to talk about this, or at least I am not informed on this. [1] On top of that, recent evidence seems to be piling up about their serious adverse effects that are coming to light now. I am expecting more to come.

underseacables 5y ago

A quick Google search shows there are a lot of fake cards that you can download, and since the card is essentially a public document, I’m surprised more people are not just faking it. Maybe they are?

dariusj18 5y ago
Forging a vaccination card is a Federal crime with up to 5 years of prison. Of course there may only be one or two high profile cases to come from such an abuse, but maybe it would dissuade at least a few people.