3 ms·

My only objection to your original post was your tone. Specifically dismissing my question as blase. Otherwise I thought your father's condition was the only go

My only objection to your original post was your tone. Specifically dismissing my question as blase. Otherwise I thought your father's condition was the only good objection I've read so far. In fact, my wife being temporarily immunocompromised herself is why I signed up to a vaccine trial. But then you go off and swear at me on your subsequent post. As to your italized "because of the vaccinated" your kids are at risk (irregardless the small risk): that's really no different than me having to walk in a city surrounded by texting motorists. The difference being that texting kills far more people and yet, despite laws to the contrary, nothing is done about it. Seriously, let's mandate locking up phones that are moving more than 5mph. It'll save far more <12 year old lives than vaccinating everyone.

spookthesunset 5y ago
Mandate all pool areas be closed to children under the age of 12. It would also save far more <12 year old lives than vaccinating everyone.
- jagrsw 5y ago
  Swimming and texting serve valid purposes which make life's quality better (communication/economics, RnR, preserving good physical condition etc). It can also indirectly save lives; the math of it would be hard to conduct on HN, but I guess no one will argue that it's an unreasonable argument. While not getting vaccinated doesn't seem to serve any valid purpose - assuming loss of time, or v. small risk of adverse reactions are not big obstacles - then it has only benefits, both for you and others. To sum up: closing swimming pools for <12 will save some lives and will cause loss of life (b/c poorer quality of life) - in the end it's a political decision based on what science can provide at the moment in terms of data. The vaccinating gain/loss equation is obvious.
  - amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
    "While not getting vaccinated doesn't seem to serve any valid purpose" Well the "doesn't seem" is crux of the matter, isn't it? For whatever reason for those who don't want the vaccine, the vaccine does take something real away from them. Something they value more than the statistical benefit of getting jabbed. They might not be able to elucidate it well, but it's very real for them.

spookthesunset 5y ago

Mandate all pool areas be closed to children under the age of 12. It would also save far more <12 year old lives than vaccinating everyone.

jagrsw 5y ago
Swimming and texting serve valid purposes which make life's quality better (communication/economics, RnR, preserving good physical condition etc). It can also indirectly save lives; the math of it would be hard to conduct on HN, but I guess no one will argue that it's an unreasonable argument. While not getting vaccinated doesn't seem to serve any valid purpose - assuming loss of time, or v. small risk of adverse reactions are not big obstacles - then it has only benefits, both for you and others. To sum up: closing swimming pools for <12 will save some lives and will cause loss of life (b/c poorer quality of life) - in the end it's a political decision based on what science can provide at the moment in terms of data. The vaccinating gain/loss equation is obvious.
- amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
  "While not getting vaccinated doesn't seem to serve any valid purpose" Well the "doesn't seem" is crux of the matter, isn't it? For whatever reason for those who don't want the vaccine, the vaccine does take something real away from them. Something they value more than the statistical benefit of getting jabbed. They might not be able to elucidate it well, but it's very real for them.