3 ms·

Paywalled for me. Here you go: https://web.archive.org/web/20210806001110/https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2021/08/05/commentary/world-commentary/compulsor

Paywalled for me. Here you go: https://web.archive.org/web/20210806001110/https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2021/08/05/commentary/world-commentary/compulsory-vaccinations/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210806001110/https://www.japan... The comparison between the seatbelt and a vaccination is already pretty odd. It doesn't harm me to use a seatbelt. A vaccination on the other side may have unknown side effects causing permanent damage. I got the Pfizer vaccine myself, but only because I want to travel internationally as soon as possible, and proof of vaccination is an entry condition for many countries.

azinman2 5y ago
I don’t know about seatbelts, but airbags, which are also mandatory (I believe) have been proven in certain cases to have actually caused more harm than good. So much microfocus on the rare harm is losing the forest for the trees, particularly when the alternative is a mutating often deadly virus.
- mint2 5y ago
  Like the defective recalled ones that would ~~inflate~~ explode too fast and send metal shrapnel into the persons face. You mean those ones?
  - azinman2 5y ago
    No. I'm not talking about defective products. From https://www.sacramentoinjuryattorneysblog.com/do-airbags-cause-more-harm-than-good/ https://www.sacramentoinjuryattorneysblog.com/do-airbags-cau...: "A study by the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) revealed that from 1987 to 2017, frontal airbags saved more than 50,000 lives. While airbags cause some injuries, the number of lives saved offsets the potential for injuries. Airbags also often reduce the severity of injuries in major crashes. Even so, airbags do come with a downside. The NHTSA also reported 175 fatalities that were caused by airbags in the decade between 1990 and 2000. 104 of those fatalities were children, and most of the rest were female adults that were shorter than average. All of the fatalities, interestingly, occurred in low-speed accidents that the occupants would have otherwise survived." Note that we're talking about 175 fatalities due to airbags in 10 years, despite 50k lives saved over 20 years. This is always the case with any kind of intervention -- nothing is ever 100% perfect. But we can't lose the forest for the trees.
- criticaltinker 5y ago
  > when the alternative is a mutating often deadly virus You're presenting a false dichotomy here - the virus will always mutate regardless of whether everyone has been vaccinated or not. In fact, there is evidence that the mRNA vaccines in their current form - coupled with mass vaccination - can further enhance the fitness of the virus [1][2][3]. This is a serious risk being raised by experts at top institutions in the country. You won't hear about it in the news though, at least not yet. I've got plenty more references to share if you're interested in learning more. [1] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ [2] SARS-CoV-2 immune evasion by the B.1.427/B.1.429 variant of concern https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/06/30/science.abi7994 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/06/30/scie... [3] mRNA vaccine-elicited antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and circulating variants https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03324-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03324-6
  - gzer0 5y ago
    This is not a false dichotomy. In fact, you add further credence to his arguement. The virus is mutating (as you have graciously pointed out). This is true. The virus is (often) deadly. Also true. Where is the dichotomy in this? Furthermore, the articles you have selected suggests that you have an elementary understanding of how resistance forms. I would urge you to study more about super bugs, antiobiotic resistance, and reaching drugs of last resort for many deadly illnesses such as MRSA/VRSA (there are now variants that are completely resistant to all known human antibiotics). The point is- resistance is inherent and integral to biology. I fail to see why you tried to create an arguement out of an incorrectly determined "false dichotomy" and then go on to explain elementary levels of biology in your defense. I am thoroughly confused. This post seems childish at best, and more like a "holier than thou because I can cite random pub-med studies without understanding them" moment. Please, do some real 'critialtinker'ing before you comment.
    - criticaltinker 5y ago
      > Where is the dichotomy in this? > I am thoroughly confused. I will calmly explain my thought process for you, and perhaps we can find agreement. azinman2 said: >> "airbags, which are also mandatory (I believe) have been proven in certain cases to have actually caused more harm than good" >> "So much microfocus on the rare harm is losing the forest for the trees, particularly when the alternative is a mutating often deadly virus." The implication of these statements by azinman2 is: although vaccines will sometimes (rarely) harm individuals, vaccination should be compulsory (the context of our discussion here), because the alternative is a mutating and deadly virus. My reply stated: "the virus will always mutate regardless of whether everyone has been vaccinated or not" Do you see the false dichotomy that I was addressing? You and I are in agreement that the virus is mutating AND deadly - but more importantly, that is not dichotomy I pointed out. So there seems to be a misunderstanding here, I believe on your part. I'm well aware of the literature on antibiotic and viral resistance, my other posts and citations throughout these threads should support that. > Furthermore, the articles you have selected suggests that you have an elementary understanding of how resistance forms If you believe I'm misrepresenting the findings in my citations, please elaborate. So far you have not supported your opinions. In fact you seem to be angry or frustrated with me for no apparent reason, given the content of your comment is mostly ad hominem vitriol. > you have an elementary understanding of how resistance forms > I would urge you to study more > explain elementary levels of biology in your defense > This post seems childish at best > holier than thou because I can cite random pub-med studies without understanding them > Please, do some real 'critialtinker'ing before you comment I had a good chuckle because there's a palpable irony in your words - talk about "holier than thou". According to your bio you're a practicing internal medicine physician - since you're highly educated perhaps these topics are elementary to you, but for everyone else on HN these topics deserve clear and concise elaboration. So please, pretend we're you're patients and treat us with a basic level of respect. If you can do that, many of us will listen to what you're saying with an open mind.
rblatz 5y ago
I guess you aren't familiar with the arguments people make against seatbelts. Arguments like "They kill more than they save" "If my car catches fire I want to be throw out of that car not trapped in it"
- mgarfias 5y ago
  My argument against normal seat belts: worthless piles of shit. I don’t feel safe unless I’m in a 5pt or better
  - nradov 5y ago
    In a roll over crash, a 5 point harness can actually be less safe unless the car also has a roll cage. 3 point belts are designed to allow a person's torso to deflect to the side so that the head and spine aren't crushed if the roof caves in.
    - mgarfias 5y ago
      You know, if I’m talkin a 5pt harness, you might assume that I know about the need for roll over protection
allturtles 5y ago
Seat belts can cause injuries, too, especially if worn improperly. But their overall public health benefits are considered to outweigh the risks: "The protective role of seatbelts against spinal injuries, and abdominal injuries also seems equivocal given that seatbelt injuries have been reported. Although findings of the current study suggest that the risk of abdominal injuries is lowest for belted occupants, the seatbelt syndrome which encompasses abdominal injury, has been extensively described in the literature as caused by improper seatbelt use [17, 23, 25]. This syndrome mostly affects the pediatric population [26], but it has also been documented in adults [22]. Improper seatbelt use has also been associated with intra-abdominal and spinal injuries [16, 22]. Seatbelt use has been shown to be associated with increased spinal injury severity, neurological deficit and fatality [48]. Compared to unbelted individuals, the frequency of thoracic and lumbar spinal injuries was shown to be higher in belted occupants [48]." https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-018-6280-1 https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...
- WalterBright 5y ago
  In Princess Diana's crash, she was in the back seat unbelted and died from her heart exploding on impact. Her bodyguard, belted in the front seat, survived. Of course, this is anecdotal. Anecdotal is also the large bruises I received from the seatbelt in a crash where the seatbelt saved my life. I didn't mind the bruises.

azinman2 5y ago

I don’t know about seatbelts, but airbags, which are also mandatory (I believe) have been proven in certain cases to have actually caused more harm than good. So much microfocus on the rare harm is losing the forest for the trees, particularly when the alternative is a mutating often deadly virus.

mint2 5y ago
Like the defective recalled ones that would ~~inflate~~ explode too fast and send metal shrapnel into the persons face. You mean those ones?
- azinman2 5y ago
  No. I'm not talking about defective products. From https://www.sacramentoinjuryattorneysblog.com/do-airbags-cause-more-harm-than-good/ https://www.sacramentoinjuryattorneysblog.com/do-airbags-cau...: "A study by the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) revealed that from 1987 to 2017, frontal airbags saved more than 50,000 lives. While airbags cause some injuries, the number of lives saved offsets the potential for injuries. Airbags also often reduce the severity of injuries in major crashes. Even so, airbags do come with a downside. The NHTSA also reported 175 fatalities that were caused by airbags in the decade between 1990 and 2000. 104 of those fatalities were children, and most of the rest were female adults that were shorter than average. All of the fatalities, interestingly, occurred in low-speed accidents that the occupants would have otherwise survived." Note that we're talking about 175 fatalities due to airbags in 10 years, despite 50k lives saved over 20 years. This is always the case with any kind of intervention -- nothing is ever 100% perfect. But we can't lose the forest for the trees.
criticaltinker 5y ago
> when the alternative is a mutating often deadly virus You're presenting a false dichotomy here - the virus will always mutate regardless of whether everyone has been vaccinated or not. In fact, there is evidence that the mRNA vaccines in their current form - coupled with mass vaccination - can further enhance the fitness of the virus [1][2][3]. This is a serious risk being raised by experts at top institutions in the country. You won't hear about it in the news though, at least not yet. I've got plenty more references to share if you're interested in learning more. [1] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/ [2] SARS-CoV-2 immune evasion by the B.1.427/B.1.429 variant of concern https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/06/30/science.abi7994 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/06/30/scie... [3] mRNA vaccine-elicited antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and circulating variants https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03324-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03324-6
- gzer0 5y ago
  This is not a false dichotomy. In fact, you add further credence to his arguement. The virus is mutating (as you have graciously pointed out). This is true. The virus is (often) deadly. Also true. Where is the dichotomy in this? Furthermore, the articles you have selected suggests that you have an elementary understanding of how resistance forms. I would urge you to study more about super bugs, antiobiotic resistance, and reaching drugs of last resort for many deadly illnesses such as MRSA/VRSA (there are now variants that are completely resistant to all known human antibiotics). The point is- resistance is inherent and integral to biology. I fail to see why you tried to create an arguement out of an incorrectly determined "false dichotomy" and then go on to explain elementary levels of biology in your defense. I am thoroughly confused. This post seems childish at best, and more like a "holier than thou because I can cite random pub-med studies without understanding them" moment. Please, do some real 'critialtinker'ing before you comment.
  - criticaltinker 5y ago
    > Where is the dichotomy in this? > I am thoroughly confused. I will calmly explain my thought process for you, and perhaps we can find agreement. azinman2 said: >> "airbags, which are also mandatory (I believe) have been proven in certain cases to have actually caused more harm than good" >> "So much microfocus on the rare harm is losing the forest for the trees, particularly when the alternative is a mutating often deadly virus." The implication of these statements by azinman2 is: although vaccines will sometimes (rarely) harm individuals, vaccination should be compulsory (the context of our discussion here), because the alternative is a mutating and deadly virus. My reply stated: "the virus will always mutate regardless of whether everyone has been vaccinated or not" Do you see the false dichotomy that I was addressing? You and I are in agreement that the virus is mutating AND deadly - but more importantly, that is not dichotomy I pointed out. So there seems to be a misunderstanding here, I believe on your part. I'm well aware of the literature on antibiotic and viral resistance, my other posts and citations throughout these threads should support that. > Furthermore, the articles you have selected suggests that you have an elementary understanding of how resistance forms If you believe I'm misrepresenting the findings in my citations, please elaborate. So far you have not supported your opinions. In fact you seem to be angry or frustrated with me for no apparent reason, given the content of your comment is mostly ad hominem vitriol. > you have an elementary understanding of how resistance forms > I would urge you to study more > explain elementary levels of biology in your defense > This post seems childish at best > holier than thou because I can cite random pub-med studies without understanding them > Please, do some real 'critialtinker'ing before you comment I had a good chuckle because there's a palpable irony in your words - talk about "holier than thou". According to your bio you're a practicing internal medicine physician - since you're highly educated perhaps these topics are elementary to you, but for everyone else on HN these topics deserve clear and concise elaboration. So please, pretend we're you're patients and treat us with a basic level of respect. If you can do that, many of us will listen to what you're saying with an open mind.

rblatz 5y ago

I guess you aren't familiar with the arguments people make against seatbelts. Arguments like "They kill more than they save" "If my car catches fire I want to be throw out of that car not trapped in it"

mgarfias 5y ago
My argument against normal seat belts: worthless piles of shit. I don’t feel safe unless I’m in a 5pt or better
- nradov 5y ago
  In a roll over crash, a 5 point harness can actually be less safe unless the car also has a roll cage. 3 point belts are designed to allow a person's torso to deflect to the side so that the head and spine aren't crushed if the roof caves in.
  - mgarfias 5y ago
    You know, if I’m talkin a 5pt harness, you might assume that I know about the need for roll over protection

allturtles 5y ago

Seat belts can cause injuries, too, especially if worn improperly. But their overall public health benefits are considered to outweigh the risks: "The protective role of seatbelts against spinal injuries, and abdominal injuries also seems equivocal given that seatbelt injuries have been reported. Although findings of the current study suggest that the risk of abdominal injuries is lowest for belted occupants, the seatbelt syndrome which encompasses abdominal injury, has been extensively described in the literature as caused by improper seatbelt use [17, 23, 25]. This syndrome mostly affects the pediatric population [26], but it has also been documented in adults [22]. Improper seatbelt use has also been associated with intra-abdominal and spinal injuries [16, 22]. Seatbelt use has been shown to be associated with increased spinal injury severity, neurological deficit and fatality [48]. Compared to unbelted individuals, the frequency of thoracic and lumbar spinal injuries was shown to be higher in belted occupants [48]." https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-018-6280-1 https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...

WalterBright 5y ago
In Princess Diana's crash, she was in the back seat unbelted and died from her heart exploding on impact. Her bodyguard, belted in the front seat, survived. Of course, this is anecdotal. Anecdotal is also the large bruises I received from the seatbelt in a crash where the seatbelt saved my life. I didn't mind the bruises.