4 ms·

I mean, yes of course. But more important than powerlessly worrying about future bad governments - stand up for civil liberties now.

by zepto 5y ago

fsflover 5y ago
Can you elaborate?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- est31 5y ago
  IDK maybe they mean the issue that often you don't see when it's too late. I.e. the famous Niemöller quote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... Generally, the more authoritarian a system is, the harder is standing up for liberties, because it has more willingness and tools to violently quell any resistance.
- walterbell 5y ago
  One example: a hypothetical doctor who spent 2020 healing Covid patients at great personal risk, has since recovered from Covid, then uses their professional judgement to delay vaccine selection (e.g. waiting for an upcoming nasal vaccine with sterilizing immunity) -- is no longer allowed to eat indoors or improve their health in a gym in New York or San Francisco. In some cases, their employer is threatening to fire them, even though their natural immunity is more protective than current, non-sterilizing intramuscular vaccines. History shows that "Papers Please" often preceded questionable policy. Today, we have both questionable policy and poorly-conceived papers/identity systems being rolled out, with enforcement and fines starting in weeks.
  - mediumdeviation 5y ago
    It seems no more bothersome than being required to be licensed to drive or to present a proof of age to purchase alcohol. There are perfectly viable alternatives - you can eat outdoors, get takeout, exercise outside, just like how you can ride a bike or take a taxi if you choose not to get a driving license. And the decision to require vaccination at hospitals are also made on recommendation of doctors that are as, if not more qualified than the hypothetical doctor. The doctor in question can also open their own practice if they do not want to be employed by the hospital. Licensing systems necessitate some surveillance in the form of identification and data storage, but it's not as if these do not exist already and somehow the driving license has not caused American to spiral into dystopia nor is it even close to being the worst surveillance mechanism that the American government could choose to use if it does turn authoritarian.
    - quantumBerry 5y ago
      The viable alternatives are separate but equal. Where have I heard that before? Driver's licenses are not required on private property, so the driver license analogy doesn't hold when we're talking about private establishments. Requiring a license and government dictating your driving behavior on your own private property would indeed be dystopian.
      - mediumdeviation 5y ago
        It’s not being discriminated against based on some protected class. Being vaccinated is a choice, unlike skin color. The government will not let you serve alcohol at a restaurant unless you check the drinker’s age. The government will now also not let you serve diners indoors unless you check they have been vaccinated.
        quantumBerry 5y ago
        >It’s not being discriminated against based on some protected class. Being vaccinated is a choice, unlike skin color. Good to know we've established that you're ok with folks being shut out of a diner by mandate of government, so long as the reason is something other than related to a protected class. How about we ban everyone under 40 from dining indoors -- after all age discrimination is legal as long as it's against those under 40. We can also outlaw anyone who makes their living in the information economy, they shouldn't have chosen that career if they wanted to . And I think I want to ban anyone who drives or rides in motor vehicles, because there's a public safety risk as drivers and passengers of motor vehicles are one of the most common causes of traumatic death. >The government will not let you serve alcohol at a restaurant unless you check the drinker’s age. The government will now also not let you serve diners indoors unless you check they have been vaccinated. So you're one of those that thinks those old enough to go to war shouldn't be able to have a drink? The drinking age is one of the weakest arguments for government control and is an excellent example of overstepping gone wrong. I seriously can't tell if you might be using that example as evidence to discredit the mandates.
        names_are_hard 5y ago
  - owl_troupe 5y ago
    Healthcare workers in many U.S. states are required to have vaccines for a variety of infections, including hepatitis, influenza, MM&R, etc., as a condition of their presence (and employment) in healthcare facilities. [1] Social and financial penalties for refusal to accept vaccines are not a novel situation for healthcare professionals. The only difference with COVID is that 375,000 people died last year in the U.S. because of it. It is a pandemic. There are three vaccines that have been granted authorization by the FDA for COVID that have also been shown in preliminary studies to be safe and efficacious.[2] Further, why would the hypothetical doctor, whose "natural immunity is more protective than current, non-sterilizing intramuscular vaccines" additionally need the "upcoming nasal vaccine with sterilizing immunity"? [1] https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/vaccinationlaws.html https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/vaccinationlaws.... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7969187/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7969187/
    - quantumBerry 5y ago
      Are any of those vaccines they are required to have not yet gone through FDA Approval? You are omitting this massive difference.
      - walterbell 5y ago
        Unfortunately, FDA approval is being rushed and may appear as early as next week, possibly in order to justify mandates. This is despite (a) Pfizer trial does not conclude until Jan 2023, (b) the control group for the trials have been lost. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28252026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28252026 & https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28252075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28252075
        owl_troupe 5y ago
        And the key question would be: is there any statistically significant report of safety or efficacy problems in any peer reviewed study or even reported through VARES?

I mean, yes of course. But more important than powerlessly worrying about future bad governments - stand up for civil liberties now.

by zepto 5y ago

I mean, yes of course. But more important than powerlessly worrying about future bad governments - stand up for civil liberties now.

fsflover 5y ago

Can you elaborate?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
est31 5y ago
IDK maybe they mean the issue that often you don't see when it's too late. I.e. the famous Niemöller quote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... Generally, the more authoritarian a system is, the harder is standing up for liberties, because it has more willingness and tools to violently quell any resistance.
walterbell 5y ago
One example: a hypothetical doctor who spent 2020 healing Covid patients at great personal risk, has since recovered from Covid, then uses their professional judgement to delay vaccine selection (e.g. waiting for an upcoming nasal vaccine with sterilizing immunity) -- is no longer allowed to eat indoors or improve their health in a gym in New York or San Francisco. In some cases, their employer is threatening to fire them, even though their natural immunity is more protective than current, non-sterilizing intramuscular vaccines. History shows that "Papers Please" often preceded questionable policy. Today, we have both questionable policy and poorly-conceived papers/identity systems being rolled out, with enforcement and fines starting in weeks.
- mediumdeviation 5y ago
  It seems no more bothersome than being required to be licensed to drive or to present a proof of age to purchase alcohol. There are perfectly viable alternatives - you can eat outdoors, get takeout, exercise outside, just like how you can ride a bike or take a taxi if you choose not to get a driving license. And the decision to require vaccination at hospitals are also made on recommendation of doctors that are as, if not more qualified than the hypothetical doctor. The doctor in question can also open their own practice if they do not want to be employed by the hospital. Licensing systems necessitate some surveillance in the form of identification and data storage, but it's not as if these do not exist already and somehow the driving license has not caused American to spiral into dystopia nor is it even close to being the worst surveillance mechanism that the American government could choose to use if it does turn authoritarian.
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    The viable alternatives are separate but equal. Where have I heard that before? Driver's licenses are not required on private property, so the driver license analogy doesn't hold when we're talking about private establishments. Requiring a license and government dictating your driving behavior on your own private property would indeed be dystopian.
    - mediumdeviation 5y ago
      It’s not being discriminated against based on some protected class. Being vaccinated is a choice, unlike skin color. The government will not let you serve alcohol at a restaurant unless you check the drinker’s age. The government will now also not let you serve diners indoors unless you check they have been vaccinated.
      - quantumBerry 5y ago
        >It’s not being discriminated against based on some protected class. Being vaccinated is a choice, unlike skin color. Good to know we've established that you're ok with folks being shut out of a diner by mandate of government, so long as the reason is something other than related to a protected class. How about we ban everyone under 40 from dining indoors -- after all age discrimination is legal as long as it's against those under 40. We can also outlaw anyone who makes their living in the information economy, they shouldn't have chosen that career if they wanted to . And I think I want to ban anyone who drives or rides in motor vehicles, because there's a public safety risk as drivers and passengers of motor vehicles are one of the most common causes of traumatic death. >The government will not let you serve alcohol at a restaurant unless you check the drinker’s age. The government will now also not let you serve diners indoors unless you check they have been vaccinated. So you're one of those that thinks those old enough to go to war shouldn't be able to have a drink? The drinking age is one of the weakest arguments for government control and is an excellent example of overstepping gone wrong. I seriously can't tell if you might be using that example as evidence to discredit the mandates.
      - names_are_hard 5y ago
- owl_troupe 5y ago
  Healthcare workers in many U.S. states are required to have vaccines for a variety of infections, including hepatitis, influenza, MM&R, etc., as a condition of their presence (and employment) in healthcare facilities. [1] Social and financial penalties for refusal to accept vaccines are not a novel situation for healthcare professionals. The only difference with COVID is that 375,000 people died last year in the U.S. because of it. It is a pandemic. There are three vaccines that have been granted authorization by the FDA for COVID that have also been shown in preliminary studies to be safe and efficacious.[2] Further, why would the hypothetical doctor, whose "natural immunity is more protective than current, non-sterilizing intramuscular vaccines" additionally need the "upcoming nasal vaccine with sterilizing immunity"? [1] https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/vaccinationlaws.html https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/vaccinationlaws.... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7969187/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7969187/
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    Are any of those vaccines they are required to have not yet gone through FDA Approval? You are omitting this massive difference.
    - walterbell 5y ago
      Unfortunately, FDA approval is being rushed and may appear as early as next week, possibly in order to justify mandates. This is despite (a) Pfizer trial does not conclude until Jan 2023, (b) the control group for the trials have been lost. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28252026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28252026 & https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28252075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28252075
      - owl_troupe 5y ago
        And the key question would be: is there any statistically significant report of safety or efficacy problems in any peer reviewed study or even reported through VARES?