19 ms·

People don’t want to take the vaccine because others are trying to force them to. They would say “it’s not FDA approved!” not as the core of their hesitancy, b

People don’t want to take the vaccine because others are trying to force them to. They would say “it’s not FDA approved!” not as the core of their hesitancy, but because they were trying to be appeal to pro-vax peoples decision making framework. I don’t think we should be able to require them to. To many of you here: imagine the Trump admin trying to require you to take the vaccine in November of last year. Cities would have burned over it. And honestly: I was one of the first to take it, but the desire to almost force me to take a booster, and the weird, Orwellian ways that the government talks about it, has turned me against the booster. It ends up feeling less like the decisions are guided by science and more like they’re guided by petty tyrants wanting to control what others do. Anybody who has ever lived under an HOA will recognize this.

pornel 5y ago
Here's the deal: you don't have to take the vaccine, but promise to stay away from people, and not burden hospitals when you get covid. It's not your personal choice when it can harm other people (e.g. immunocompromised people who can't get the vaccine themselves, other people who need ICU beds).
- thepasswordis 5y ago
  I will happily stay away from hospitals if they stop regulating drugs, and medical treatments. Also: I did take the vaccine.
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    Do you honestly think a world with unregulated drugs and medicine is a better one?
    - thepasswordis 5y ago
      No.
- zacharytelschow 5y ago
  Let's apply that logic to everything, then, and see how it works out. You're fat or obese and have health outcomes stemming from those choices? Enjoy your heart attack, fatty. You get injured doing something "non-essential?" Your mountain bike accident sounds like your problem. You're a smoker and get lung cancer? Sorry, no treatment is available for you. You don't get to dictate the health choices of others. And if we're going down that road (which you seem to embrace) a vaccine against a disease with such a low death rate hardly seems a logical place to start. But that's presuming logic is the starting point, a conclusion lacking evidence.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    I don't support denying healthcare based on choices. But I heard that some hospitals in Texas have started using it during triage. And there is certainly precedent for that. E.g. try getting a transplant if you are still engaging in the behavior that caused you to need one in the first place. So if a hospital has only one bed available and two people to take it, one of whom is vaccinated experiencing a severe breakthrough case, and another is someone who chose not to get vaccinated, the hospital has to make a choice on who is most likely to survive.
    - jhayward 5y ago
      > some hospitals in Texas have started using it during triage This is false. The "leaked" internal discussion document has been repudiated by its author, and the group of hospitals discussing it.
  - pornel 5y ago
    Smoking is already banned in places where it can give other people lung cancer. Cycling and driving is also regulated to reduce risk to other road users and pedestrians. Putting lives of other people at risk is not your "health choice".
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - zeku 5y ago
0xB31B1B 5y ago
we don't require anyone to take the vaccine, and we will never require anyone to take the vaccine. What we should and will do is restrict what someone who is not vaccinated can do to limit the harm they will cause to others. No one is going to bang down your door and force a vaccine into your arm, but if you do not want to get vaccinated you will need to change your life because you will be restricted from participating in many things where you are a danger to others.
- TobTobXX 5y ago
  Y... yes, that's the same. Compare: "You can murder someone, but then freedoms will be taken from you, because you could hurt someone with these freedoms. You won't get brainwashed out of it, but if you do commit murder, your freedoms are taken away." Not arguing against the policy, but it in practice, it _is_ the same.
- pokstad 5y ago
  Power to tax is the power to destroy. The power to exclude is the power to coerce. Society is coercing people into taking the vaccine by requiring it for any activities outside the home. Want to go to the grocery store? Get a vaccine or wear a mask. Want to go to Disneyland? Get a vaccine or wear a mask. Want to attend a conference? Get a vaccine or take a test and wear a mask. The mask and testing mandates are an effort to wear down anti-vaccine people instead of letting them be.
  - kristjansson 5y ago
    Masks, tests, etc. are foremost ways to mitigate potential harm, not to 'wear down' people.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    The mask mandates are universal -- everyone is required, vaccinated or not. When they were only advised, it was advised that the unvaccinated wear them. And whether you can go into a privately owned store, privately owned Disneyland, or privately owned conference -- these are private businesses, the gov't should not tell them they cannot require vaccination.
orangegreen 5y ago
It's not really about you. It's about preventing other, more vulnerable people from getting sick. Living in a society means giving up some of your freedoms in exchange for security, and getting vaccinated as a way to help other people should be part of that exchange.
- thepasswordis 5y ago
  Why don't those people go get the vaccine like I did?
  - jayd16 5y ago
    Well, for example, if you have an a suppressed auto-immune system from other medication, the vaccine is ineffective.
    - thepasswordis 5y ago
      If you have a suppressed immune system from other medications, then other illnesses like the common cold and the flu can kill you. This is why people who take immunosuppressants typically avoid going out in public, and when they do they wear serious masks intended to protect them from others.
      - thex10 5y ago
        Immuno-compromised people aren't some isolated hobbit species, they're people like you and me that have jobs, run errands, learn in schools, consume food, often live with other humans who have to go out in public, etc. And new folks with sub-par immune systems are born or created every day. Many vaccine-resistant folks will throw this population away from the entire risk analysis equation, treating them as a mere error term. At least, this has been my observation. In my opinion they should just admit they don't care about the fate of others beyond the 'thoughts and prayers' passive level.
      - jayd16 5y ago
        You're just making things up. Lots of drugs screw with your immunity to various degrees and for the most part they live normal lives. This difference now is we have a very contagious and much more deadly disease.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
> imagine the Trump admin trying to require you to take the vaccine in November of last year. Cities would have burned over it. I don't like "Imagine x doing y" arguments because it makes us insert our own biases on a hypothetical scenario that isn't the current reality.
- zacharytelschow 5y ago
  That hypothetical scenario is current reality for just under half the country.
  - neogodless 5y ago
    I may be misunderstanding your meaning, but I think you mean that half of the country does not like Biden, and Biden is requiring everyone to get the vaccine? Is that happening? I cannot find any federal law of any kind (let alone stemming from the oval office) requiring individuals to get the vaccine.
    - zacharytelschow 5y ago
      > I cannot find any federal law of any kind (let alone stemming from the oval office) requiring individuals to get the vaccine. Does it need to be a law to be compulsory? How many Americans, including employees of numerous branches of the federal government that have said mandates, have the luxury of walking away from their jobs? Things like... https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-07-29/biden-to-launch-vaccine-push-for-millions-of-federal-workers https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-07-29/...
- xeromal 5y ago
  But doing that is literally empathy, a useful skill.
- the_doctah 5y ago
  That's pretty much saying hypothetical situations have no value. Which is false.
learc83 5y ago
Do you have any specific examples of this?: "weird, Orwellian ways that the government talks about it" Public schools, colleges, and the military have been requiring vaccines for decades. >It ends up feeling less like the decisions are guided by science and more like they’re guided by petty tyrants wanting to control what others do. This sounds like a result of reading about what health care and government officials are saying instead of actually reading what they are saying.
- niij 5y ago
  > Do you have any specific examples of this?: "weird, Orwellian ways that the government talks about it" "The voluntary phase is over" - Bill de Blasio https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2021/08/03/new-york-city-mayor-bill-de-blasio-and-governor-andrew-cuomo-are-pushing-hard-for-vaccinations-to-make-the-big-apple-safer/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2021/08/03/new-york-c...
  - enragedcacti 5y ago
    For more context of that quote: > The Mayor will also be initiating a “Key to NYC Pass,” which is like the Covid-19 passport talked about a few months ago. It's a carrot-and-stick approach, as people will be required to show that they are vaccinated if they want to go to restaurants, gyms and other events. No vaccinations, no entrance. “If you want to participate in society fully, you’ve got to get vaccinated,” de Blasio proclaimed. “If we’re going to stop the Delta variant, the time is now,” said the mayor. “This is going to make clear, you want to enjoy everything great in this summer of New York City? Go get vaccinated.” > In an interview with MSNBC, de Blasio dialed up his frustration over the unvaccinated. “We’ve got to shake people at this point and say, ‘Come on now.’ We tried voluntary. We could not have been more kind and compassionate. Free testing, everywhere you turn, incentives, friendly, warm embrace. The voluntary phase is over,” de Blasio said last week. “It’s time for mandates, because it’s the only way to protect our people.” De Blasio is talking about restricting access to entirely optional events and locations based on vaccine status, not mandating anyone get it or else.
    - 5y ago
seriousquestion 5y ago
You don't even have to imagine. Kamala Harris: "But if Donald Trump tells us to take it, I’m not taking it." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dAjCeMuXR0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dAjCeMuXR0 The same thing was broadly expressed on twitter at the time too, she was far from alone in that sentiment.
- clint 5y ago
  This has got to be one of the dumber arguments I've seen made in the media and especially here. Kamala was saying that if the only person telling her she should get vaccinated was Donald Trump, then no, she would not take it. The (very clear) implication is that she would prefer that people who actually know what they are talking about (i.e. virologists, doctors, nurses, scientists, the FDA, the CDC, NIH...etc) recommends getting the vaccine, then she would get it enthusiastically. Is this really too hard to understand or are you really trying to use this extremely flimsy argument to accuse her of hypocrisy?
- lovecg 5y ago
  Why did you omit the first part of the quote? “If the public health professionals … tell me to take I will absolutely take it. But if Donald Trump tells us to take it, I’m not taking it.” I think this is a reasonable message of caution when talking about someone pushing HCQ and drinking bleach on the daily.
  - seriousquestion 5y ago
    Does the first part matter in the context of what the OP was talking about? If Trump mandated it many would not take it on that basis alone. That’s the point I’m responding to. “If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the Doctors, tell us we should take it, I'll be the first in line to take it, absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it I'm not taking it.“ Note “But if…”. That programmers aren’t able to parse this if else statement is concerning.
    - organic_popcorn 5y ago
yupper32 5y ago
> the weird, Orwellian ways that the government talks about it, has turned me against the booster. You desperately need to take a step back and look at yourself and how you evaluate things. You decided to go against the booster because of your feelings, not because of science. You want government decisions to be guided by science, and yet you are very clearly anti-science with your decision making. > To many of you here: imagine the Trump admin trying to require you to take the vaccine in November of last year. What vaccine? There wasn't a vaccine available until Dec 14th 2020. Are you trying to say if Trump actually cut corners and made the vaccine available earlier than we should have, then people would be mad? Well... duh. The difference is that the left generally follows what the leaders in the scientific community have to say, not the POTUS. The scientific community would have been against cutting corners.
- hypocritepledge 5y ago
  "the scientific community"... you mean the pharma companies who developed this vaccine, right?
- jackson1442 5y ago
  Agreed. Didn't feel orwellian or coerced at all to go to the doctor and get a meningitis shot before heading off to university. Nor did it feel orwellian to get a covid shot to protect my community.
- president 5y ago
  > because of your feelings, not because of science. For the unaware, there are multitudes of highly acclaimed scientists and academics around the world from top institutions including Nobel prize winners that are advising caution against the vaccine. You don't just get to choose which "science" you listen to. These voices are massively censored so the public doesn't really get to hear both sides of the argument. The whole "don't talk bad about the vaccine lest `vaccine hesitancy`" is evil and plain anti-science.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
eddieroger 5y ago
>Anybody who has ever lived under an HOA will recognize this. My HOA telling me to take Christmas decorations down in January doesn't really equate to the government trying to keep me and my community alive and out of the hospital. Don't like the HOA covenants? Move. Don't want the vaccine? Stay away from places that will now be allowed to require vaccination.
- nsxwolf 5y ago
  That will be everywhere. Do you not understand what happens when people feel completely subjugated like this? This is a path to total chaos, devastation and destruction.
  - NeutralTakes 5y ago
    They understand. They just don't care. This has been one long game of Secret Hitler and we're now starting to see who the fascists are.
- NeutralTakes 5y ago
  Don't want the vaccine? Grow your own food. Going to the supermarket is optional. Don't want the vaccine? Relocate to one of the designated vaccine-free zones. Don't want the vaccine? Barter with others in the vaccine-free zones, since banking is only really necessary when participating in society. Don't want the vaccine? Relocate to one of the vaccine-free camps since access elsewhere requires the vaccine. We can't have these underground bartering exchanges emerging. Don't mind any of the fear-mongering, people, we're just trying to keep the community alive and out of the hospital. It's for everyone's safety and well-being. These undesirables had every chance to get antibodies from the sources we've deemed valid.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ufmace 5y ago
> To many of you here: imagine the Trump admin trying to require you to take the vaccine in November of last year. Cities would have burned over it. It's very political. There's a bunch of screenshots and videos floating around of left-wing people who didn't trust the vaccine because they perceived it as coming from the Trump administration when it was in place. Now that we've swapped presidents, the side of that have flipped - now a bunch of right-wing people don't trust it because they don't trust the Biden administration. Oddly, it doesn't seem to bother anyone in either of these camps that it was both developed and pushed through initial testing under the Trump administration, and ramped up to full production and usage and edging towards mandates under the Biden administration.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I agree about the politicization. But the two are not equivalent. Reticence to take a brand new vaccine on a brand new technology that is still untested is not even close to the people that are currently decrying it for safety concerns after 150m people have taken it and clinical trials have been completed.
- larkost 5y ago
  Correction: there are a bunch of screenshots and videos about people saying they would not trust a vaccine just because President Trump said so. Given all of the awful advice that was common from the then-president (e.g.: hydroxychloroquine), that was perfectly reasonable. You can probably find exceptions, but the widely spread examples I am aware of all then went on to talk about believing it when it came from the CDC and other authorities. I would argue that there has been little flipping. Those who were not going to get the vaccine under President Trump are also not going to get it under President Biden. The recent "boo"ing of former President Trump at his recent rally when he recommended people get vaccines is just the latest evidence of that.
dabeeeenster 5y ago
HOA? Why do HNers habitually use obscure acronyms?! So frustrating!
- niij 5y ago
  It's not obscure. HOA means Home Owners Association, Google "HOA definition" for more information. From a cursory search ~25% of Americans are a part of one.
  - Filligree 5y ago
    I’m not American, and I’ve never heard of one over here.
- muttantt 5y ago
  What's HN?
  - xdennis 5y ago
    It's the country code for Honduras.
fukmbas 5y ago
Cities would have burned? You're delusional... We would have taken it day 1.
throwawaay_3424 5y ago
I don't think you're going to have that option regarding the booster. It is a critical step towards a social credit system that governments won't let go of. Just get the boost

pornel 5y ago

Here's the deal: you don't have to take the vaccine, but promise to stay away from people, and not burden hospitals when you get covid. It's not your personal choice when it can harm other people (e.g. immunocompromised people who can't get the vaccine themselves, other people who need ICU beds).

thepasswordis 5y ago
I will happily stay away from hospitals if they stop regulating drugs, and medical treatments. Also: I did take the vaccine.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  Do you honestly think a world with unregulated drugs and medicine is a better one?
  - thepasswordis 5y ago
    No.
zacharytelschow 5y ago
Let's apply that logic to everything, then, and see how it works out. You're fat or obese and have health outcomes stemming from those choices? Enjoy your heart attack, fatty. You get injured doing something "non-essential?" Your mountain bike accident sounds like your problem. You're a smoker and get lung cancer? Sorry, no treatment is available for you. You don't get to dictate the health choices of others. And if we're going down that road (which you seem to embrace) a vaccine against a disease with such a low death rate hardly seems a logical place to start. But that's presuming logic is the starting point, a conclusion lacking evidence.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I don't support denying healthcare based on choices. But I heard that some hospitals in Texas have started using it during triage. And there is certainly precedent for that. E.g. try getting a transplant if you are still engaging in the behavior that caused you to need one in the first place. So if a hospital has only one bed available and two people to take it, one of whom is vaccinated experiencing a severe breakthrough case, and another is someone who chose not to get vaccinated, the hospital has to make a choice on who is most likely to survive.
  - jhayward 5y ago
    > some hospitals in Texas have started using it during triage This is false. The "leaked" internal discussion document has been repudiated by its author, and the group of hospitals discussing it.
- pornel 5y ago
  Smoking is already banned in places where it can give other people lung cancer. Cycling and driving is also regulated to reduce risk to other road users and pedestrians. Putting lives of other people at risk is not your "health choice".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- zeku 5y ago

0xB31B1B 5y ago

we don't require anyone to take the vaccine, and we will never require anyone to take the vaccine. What we should and will do is restrict what someone who is not vaccinated can do to limit the harm they will cause to others. No one is going to bang down your door and force a vaccine into your arm, but if you do not want to get vaccinated you will need to change your life because you will be restricted from participating in many things where you are a danger to others.

TobTobXX 5y ago
Y... yes, that's the same. Compare: "You can murder someone, but then freedoms will be taken from you, because you could hurt someone with these freedoms. You won't get brainwashed out of it, but if you do commit murder, your freedoms are taken away." Not arguing against the policy, but it in practice, it _is_ the same.
pokstad 5y ago
Power to tax is the power to destroy. The power to exclude is the power to coerce. Society is coercing people into taking the vaccine by requiring it for any activities outside the home. Want to go to the grocery store? Get a vaccine or wear a mask. Want to go to Disneyland? Get a vaccine or wear a mask. Want to attend a conference? Get a vaccine or take a test and wear a mask. The mask and testing mandates are an effort to wear down anti-vaccine people instead of letting them be.
- kristjansson 5y ago
  Masks, tests, etc. are foremost ways to mitigate potential harm, not to 'wear down' people.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  The mask mandates are universal -- everyone is required, vaccinated or not. When they were only advised, it was advised that the unvaccinated wear them. And whether you can go into a privately owned store, privately owned Disneyland, or privately owned conference -- these are private businesses, the gov't should not tell them they cannot require vaccination.

orangegreen 5y ago

It's not really about you. It's about preventing other, more vulnerable people from getting sick. Living in a society means giving up some of your freedoms in exchange for security, and getting vaccinated as a way to help other people should be part of that exchange.

thepasswordis 5y ago
Why don't those people go get the vaccine like I did?
- jayd16 5y ago
  Well, for example, if you have an a suppressed auto-immune system from other medication, the vaccine is ineffective.
  - thepasswordis 5y ago
    If you have a suppressed immune system from other medications, then other illnesses like the common cold and the flu can kill you. This is why people who take immunosuppressants typically avoid going out in public, and when they do they wear serious masks intended to protect them from others.
    - thex10 5y ago
      Immuno-compromised people aren't some isolated hobbit species, they're people like you and me that have jobs, run errands, learn in schools, consume food, often live with other humans who have to go out in public, etc. And new folks with sub-par immune systems are born or created every day. Many vaccine-resistant folks will throw this population away from the entire risk analysis equation, treating them as a mere error term. At least, this has been my observation. In my opinion they should just admit they don't care about the fate of others beyond the 'thoughts and prayers' passive level.
    - jayd16 5y ago
      You're just making things up. Lots of drugs screw with your immunity to various degrees and for the most part they live normal lives. This difference now is we have a very contagious and much more deadly disease.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

> imagine the Trump admin trying to require you to take the vaccine in November of last year. Cities would have burned over it. I don't like "Imagine x doing y" arguments because it makes us insert our own biases on a hypothetical scenario that isn't the current reality.

zacharytelschow 5y ago
That hypothetical scenario is current reality for just under half the country.
- neogodless 5y ago
  I may be misunderstanding your meaning, but I think you mean that half of the country does not like Biden, and Biden is requiring everyone to get the vaccine? Is that happening? I cannot find any federal law of any kind (let alone stemming from the oval office) requiring individuals to get the vaccine.
  - zacharytelschow 5y ago
    > I cannot find any federal law of any kind (let alone stemming from the oval office) requiring individuals to get the vaccine. Does it need to be a law to be compulsory? How many Americans, including employees of numerous branches of the federal government that have said mandates, have the luxury of walking away from their jobs? Things like... https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-07-29/biden-to-launch-vaccine-push-for-millions-of-federal-workers https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-07-29/...
xeromal 5y ago
But doing that is literally empathy, a useful skill.
the_doctah 5y ago
That's pretty much saying hypothetical situations have no value. Which is false.

learc83 5y ago

Do you have any specific examples of this?: "weird, Orwellian ways that the government talks about it" Public schools, colleges, and the military have been requiring vaccines for decades. >It ends up feeling less like the decisions are guided by science and more like they’re guided by petty tyrants wanting to control what others do. This sounds like a result of reading about what health care and government officials are saying instead of actually reading what they are saying.

niij 5y ago
> Do you have any specific examples of this?: "weird, Orwellian ways that the government talks about it" "The voluntary phase is over" - Bill de Blasio https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2021/08/03/new-york-city-mayor-bill-de-blasio-and-governor-andrew-cuomo-are-pushing-hard-for-vaccinations-to-make-the-big-apple-safer/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2021/08/03/new-york-c...
- enragedcacti 5y ago
  For more context of that quote: > The Mayor will also be initiating a “Key to NYC Pass,” which is like the Covid-19 passport talked about a few months ago. It's a carrot-and-stick approach, as people will be required to show that they are vaccinated if they want to go to restaurants, gyms and other events. No vaccinations, no entrance. “If you want to participate in society fully, you’ve got to get vaccinated,” de Blasio proclaimed. “If we’re going to stop the Delta variant, the time is now,” said the mayor. “This is going to make clear, you want to enjoy everything great in this summer of New York City? Go get vaccinated.” > In an interview with MSNBC, de Blasio dialed up his frustration over the unvaccinated. “We’ve got to shake people at this point and say, ‘Come on now.’ We tried voluntary. We could not have been more kind and compassionate. Free testing, everywhere you turn, incentives, friendly, warm embrace. The voluntary phase is over,” de Blasio said last week. “It’s time for mandates, because it’s the only way to protect our people.” De Blasio is talking about restricting access to entirely optional events and locations based on vaccine status, not mandating anyone get it or else.
  - 5y ago

seriousquestion 5y ago

You don't even have to imagine. Kamala Harris: "But if Donald Trump tells us to take it, I’m not taking it." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dAjCeMuXR0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dAjCeMuXR0 The same thing was broadly expressed on twitter at the time too, she was far from alone in that sentiment.

clint 5y ago
This has got to be one of the dumber arguments I've seen made in the media and especially here. Kamala was saying that if the only person telling her she should get vaccinated was Donald Trump, then no, she would not take it. The (very clear) implication is that she would prefer that people who actually know what they are talking about (i.e. virologists, doctors, nurses, scientists, the FDA, the CDC, NIH...etc) recommends getting the vaccine, then she would get it enthusiastically. Is this really too hard to understand or are you really trying to use this extremely flimsy argument to accuse her of hypocrisy?
lovecg 5y ago
Why did you omit the first part of the quote? “If the public health professionals … tell me to take I will absolutely take it. But if Donald Trump tells us to take it, I’m not taking it.” I think this is a reasonable message of caution when talking about someone pushing HCQ and drinking bleach on the daily.
- seriousquestion 5y ago
  Does the first part matter in the context of what the OP was talking about? If Trump mandated it many would not take it on that basis alone. That’s the point I’m responding to. “If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the Doctors, tell us we should take it, I'll be the first in line to take it, absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it I'm not taking it.“ Note “But if…”. That programmers aren’t able to parse this if else statement is concerning.
  - organic_popcorn 5y ago

yupper32 5y ago

> the weird, Orwellian ways that the government talks about it, has turned me against the booster. You desperately need to take a step back and look at yourself and how you evaluate things. You decided to go against the booster because of your feelings, not because of science. You want government decisions to be guided by science, and yet you are very clearly anti-science with your decision making. > To many of you here: imagine the Trump admin trying to require you to take the vaccine in November of last year. What vaccine? There wasn't a vaccine available until Dec 14th 2020. Are you trying to say if Trump actually cut corners and made the vaccine available earlier than we should have, then people would be mad? Well... duh. The difference is that the left generally follows what the leaders in the scientific community have to say, not the POTUS. The scientific community would have been against cutting corners.

hypocritepledge 5y ago
"the scientific community"... you mean the pharma companies who developed this vaccine, right?
jackson1442 5y ago
Agreed. Didn't feel orwellian or coerced at all to go to the doctor and get a meningitis shot before heading off to university. Nor did it feel orwellian to get a covid shot to protect my community.
president 5y ago
> because of your feelings, not because of science. For the unaware, there are multitudes of highly acclaimed scientists and academics around the world from top institutions including Nobel prize winners that are advising caution against the vaccine. You don't just get to choose which "science" you listen to. These voices are massively censored so the public doesn't really get to hear both sides of the argument. The whole "don't talk bad about the vaccine lest `vaccine hesitancy`" is evil and plain anti-science.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

eddieroger 5y ago

>Anybody who has ever lived under an HOA will recognize this. My HOA telling me to take Christmas decorations down in January doesn't really equate to the government trying to keep me and my community alive and out of the hospital. Don't like the HOA covenants? Move. Don't want the vaccine? Stay away from places that will now be allowed to require vaccination.

nsxwolf 5y ago
That will be everywhere. Do you not understand what happens when people feel completely subjugated like this? This is a path to total chaos, devastation and destruction.
- NeutralTakes 5y ago
  They understand. They just don't care. This has been one long game of Secret Hitler and we're now starting to see who the fascists are.
NeutralTakes 5y ago
Don't want the vaccine? Grow your own food. Going to the supermarket is optional. Don't want the vaccine? Relocate to one of the designated vaccine-free zones. Don't want the vaccine? Barter with others in the vaccine-free zones, since banking is only really necessary when participating in society. Don't want the vaccine? Relocate to one of the vaccine-free camps since access elsewhere requires the vaccine. We can't have these underground bartering exchanges emerging. Don't mind any of the fear-mongering, people, we're just trying to keep the community alive and out of the hospital. It's for everyone's safety and well-being. These undesirables had every chance to get antibodies from the sources we've deemed valid.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ufmace 5y ago

> To many of you here: imagine the Trump admin trying to require you to take the vaccine in November of last year. Cities would have burned over it. It's very political. There's a bunch of screenshots and videos floating around of left-wing people who didn't trust the vaccine because they perceived it as coming from the Trump administration when it was in place. Now that we've swapped presidents, the side of that have flipped - now a bunch of right-wing people don't trust it because they don't trust the Biden administration. Oddly, it doesn't seem to bother anyone in either of these camps that it was both developed and pushed through initial testing under the Trump administration, and ramped up to full production and usage and edging towards mandates under the Biden administration.

jjeaff 5y ago
I agree about the politicization. But the two are not equivalent. Reticence to take a brand new vaccine on a brand new technology that is still untested is not even close to the people that are currently decrying it for safety concerns after 150m people have taken it and clinical trials have been completed.
larkost 5y ago
Correction: there are a bunch of screenshots and videos about people saying they would not trust a vaccine just because President Trump said so. Given all of the awful advice that was common from the then-president (e.g.: hydroxychloroquine), that was perfectly reasonable. You can probably find exceptions, but the widely spread examples I am aware of all then went on to talk about believing it when it came from the CDC and other authorities. I would argue that there has been little flipping. Those who were not going to get the vaccine under President Trump are also not going to get it under President Biden. The recent "boo"ing of former President Trump at his recent rally when he recommended people get vaccines is just the latest evidence of that.

dabeeeenster 5y ago

HOA? Why do HNers habitually use obscure acronyms?! So frustrating!

niij 5y ago
It's not obscure. HOA means Home Owners Association, Google "HOA definition" for more information. From a cursory search ~25% of Americans are a part of one.
- Filligree 5y ago
  I’m not American, and I’ve never heard of one over here.
muttantt 5y ago
What's HN?
- xdennis 5y ago
  It's the country code for Honduras.

fukmbas 5y ago

Cities would have burned? You're delusional... We would have taken it day 1.

throwawaay_3424 5y ago

I don't think you're going to have that option regarding the booster. It is a critical step towards a social credit system that governments won't let go of. Just get the boost