6 ms·

> 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 yoursel

> 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]
- criticaltinker 5y ago
  Yes this is a great point. The primary concerns & warnings are generally around vaccine induced immune escape, which is a realistic consequence of indiscriminate compulsory mass vaccination [1][2][3][4][5][6]. That said, there is general consensus in the literature that the vaccines are mostly safe for adults in the short term. However for certain sub-populations (eg pediatrics and pregnant women) there isn't enough evidence yet from clinical trials and longitudinal studies to conclude with certainty that the benefits of compulsory mass vaccination outweigh the risks. [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] Can we predict the limits of SARS-CoV-2 variants and their phenotypic consequences? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evolution-of-sars-cov-2-26-july-2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evoluti... [3] Why does drug resistance readily evolve but vaccine resistance does not? https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2016.2562 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2016... [4] The adaptive evolution of virulence: a review of theoretical predictions and empirical tests https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26302775/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26302775/ [5] Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1002198 https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fj... [6] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v3.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
  - criticaltinker 5y ago
    Lots of down-votes and no replies tells me this is striking some nerves - anyone care to articulate why you disagree with or do not support these statements?
    - yupper32 5y ago
      Almost no one on HN is qualified to take a group of medical journal articles/research papers and form an accurate opinion on the subject. In fact, trying to do so for most on this forum would probably result in inaccurate views due to misunderstanding the articles and papers. So people probably downvoted because you have a view on the subject, but no one is qualified to back or oppose it. And we don't know who you are, so how are we supposed to vet your view, or even begin to have a conversation about it? I didn't downvote (or upvote), but that's my guess.
ghiculescu 5y ago
Trump was still president then, but the question was hypothetical. Would your answer change if he was re-elected?
- yupper32 5y ago
  Given everything else is the same, I would support Trump doing the same vaccine requirements that Biden has done, if Trump hypothetically won the election. If Trump succeeded at gutting the FDA and installing people like Scott Atlas in order to override the career officials and experts at the FDA, or something similar, then yes my answer would likely be different. Again, the POTUS at the time has nothing to do with the decision making.
dang 5y ago
Please don't cross into personal attack on HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. It's against the rules here and only makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- yupper32 5y ago
  It was more of a plea than an attack, but I can see why it seemed that way. I'd edit it if I could. And since you're here, why aren't you doing more to [flag/demote/whatever] content where people are saying that Covid booster shots and their requirements are nothing more than "petty tyrants wanting to control what others do."? Surely that's worse than a small attack on the person saying it?
  - dang 5y ago
    If there are comments breaking the site guidelines that aren't getting moderated, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see them. There are far too many for us to see them all. Referring to authorities as "petty tyrants" or whatever probably doesn't count a personal attack unless the "petty tyrant" is personally present. I don't think those comments are very high quality, but this is the internet. Trying to raise comment quality is like trying to lift a tsunami. We do what we can. I don't agree that personal attacks are "small". I think they are particularly poisonous to community.
    - yupper32 5y ago
      I agree I could have been better at not attacking the poster. I'll try to do better (though I'm not allowed to fix my mistake due to site restrictions). I also think that if vaccine misinformation (which includes that vaccine requirements are just petty tyrants controlling people and not based in science, which is the root post here if you couldn't find it) isn't currently against the current guidelines, then that's an issue.

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]
criticaltinker 5y ago
Yes this is a great point. The primary concerns & warnings are generally around vaccine induced immune escape, which is a realistic consequence of indiscriminate compulsory mass vaccination [1][2][3][4][5][6]. That said, there is general consensus in the literature that the vaccines are mostly safe for adults in the short term. However for certain sub-populations (eg pediatrics and pregnant women) there isn't enough evidence yet from clinical trials and longitudinal studies to conclude with certainty that the benefits of compulsory mass vaccination outweigh the risks. [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] Can we predict the limits of SARS-CoV-2 variants and their phenotypic consequences? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evolution-of-sars-cov-2-26-july-2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/long-term-evoluti... [3] Why does drug resistance readily evolve but vaccine resistance does not? https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2016.2562 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2016... [4] The adaptive evolution of virulence: a review of theoretical predictions and empirical tests https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26302775/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26302775/ [5] Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1002198 https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fj... [6] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v3.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
- criticaltinker 5y ago
  Lots of down-votes and no replies tells me this is striking some nerves - anyone care to articulate why you disagree with or do not support these statements?
  - yupper32 5y ago
    Almost no one on HN is qualified to take a group of medical journal articles/research papers and form an accurate opinion on the subject. In fact, trying to do so for most on this forum would probably result in inaccurate views due to misunderstanding the articles and papers. So people probably downvoted because you have a view on the subject, but no one is qualified to back or oppose it. And we don't know who you are, so how are we supposed to vet your view, or even begin to have a conversation about it? I didn't downvote (or upvote), but that's my guess.

ghiculescu 5y ago

Trump was still president then, but the question was hypothetical. Would your answer change if he was re-elected?

yupper32 5y ago
Given everything else is the same, I would support Trump doing the same vaccine requirements that Biden has done, if Trump hypothetically won the election. If Trump succeeded at gutting the FDA and installing people like Scott Atlas in order to override the career officials and experts at the FDA, or something similar, then yes my answer would likely be different. Again, the POTUS at the time has nothing to do with the decision making.

dang 5y ago

Please don't cross into personal attack on HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. It's against the rules here and only makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

yupper32 5y ago
It was more of a plea than an attack, but I can see why it seemed that way. I'd edit it if I could. And since you're here, why aren't you doing more to [flag/demote/whatever] content where people are saying that Covid booster shots and their requirements are nothing more than "petty tyrants wanting to control what others do."? Surely that's worse than a small attack on the person saying it?
- dang 5y ago
  If there are comments breaking the site guidelines that aren't getting moderated, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see them. There are far too many for us to see them all. Referring to authorities as "petty tyrants" or whatever probably doesn't count a personal attack unless the "petty tyrant" is personally present. I don't think those comments are very high quality, but this is the internet. Trying to raise comment quality is like trying to lift a tsunami. We do what we can. I don't agree that personal attacks are "small". I think they are particularly poisonous to community.
  - yupper32 5y ago
    I agree I could have been better at not attacking the poster. I'll try to do better (though I'm not allowed to fix my mistake due to site restrictions). I also think that if vaccine misinformation (which includes that vaccine requirements are just petty tyrants controlling people and not based in science, which is the root post here if you couldn't find it) isn't currently against the current guidelines, then that's an issue.