6 ms·

Question for the vaccinated: would you accept it if your government mandated annual COVID shots or they'll rescind your current freedoms (right to be employed,

by ajvs 5y ago

Question for the vaccinated: would you accept it if your government mandated annual COVID shots or they'll rescind your current freedoms (right to be employed, to use public transport, supermarkets, eat and drink venues, etc)? I'm vaccinated and even though my country hasn't got you're-not-allowed-to-do-anything-unless-you're-vaccinated authoritarianism like Lithuania for example, I would want off this ride if things go in that direction.

chadlavi 5y ago
Get a vaccine jackass.
- dang 5y ago
  Breaking the site guidelines like this will get you banned here, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
mannanj 5y ago
Just curious: Why is this only a question for the vaccinated? Do the unvaccinated have some quality that makes their answers to this unreasonable or untrustable?
- version_five 5y ago
  Not the gp, but I think their point is that the usual divide that's made out is vaccinated/ unvaccinated as if that decision puts you automatically in a camp. When the actual relevant distinction is authoritarian vs pro choice (or whatever you want to call it if there is a more neutral way) and the gp is pointing out that the "vaccinated" are not all in the papers please camp, they may just have decided it was right for them on the balance of evidence
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
Yes. You don’t have a “right” to participate in modern society if it will make others deathly ill. You have the “freedom” to go build a cabin in the woods if you’d like. Just get the damn vaccine. I’m not suggesting you need to run out and get the first ones off the production line if you want to be more cautious, but once half the country has gotten it there’s really no logical reason to be hesitant. I also think we’d save an awful lot of lives if the flu vaccine was mandatory at least for K-12 children, at basically no cost.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > You don’t have a “right” to participate in modern society if it will make others deathly ill. You should ban driving immediately if that is your line of thinking. And sex should be next in the list of activites to ban since you can catch deathly STDs. I love this kind of commentary.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    And really we should ban from society any people who have STDs or other blood transmittable diseases. After all they could get a cut accidentally and spread it. Too much risk to take isn't it. Why not just lock them all up for our safety?
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  > You don’t have a “right” to participate in modern society if it will make others deathly ill. Everyone who engages in any social contact with others could potentially transmit to them a pathogen which proves lethal. This emphatically includes those who have taken the COVID-19 vaccines.
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    Sure, totally! But taking this vaccine lowers the risk measurably. If everyone takes the vaccine, the risk is even smaller! What is the downside? I appear to hold an unusual in-between opinion on COVID restrictions, because I'm actually against continuing mask mandates. IMO, masks have a very clear downside: in terms of psychological well-being, the ability to see faces and reading expressions is actually incredibly important! So even if there's a public health benefit to universal masking, it's not worth the trade-off except in extremely exceptional circumstances. But vaccines? Just get vaccinated!
short12 5y ago
Most of your examples are private enterprises which has quite a bit of leeway. In which case absolutely. For public serves it is just an emphatic yes Meanwhile vaccinated deaths remain very low and unvaccinated very high. Sooner or later there won't be many unvaccinated left to spread the disease
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  > Sooner or later there won't be many unvaccinated left to spread the disease Ah yes, their ranks might be thinned by up to 0.2% if they all catch COVID!
  - short12 5y ago
    It's not like covid is going to slowdown for unvaccinated so that percent will end up being amended to be .02 percent per week or day
    - ekianjo 5y ago
      I think you missed the part where people dying from COVID is not random, but touches people with 3-4 comorbidities for the most part. So in effect you will run out of people dying well before you run out of unvaccinated.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      COVID slows down all the time. Have you ever looked at a case graph? It comes and goes and the risk is not 0.2% per day, it's 0.2% or lower per infection which given that natural immunity works better than vaccination, basically happens and for many people (like me) appears to have actually never happened. But even if you assume a 100% chance of being eventually infected, it's not anything close to 0.2% per day.
      - pbak 5y ago
        0.2% of the population _per day_ would be something like 50% a year. That's worse than the black plague, a worse variant of Anthrax or runaway Marburg which spread even more easily... We'd be in Walkin' dead territory...

by ajvs 5y ago

chadlavi 5y ago

Get a vaccine jackass.

dang 5y ago
Breaking the site guidelines like this will get you banned here, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

mannanj 5y ago

Just curious: Why is this only a question for the vaccinated? Do the unvaccinated have some quality that makes their answers to this unreasonable or untrustable?

version_five 5y ago
Not the gp, but I think their point is that the usual divide that's made out is vaccinated/ unvaccinated as if that decision puts you automatically in a camp. When the actual relevant distinction is authoritarian vs pro choice (or whatever you want to call it if there is a more neutral way) and the gp is pointing out that the "vaccinated" are not all in the papers please camp, they may just have decided it was right for them on the balance of evidence

Wowfunhappy 5y ago

Yes. You don’t have a “right” to participate in modern society if it will make others deathly ill. You have the “freedom” to go build a cabin in the woods if you’d like. Just get the damn vaccine. I’m not suggesting you need to run out and get the first ones off the production line if you want to be more cautious, but once half the country has gotten it there’s really no logical reason to be hesitant. I also think we’d save an awful lot of lives if the flu vaccine was mandatory at least for K-12 children, at basically no cost.

ekianjo 5y ago
> You don’t have a “right” to participate in modern society if it will make others deathly ill. You should ban driving immediately if that is your line of thinking. And sex should be next in the list of activites to ban since you can catch deathly STDs. I love this kind of commentary.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  And really we should ban from society any people who have STDs or other blood transmittable diseases. After all they could get a cut accidentally and spread it. Too much risk to take isn't it. Why not just lock them all up for our safety?
AndrewBissell 5y ago
> You don’t have a “right” to participate in modern society if it will make others deathly ill. Everyone who engages in any social contact with others could potentially transmit to them a pathogen which proves lethal. This emphatically includes those who have taken the COVID-19 vaccines.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  Sure, totally! But taking this vaccine lowers the risk measurably. If everyone takes the vaccine, the risk is even smaller! What is the downside? I appear to hold an unusual in-between opinion on COVID restrictions, because I'm actually against continuing mask mandates. IMO, masks have a very clear downside: in terms of psychological well-being, the ability to see faces and reading expressions is actually incredibly important! So even if there's a public health benefit to universal masking, it's not worth the trade-off except in extremely exceptional circumstances. But vaccines? Just get vaccinated!

short12 5y ago

Most of your examples are private enterprises which has quite a bit of leeway. In which case absolutely. For public serves it is just an emphatic yes Meanwhile vaccinated deaths remain very low and unvaccinated very high. Sooner or later there won't be many unvaccinated left to spread the disease

AndrewBissell 5y ago
> Sooner or later there won't be many unvaccinated left to spread the disease Ah yes, their ranks might be thinned by up to 0.2% if they all catch COVID!
- short12 5y ago
  It's not like covid is going to slowdown for unvaccinated so that percent will end up being amended to be .02 percent per week or day
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    I think you missed the part where people dying from COVID is not random, but touches people with 3-4 comorbidities for the most part. So in effect you will run out of people dying well before you run out of unvaccinated.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    COVID slows down all the time. Have you ever looked at a case graph? It comes and goes and the risk is not 0.2% per day, it's 0.2% or lower per infection which given that natural immunity works better than vaccination, basically happens and for many people (like me) appears to have actually never happened. But even if you assume a 100% chance of being eventually infected, it's not anything close to 0.2% per day.
    - pbak 5y ago
      0.2% of the population _per day_ would be something like 50% a year. That's worse than the black plague, a worse variant of Anthrax or runaway Marburg which spread even more easily... We'd be in Walkin' dead territory...