7 ms·

SF will soon require everyone 5 and older to show vaccination proof

19 points by hncurious 5y ago

HamburgerEmoji 5y ago
We are in a hysteria. We are injecting children with undertested substances that will almost certainly not benefit them, and may very well harm them. Reporting of the harm is being suppressed in the media. This is a terrible situation and I hate to think about what the future holds.
- slater 5y ago
  Nonsense.
  - Jimmc414 5y ago
    Please elaborate. Specifically, which part of that statement is nonsense?
    - mixmastamyk 5y ago
      They are well tested by now. However the vast majority of children will not benefit, it’s true. Am vaxxed but don’t think I’d comply with this order for restaurants, it’s too far and too late for this.
      - PeterHK 5y ago
        can you show me other drugs that are considered well tested after such a short period of time?
        mixmastamyk 5y ago
        The mrna have been in development for twenty years. They break down quickly and side effects are quite low statistically. Part of the reason they need frequent boosters.
    - CogitoCogito 5y ago
      I can't speak to the poster you're responding to, but I would consider both "We are injecting children with undertested substances" and "that will almost certainly not benefit them, and may very well harm them." To fall pretty squarely into the category of nonsense given the amount of testing that's gone into these vaccines as well the fact that the CDC quite clearly considers them beneficial. At the very least such claims should require some sort of support.
      - onecommentman 5y ago
        Some may interpret the explicit shielding from legal liability of the vaccine manufacturers by the Federal government to be an acknowledgment that risks are high enough to require such protections. Else why implement the liability shield? And why set the standards for establishing harm to qualify for compensation from the Feds so much higher for COVID than for previous vaccine claims? Why the higher court costs and the shorter window to qualify? (NVICP vs. the COVID CICP) The industry pretty clearly doesn’t want their money at risk from damages resulting from release of their COVID vaccine product. Following the money is often an insightful strategy in these complicated issues. It “cuts to the chase” and rarely leads to nonsense. Which speaks to the “may very well harm them”. And that’s OK if the vaccine is voluntary and you are a knowledgeable adult. You assess the benefits and risks and make your choice. And we can be grateful to the pharmas for their hard work in making the option of vaccines available. Not so OK if you are a child and there is a government mandate. There was a neologism back in our day…Califascist. Seems applicable.
        CogitoCogito 5y ago
        > Which speaks to the “may very well harm them”. No it doesn't. That just shows that the manufacturers want to minimize their risk of being sued. Harm is shown by _studies_ looking at harm. The feds have looked at these studies and concluded that the vaccines are worth it. What do you have other than irrelevant arguments about legal liability?
      - spaginal 5y ago
        Children are already the group least likely to be harmed by covid. Couple this with the data showing vaccines don’t prevent spread, but rather reduce symptoms in groups most affected, what is the point of doing this to children? An 80 year old diabetic, sure, but a perfectly healthy 5 year old? Why?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
lowkey 5y ago
This is child abuse to benefit the elderly. Exactly backwards from how it should be IMO. This vaccine does nothing to improve health outcomes for children as the virus almost always spares the young. There are a vanishingly small number of children who have died from COVID, unless they had other underlying conditions. This isn't based on science. It is based on politics and dogma.
- bitwise101 5y ago
  You don't get vaccinated for yourself. You get vaccinated for the community. That's just how it works, and is based on science.
  - lowkey 5y ago
    Risking children to protect the elderly. That is a broken model, IMO.
sasaf5 5y ago
title is missing: "for restaurants, theaters, Warriors games"
charbonneau2 5y ago
2022-02-14: SF will soon require everyone 6 months and older to show vaccination proof

19 points by hncurious 5y ago

We are in a hysteria. We are injecting children with undertested substances that will almost certainly not benefit them, and may very well harm them. Reporting of the harm is being suppressed in the media. This is a terrible situation and I hate to think about what the future holds.

slater 5y ago
Nonsense.
- Jimmc414 5y ago
  Please elaborate. Specifically, which part of that statement is nonsense?
  - mixmastamyk 5y ago
    They are well tested by now. However the vast majority of children will not benefit, it’s true. Am vaxxed but don’t think I’d comply with this order for restaurants, it’s too far and too late for this.
    - PeterHK 5y ago
      can you show me other drugs that are considered well tested after such a short period of time?
      - mixmastamyk 5y ago
        The mrna have been in development for twenty years. They break down quickly and side effects are quite low statistically. Part of the reason they need frequent boosters.
  - CogitoCogito 5y ago
    I can't speak to the poster you're responding to, but I would consider both "We are injecting children with undertested substances" and "that will almost certainly not benefit them, and may very well harm them." To fall pretty squarely into the category of nonsense given the amount of testing that's gone into these vaccines as well the fact that the CDC quite clearly considers them beneficial. At the very least such claims should require some sort of support.
    - onecommentman 5y ago
      Some may interpret the explicit shielding from legal liability of the vaccine manufacturers by the Federal government to be an acknowledgment that risks are high enough to require such protections. Else why implement the liability shield? And why set the standards for establishing harm to qualify for compensation from the Feds so much higher for COVID than for previous vaccine claims? Why the higher court costs and the shorter window to qualify? (NVICP vs. the COVID CICP) The industry pretty clearly doesn’t want their money at risk from damages resulting from release of their COVID vaccine product. Following the money is often an insightful strategy in these complicated issues. It “cuts to the chase” and rarely leads to nonsense. Which speaks to the “may very well harm them”. And that’s OK if the vaccine is voluntary and you are a knowledgeable adult. You assess the benefits and risks and make your choice. And we can be grateful to the pharmas for their hard work in making the option of vaccines available. Not so OK if you are a child and there is a government mandate. There was a neologism back in our day…Califascist. Seems applicable.
      - CogitoCogito 5y ago
        > Which speaks to the “may very well harm them”. No it doesn't. That just shows that the manufacturers want to minimize their risk of being sued. Harm is shown by _studies_ looking at harm. The feds have looked at these studies and concluded that the vaccines are worth it. What do you have other than irrelevant arguments about legal liability?
    - spaginal 5y ago
      Children are already the group least likely to be harmed by covid. Couple this with the data showing vaccines don’t prevent spread, but rather reduce symptoms in groups most affected, what is the point of doing this to children? An 80 year old diabetic, sure, but a perfectly healthy 5 year old? Why?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

lowkey 5y ago

This is child abuse to benefit the elderly. Exactly backwards from how it should be IMO. This vaccine does nothing to improve health outcomes for children as the virus almost always spares the young. There are a vanishingly small number of children who have died from COVID, unless they had other underlying conditions. This isn't based on science. It is based on politics and dogma.

bitwise101 5y ago
You don't get vaccinated for yourself. You get vaccinated for the community. That's just how it works, and is based on science.
- lowkey 5y ago
  Risking children to protect the elderly. That is a broken model, IMO.

sasaf5 5y ago

title is missing: "for restaurants, theaters, Warriors games"

charbonneau2 5y ago

2022-02-14: SF will soon require everyone 6 months and older to show vaccination proof