17 ms·

> we don't live in a police state... Shocking statement that demonstrates more attempt to spin than inform. Supposing we take the webster dictionary definitio

> we don't live in a police state... Shocking statement that demonstrates more attempt to spin than inform. Supposing we take the webster dictionary definition of police state: "political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures" Considering this effects up to 40% of the population according to the article it checks quite a few boxes: 1. Arbitrary: No precedent, first in the world to do so, with no evidence this will solve the problem in total (controlling covid completely). 2. Repressive government control: There's no argument this fits the strictest definition of repressive. 3. Exercise of power by the police: There's no statement they'll use "secret police" but certainly the enforcement will be aggressive and severe to keep 40% of the population locked down. It's not like watching one person's house. That's a lot of people. For the record, I am not against vaccines. I am however pro bodily autonomy at any cost, for whatever reason, in any condition. The "price to pay in society" isn't to violate your bodily autonomy, and therefore the non-aggression principle, but make a personal decision to avoid or interact with people you disagree with. It turns out that all it took to test the waters of liberty and free will was deciding what you want to, and what you dont want to, put in your body. You would even think this would be a cut and dry case considering the alleged "libertarian" leanings of HN, but to my surprise it seems many people are willing to sacrifice this fundamental liberty for ephemeral (possibly even negative) gain. We're 2 years into 15 days to flatten the curve. We have all the evidence to show this won't fix anything unless these people are locked down permanently. At that point they may as well be thrown in prisons, or camps, or whatever the dictator says to do. Democracies can't simply hold you down and inject you with chemicals but coercing these people with objectively police state style tactics is the way tyrants dressed as democratic leaders effectively accomplish the same thing.

woodruffw 5y ago
Wait until you hear about the vaccines they made you get as a child, before you were allowed to go to school!
- incrudible 5y ago
  The ones with a nearly impeccable safety record, that we had many years of long term experience with, the ones that actually provided sterilizing immunity? Those are great!
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    No vaccine has an "impeccable" safety record, as the original clump of anti-vaxxers will helpfully remind us all. That's a red herring: what matters is that the COVID vaccines are overwhelmingly safe. Hundreds of millions of people have been vaccinated worldwide without issues. You can now get a vaccine that has gone through exactly the same review process as every other vaccine in US history (i.e., one that is not under EUA).
    - kodyo 5y ago
      They should be able to remove the liability exemption for the pharmas, then.
    - incrudible 5y ago
      > Hundreds of millions of people have been vaccinated worldwide without issues. Without issues? That's quite a stretch. I would agree that the risk of a severe or even fatal reaction to the vaccine is quite low, but it's still massively higher than for any of the other vaccines. > You can now get a vaccine that has gone through exactly the same review process as every other vaccine in US history I can't speak to the validity of this claim, but it's neither here nor there. Approval for vaccines and other medication has been withdrawn before. No vaccine has ever been widely administered or even mandated without several years of safety data.
  - aplummer 5y ago
    > The ones with a nearly impeccable safety record The current vaccines have an impeccable safety record. > that we had many years of long term experience with We had many years surviving just fine with long term exposure to lead, cigarettes and asbestos. Time duration is not relevant, also because we have not had many years of long term experience with Covid itself - which is why the relative risk is what is important. You have an incredibly lower long-term risk when compared with catching Covid, and society has a multiplicatively lower risk when compared with unvaccinated people being allowed to so easily spread the disease. > the ones that actually provided sterilizing immunity The current vaccines provide significantly better immunity than the flu shot. This isn't a black and white exercise.
crooked-v 5y ago
> I am however pro bodily autonomy at any cost, for whatever reason, in any condition. Do you also oppose the assorted vaccinations that are often treated as a mandatory condition of public school attendance?
- woodruffw 5y ago
  It goes even beyond that: you need proof of vaccination to attend any school in the US. In all 50 states. And it's been that way for 65 years[1]. The "pro bodily autonomy" message is smoke and mirrors, designed to put a palatable glaze on an increasingly fringe and reactionary position. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/school-vaccinations.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/school-vaccinations.pdf
  - RobertRoberts 5y ago
    This is not true but it seems to repeated very often. Why do authorities not want the populace to know about conscientious objections?
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      The link I provided includes conscientious objections, and makes it abundantly clear that they are extremely limited in scope. In particular, nearly every state requires (1) a statement in writing, (2) confirmation from a healthcare and/or faith practitioner, and (3) evidence that the belief is genuine and not a transient product of merely political beliefs. Additionally, many states will not accept a "genuine" belief if it is not also the belief of the complainant's faith.
      - RobertRoberts 5y ago
        This is also not entirely true. If you have kids going to school turn the vaccine statement paper over. In many states you just sign it. It is very odd how this misinformation is _vehemently_ stated as fact.
  - 5y ago
airza 5y ago
Incredible to see this the day after the memoir about living under Pol Pot makes the front page.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  The discussion is team deathmatch at this point and Pot, Stalin, Hitler and all their friends are always on the other team.
trhway 5y ago
>We have all the evidence to show this won't fix anything unless these people are locked down permanently At vaccination rates of 60-70% the vaccinated make 1/3rd of new infections (and giving that the vaccinated have less symptoms, one may suppose that the vaccinated rate of infection is even higher than the official 1/3rd), and thus raising the vaccination rate from 70% to 100% would decrease infection rate just 2 times at best, so even locking down unvaccinated permanently would solve nothing. And that too: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y " A person who was fully vaccinated and then had a ‘breakthrough’ Delta infection was almost twice as likely to pass on the virus as someone who was infected with Alpha." "Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus."
aplummer 5y ago
> 1. Arbitrary: No precedent, first in the world to do so, with no evidence this will solve the problem in total (controlling covid completely). This isn't arbitrary at all, its actually extremely common to restrict the participation in society of unvaccinated people - in countries _much_ more free than the United States.
- mostertoaster 5y ago
  So you what wish they did it here in the United States as well? You probably were a fan of FDR locking up US citizens because of their ethnicity too. Can we stop pretending covid is something that justifies these crazy actions we are taking. Yes it kills people and can spread easily. So what. At this point it is only killing unvaccinated people and vaccinated people can still get and spread it. So just stop it. Stop with the insanity. Stop pretending that the emperor has clothes. Or at the very least let cities enforce what they want and don’t have a rural place in CA be forced to follow what SF wants, or have Austin do what TX wants.
  - aplummer 5y ago
    You’re really uninformed about vaccines. Saying because vaccinated people can spread it despite being over 10x less likely to, is black and white fallacy FUD. I can see you are very hyperbolic your statement: “Yes it kills people and can spread easily, so what” Is very callous. I think you could take your own advice about SF vs rural towns and maybe consider applying it to other countries.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      There is a growing body of research indicating that VE declines over time. After 6 months the vaccines reduce the risk of getting covid by 2x, VEaI = 50%. Not sure where you picked the 10x number. (OA) US, veterans, 3 months VEaI = 78%, 6 months VEaI = 50%, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620 US, 5 months VEaI = 47%, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... UK, 3 months VEaI = 75%. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01548-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01548-7 Qatar, 3 months VEaI = 70%, 6 months VEaI = 12.8%, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114 (preprint) Sweden, <50yo, 2-4 months VEaI = 83%, 4-6 months VEaI = 50%, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410
pupppet 5y ago
>I am however pro bodily autonomy at any cost Me too! Have you figured out how to keep your COVID to yourself?
- srslack 5y ago
  Have those who are vaccinated figured out how to keep their now asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 to themselves?
- kodyo 5y ago
  The CDC has recorded zero incidents of a previously infected unvaccinated person infecting anyone else. So yes.
cletus 5y ago
Not you specifically but lots of people have tried to conflate restrictions for unvaccinated people to various historical blights including, but not limited to, Jewish persecution in Nazi Germany, South African Apartheid (google the phrase "medical apartheid"), the institution of slavery in the United States and so on. None of these apply of course for one simple reason: a black person in South Africa can't simply choose not to be black to escape Apartheid. American slaves couldn't simply choose not to be slaves. So policies that apply to unvaccinated people aren't analogous for the simple reason that you can choose to get vaccinated in almost all cases (side note: the very few people with a valid medical exemption shouldn't be subjected to these kinds of policies IMHO). So it's not a lack of body autonomy that's going on here. It's just that those choices come with consequences. You don't want to wear a mask? No one is holding you down and putting one on you. But you can't fly on a commercial plane either. I too believe strongly in body autonomy, which is one reason why I fully support reproductive rights, including access to abortion. What I find particularly ironic is in the Venn diagram there's a seemingly large intersection between the unvaccinated, those who oppose restrictions on unvaccinated people and those who support restricting access to abortions. Again, not you, specifically. It's worth adding that this isn't purely a personal choice. If it was, I don't think anyone would be upset about it. There are documented cases of contact tracers who can directly establish links between a given person spreading Covid and the deaths that result from that. What about the people who medically cannot get the vaccine? Or are immunocompromised? If you oppose the vaccine because of the extremely low risks of negative side effects, remember your choice affects other people. It's riskier to drive in a car than to get the Covid vaccine. The term "body autonomy" here just doesn't apply. "Consequences to personal choices" is far more accurate.
- incrudible 5y ago
  You are right, one can not simply choose a racial identity. A more appropriate analogy would be the Inquisition, or perhaps Christian persecution in pagan Rome. Those generally left the option for heretics to renounce their beliefs.
- gruez 5y ago
  >None of these apply of course for one simple reason: a black person in South Africa can't simply choose not to be black to escape Apartheid. American slaves couldn't simply choose not to be slaves. so the chinese forcing the Uyghurs to abandon their culture is totally fine, because all they have to do is stop practicing it?

woodruffw 5y ago

Wait until you hear about the vaccines they made you get as a child, before you were allowed to go to school!

incrudible 5y ago
The ones with a nearly impeccable safety record, that we had many years of long term experience with, the ones that actually provided sterilizing immunity? Those are great!
- woodruffw 5y ago
  No vaccine has an "impeccable" safety record, as the original clump of anti-vaxxers will helpfully remind us all. That's a red herring: what matters is that the COVID vaccines are overwhelmingly safe. Hundreds of millions of people have been vaccinated worldwide without issues. You can now get a vaccine that has gone through exactly the same review process as every other vaccine in US history (i.e., one that is not under EUA).
  - kodyo 5y ago
    They should be able to remove the liability exemption for the pharmas, then.
  - incrudible 5y ago
    > Hundreds of millions of people have been vaccinated worldwide without issues. Without issues? That's quite a stretch. I would agree that the risk of a severe or even fatal reaction to the vaccine is quite low, but it's still massively higher than for any of the other vaccines. > You can now get a vaccine that has gone through exactly the same review process as every other vaccine in US history I can't speak to the validity of this claim, but it's neither here nor there. Approval for vaccines and other medication has been withdrawn before. No vaccine has ever been widely administered or even mandated without several years of safety data.
- aplummer 5y ago
  > The ones with a nearly impeccable safety record The current vaccines have an impeccable safety record. > that we had many years of long term experience with We had many years surviving just fine with long term exposure to lead, cigarettes and asbestos. Time duration is not relevant, also because we have not had many years of long term experience with Covid itself - which is why the relative risk is what is important. You have an incredibly lower long-term risk when compared with catching Covid, and society has a multiplicatively lower risk when compared with unvaccinated people being allowed to so easily spread the disease. > the ones that actually provided sterilizing immunity The current vaccines provide significantly better immunity than the flu shot. This isn't a black and white exercise.

crooked-v 5y ago

> I am however pro bodily autonomy at any cost, for whatever reason, in any condition. Do you also oppose the assorted vaccinations that are often treated as a mandatory condition of public school attendance?

woodruffw 5y ago
It goes even beyond that: you need proof of vaccination to attend any school in the US. In all 50 states. And it's been that way for 65 years[1]. The "pro bodily autonomy" message is smoke and mirrors, designed to put a palatable glaze on an increasingly fringe and reactionary position. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/school-vaccinations.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/school-vaccinations.pdf
- RobertRoberts 5y ago
  This is not true but it seems to repeated very often. Why do authorities not want the populace to know about conscientious objections?
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    The link I provided includes conscientious objections, and makes it abundantly clear that they are extremely limited in scope. In particular, nearly every state requires (1) a statement in writing, (2) confirmation from a healthcare and/or faith practitioner, and (3) evidence that the belief is genuine and not a transient product of merely political beliefs. Additionally, many states will not accept a "genuine" belief if it is not also the belief of the complainant's faith.
    - RobertRoberts 5y ago
      This is also not entirely true. If you have kids going to school turn the vaccine statement paper over. In many states you just sign it. It is very odd how this misinformation is _vehemently_ stated as fact.
- 5y ago

airza 5y ago

Incredible to see this the day after the memoir about living under Pol Pot makes the front page.

raxxorrax 5y ago
The discussion is team deathmatch at this point and Pot, Stalin, Hitler and all their friends are always on the other team.

trhway 5y ago

>We have all the evidence to show this won't fix anything unless these people are locked down permanently At vaccination rates of 60-70% the vaccinated make 1/3rd of new infections (and giving that the vaccinated have less symptoms, one may suppose that the vaccinated rate of infection is even higher than the official 1/3rd), and thus raising the vaccination rate from 70% to 100% would decrease infection rate just 2 times at best, so even locking down unvaccinated permanently would solve nothing. And that too: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y " A person who was fully vaccinated and then had a ‘breakthrough’ Delta infection was almost twice as likely to pass on the virus as someone who was infected with Alpha." "Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus."

aplummer 5y ago

> 1. Arbitrary: No precedent, first in the world to do so, with no evidence this will solve the problem in total (controlling covid completely). This isn't arbitrary at all, its actually extremely common to restrict the participation in society of unvaccinated people - in countries _much_ more free than the United States.

mostertoaster 5y ago
So you what wish they did it here in the United States as well? You probably were a fan of FDR locking up US citizens because of their ethnicity too. Can we stop pretending covid is something that justifies these crazy actions we are taking. Yes it kills people and can spread easily. So what. At this point it is only killing unvaccinated people and vaccinated people can still get and spread it. So just stop it. Stop with the insanity. Stop pretending that the emperor has clothes. Or at the very least let cities enforce what they want and don’t have a rural place in CA be forced to follow what SF wants, or have Austin do what TX wants.
- aplummer 5y ago
  You’re really uninformed about vaccines. Saying because vaccinated people can spread it despite being over 10x less likely to, is black and white fallacy FUD. I can see you are very hyperbolic your statement: “Yes it kills people and can spread easily, so what” Is very callous. I think you could take your own advice about SF vs rural towns and maybe consider applying it to other countries.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    There is a growing body of research indicating that VE declines over time. After 6 months the vaccines reduce the risk of getting covid by 2x, VEaI = 50%. Not sure where you picked the 10x number. (OA) US, veterans, 3 months VEaI = 78%, 6 months VEaI = 50%, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620 US, 5 months VEaI = 47%, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... UK, 3 months VEaI = 75%. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01548-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01548-7 Qatar, 3 months VEaI = 70%, 6 months VEaI = 12.8%, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114 (preprint) Sweden, <50yo, 2-4 months VEaI = 83%, 4-6 months VEaI = 50%, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410

pupppet 5y ago

>I am however pro bodily autonomy at any cost Me too! Have you figured out how to keep your COVID to yourself?

srslack 5y ago
Have those who are vaccinated figured out how to keep their now asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 to themselves?
kodyo 5y ago
The CDC has recorded zero incidents of a previously infected unvaccinated person infecting anyone else. So yes.

cletus 5y ago

Not you specifically but lots of people have tried to conflate restrictions for unvaccinated people to various historical blights including, but not limited to, Jewish persecution in Nazi Germany, South African Apartheid (google the phrase "medical apartheid"), the institution of slavery in the United States and so on. None of these apply of course for one simple reason: a black person in South Africa can't simply choose not to be black to escape Apartheid. American slaves couldn't simply choose not to be slaves. So policies that apply to unvaccinated people aren't analogous for the simple reason that you can choose to get vaccinated in almost all cases (side note: the very few people with a valid medical exemption shouldn't be subjected to these kinds of policies IMHO). So it's not a lack of body autonomy that's going on here. It's just that those choices come with consequences. You don't want to wear a mask? No one is holding you down and putting one on you. But you can't fly on a commercial plane either. I too believe strongly in body autonomy, which is one reason why I fully support reproductive rights, including access to abortion. What I find particularly ironic is in the Venn diagram there's a seemingly large intersection between the unvaccinated, those who oppose restrictions on unvaccinated people and those who support restricting access to abortions. Again, not you, specifically. It's worth adding that this isn't purely a personal choice. If it was, I don't think anyone would be upset about it. There are documented cases of contact tracers who can directly establish links between a given person spreading Covid and the deaths that result from that. What about the people who medically cannot get the vaccine? Or are immunocompromised? If you oppose the vaccine because of the extremely low risks of negative side effects, remember your choice affects other people. It's riskier to drive in a car than to get the Covid vaccine. The term "body autonomy" here just doesn't apply. "Consequences to personal choices" is far more accurate.

incrudible 5y ago
You are right, one can not simply choose a racial identity. A more appropriate analogy would be the Inquisition, or perhaps Christian persecution in pagan Rome. Those generally left the option for heretics to renounce their beliefs.
gruez 5y ago
>None of these apply of course for one simple reason: a black person in South Africa can't simply choose not to be black to escape Apartheid. American slaves couldn't simply choose not to be slaves. so the chinese forcing the Uyghurs to abandon their culture is totally fine, because all they have to do is stop practicing it?