6 ms·

Pro-life not pro-tyranny! Forcing people to take a vaccine that was rolled out almost immediately, without due process is not protecting anything. I'm not sayi

by xil3 5y ago

Pro-life not pro-tyranny! Forcing people to take a vaccine that was rolled out almost immediately, without due process is not protecting anything. I'm not saying it doesn't work, but it's not a silver bullet, and only time will tell if it's safe.

_ddzr 5y ago
[flagged]
- fyhgdet 5y ago
  Can’t find it now because google seems to have down ranked it. There have been cases of medication having very long term side effects which were not caught during trials. I’m thinking specifically of something that caused birth defects. I don’t think it is wise to claim so much authority as you have when it is literally impossible to have FULL confidence. Are you going to take responsibility for the 1 in 1 million who reads your comments and goes on to suffer an adverse reaction?
  - _ddzr 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - citizenpaul 5y ago
      Please direct me to the 5 -10 year study on long term effects of the vaccine all knowing armchair general sir.
      - westcort 5y ago
        You are exposed to millions of antigens daily, and almost none are FDA approved. This isn’t at all like a new chemical entity, it is a short-lived antigen that trains your immune system, then goes away. This isn’t 1960, it’s 2021. It’s safe, certainly safer than COVID, and necessary to protect you, your family, your neighbors, and our society.
        citizenpaul 5y ago
        So a deflection it is.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      This position assumes that all harmful side effects are detected, recorded and correctly ascribed to the vaccine. What we see in reality is that "medical professionals" like yourself are loathe to accept that reports of problems could be linked to the vaccine, even if they occur very soon after vaccination. Instead they are routinely ignored or ascribed as coincidences. For instance, the system is still totally ignoring the apparently widespread appearance of menstrual problems in women who have been vaccinated despite it being one of the top reports in VAERS. Female friends of my girlfriend are reporting this problem at a very high rate, yet as far as people like you are concerned it doesn't happen at all. It seems very much like virtually none of the reactions that would intuitively be caused by the vaccine are actually being recorded as such. In that environment your confidence would be severely misplaced.
      - westcort 5y ago
        You are exposed to millions of antigens daily, and almost none are FDA approved. This isn’t at all like a new chemical entity, it is a short-lived antigen that trains your immune system, then goes away. This isn’t 1960, it’s 2021. It’s safe, certainly safer than COVID, and necessary to protect you, your family, your neighbors, and our society. Also, it doesn’t affect fertility.
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    What my one friend, who has a PhD in gene therapy, said is that these vaccines are safe now and in the long-term according to the best scientific knowledge we have at the moment. So I agree, there may be unforeseen ramifications of these vaccines in the future, true. I guess I just also believe there may be unforeseen ramifications in the future of having had covid-19 and I'm placing a bet that it's more likely that a previous covid-19 infection will be worse for me in the future than the mRNA vaccines I got. I have no certainty on it, I don't think anyone does, and it frustrates me sometimes when we don't mention that.
  - logicalmonster 5y ago
    I think you're thinking of Thalidomide. It took the best scientific minds about 5 years to make the connection with it and birth defects. This (admittedly unlikely) chance of long-term problems is one of many reasons that I believe that the vaccines being introduced into a mass audience at this time is the dumbest risk-management decision in the history of humanity.
    - westcort 5y ago
      You are exposed to millions of antigens daily, and almost none are FDA approved. This isn’t at all like a new chemical entity, it is a short-lived antigen that trains your immune system, then goes away. This isn’t 1960, it’s 2021. It’s safe, certainly safer than COVID, and necessary to protect you, your family, your neighbors, and our society.
      - logicalmonster 5y ago
        > it is a short-lived antigen that trains your immune system, then goes away. The injection being "short-lived" is completely irrelevant, as its effects on your body are permanent. As we don't have long-term knowledge of its effects, the (admittedly unlikely) possibility of long-term problems exists until proven otherwise. Feel free to disagree if you want to, but I judge that risk to be a bigger threat to me and society than the comparatively small risk from Covid. > This isn’t 1960, it’s 2021 I'm sure people in the 1950s were saying something similar, perhaps something like, "This isn't the ancient world and we're no longer messing around with leeches or trepanning. We have sophisticated modern laboratories, have modern medicine that has boosted life expectancy tremendously, and man has even harnessed the atom's powers. The days of medical errors are over." Scientists should always be wary of hubris. > It’s safe, certainly safer than COVID, First you say it's safe, then you say it's safer. Which is it? I know how to identify weaselly language when I see it. > and necessary to protect you, your family, your neighbors, and our society. This is a slogan. The risk-management calculation is different for every individual.
        dang 5y ago
        Can you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are? It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
jimkleiber 5y ago
I'm just not sure how the mandate forces people to take a vaccine. Doesn't it say that people don't have to take it but then have to get tested weekly...if they want to stay at a company of over 100 employees? Doesn't that give people lots of options if they want to refuse taking a vaccine? 1) get tested weekly and 2) move to a smaller company are at least two alternatives to a vaccine, no?
- _ddzr 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    I think there's a strong argument to be made for cruel and unusual punishment (or maybe not that but the unfairness of the consequences), as things ratchet up. For me, it seems fair to say people should get tested every week. If it were tested every 5 minutes or had to wear a full hazmat suit, then yes, I think that takes it wayyyy too far and then would be much more upset about it. I guess I just don't see how the current alternatives prohibit people from participating in society. I guess some places say only vaccinated people, but most seem to just require a negative test within the last 72 hours or something.
  - bandyaboot 5y ago
    So the mandate that employers of over 100 people must require them to be vaccinated or tested weekly is bad because eventually those people will have to stop participating in society?
mpyne 5y ago
> Pro-life not pro-tyranny! Forcing people to take a vaccine that was rolled out almost immediately, without due process is not protecting anything. It had 'due process', the same process any other vaccine would receive (including previous vaccines), culminating in an FDA authorization for use. All based on decades of research and 18 months of "shots in arms" data to back it up, when we know after a great deal of experience that vaccine side effects would show up in weeks, not years. That doesn't make the Pfizer vaccine a "silver bullet" but it has not sideswiped due process and there's no additional data to be gained from waiting longer. So we're at the situation where if the courts decide this vaccine mandate is contrary to the public health, no vaccine mandate could be enforced either.
w4zm0ng3r 5y ago
[dead]
westcort 5y ago
Got news for you. You don’t get to drink and drive, you don’t get to yell fire in a theater, and you don’t get to run red lights. Nothing new here but a bunch of cowards afraid of needles and doing anything not mandated by Fox News.
westcort 5y ago
You are exposed to millions of antigens daily, and almost none are FDA approved. This isn’t at all like a new chemical entity, it is a short-lived antigen that trains your immune system, then goes away. This isn’t 1960, it’s 2021. It’s safe, certainly safer than COVID, and necessary to protect you, your family, your neighbors, and our society.

by xil3 5y ago

_ddzr 5y ago

[flagged]

fyhgdet 5y ago
Can’t find it now because google seems to have down ranked it. There have been cases of medication having very long term side effects which were not caught during trials. I’m thinking specifically of something that caused birth defects. I don’t think it is wise to claim so much authority as you have when it is literally impossible to have FULL confidence. Are you going to take responsibility for the 1 in 1 million who reads your comments and goes on to suffer an adverse reaction?
- _ddzr 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - citizenpaul 5y ago
    Please direct me to the 5 -10 year study on long term effects of the vaccine all knowing armchair general sir.
    - westcort 5y ago
      You are exposed to millions of antigens daily, and almost none are FDA approved. This isn’t at all like a new chemical entity, it is a short-lived antigen that trains your immune system, then goes away. This isn’t 1960, it’s 2021. It’s safe, certainly safer than COVID, and necessary to protect you, your family, your neighbors, and our society.
      - citizenpaul 5y ago
        So a deflection it is.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    This position assumes that all harmful side effects are detected, recorded and correctly ascribed to the vaccine. What we see in reality is that "medical professionals" like yourself are loathe to accept that reports of problems could be linked to the vaccine, even if they occur very soon after vaccination. Instead they are routinely ignored or ascribed as coincidences. For instance, the system is still totally ignoring the apparently widespread appearance of menstrual problems in women who have been vaccinated despite it being one of the top reports in VAERS. Female friends of my girlfriend are reporting this problem at a very high rate, yet as far as people like you are concerned it doesn't happen at all. It seems very much like virtually none of the reactions that would intuitively be caused by the vaccine are actually being recorded as such. In that environment your confidence would be severely misplaced.
    - westcort 5y ago
      You are exposed to millions of antigens daily, and almost none are FDA approved. This isn’t at all like a new chemical entity, it is a short-lived antigen that trains your immune system, then goes away. This isn’t 1960, it’s 2021. It’s safe, certainly safer than COVID, and necessary to protect you, your family, your neighbors, and our society. Also, it doesn’t affect fertility.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  What my one friend, who has a PhD in gene therapy, said is that these vaccines are safe now and in the long-term according to the best scientific knowledge we have at the moment. So I agree, there may be unforeseen ramifications of these vaccines in the future, true. I guess I just also believe there may be unforeseen ramifications in the future of having had covid-19 and I'm placing a bet that it's more likely that a previous covid-19 infection will be worse for me in the future than the mRNA vaccines I got. I have no certainty on it, I don't think anyone does, and it frustrates me sometimes when we don't mention that.
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  I think you're thinking of Thalidomide. It took the best scientific minds about 5 years to make the connection with it and birth defects. This (admittedly unlikely) chance of long-term problems is one of many reasons that I believe that the vaccines being introduced into a mass audience at this time is the dumbest risk-management decision in the history of humanity.
  - westcort 5y ago
    You are exposed to millions of antigens daily, and almost none are FDA approved. This isn’t at all like a new chemical entity, it is a short-lived antigen that trains your immune system, then goes away. This isn’t 1960, it’s 2021. It’s safe, certainly safer than COVID, and necessary to protect you, your family, your neighbors, and our society.
    - logicalmonster 5y ago
      > it is a short-lived antigen that trains your immune system, then goes away. The injection being "short-lived" is completely irrelevant, as its effects on your body are permanent. As we don't have long-term knowledge of its effects, the (admittedly unlikely) possibility of long-term problems exists until proven otherwise. Feel free to disagree if you want to, but I judge that risk to be a bigger threat to me and society than the comparatively small risk from Covid. > This isn’t 1960, it’s 2021 I'm sure people in the 1950s were saying something similar, perhaps something like, "This isn't the ancient world and we're no longer messing around with leeches or trepanning. We have sophisticated modern laboratories, have modern medicine that has boosted life expectancy tremendously, and man has even harnessed the atom's powers. The days of medical errors are over." Scientists should always be wary of hubris. > It’s safe, certainly safer than COVID, First you say it's safe, then you say it's safer. Which is it? I know how to identify weaselly language when I see it. > and necessary to protect you, your family, your neighbors, and our society. This is a slogan. The risk-management calculation is different for every individual.
      - dang 5y ago
        Can you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are? It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

jimkleiber 5y ago

I'm just not sure how the mandate forces people to take a vaccine. Doesn't it say that people don't have to take it but then have to get tested weekly...if they want to stay at a company of over 100 employees? Doesn't that give people lots of options if they want to refuse taking a vaccine? 1) get tested weekly and 2) move to a smaller company are at least two alternatives to a vaccine, no?

_ddzr 5y ago
[flagged]
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  I think there's a strong argument to be made for cruel and unusual punishment (or maybe not that but the unfairness of the consequences), as things ratchet up. For me, it seems fair to say people should get tested every week. If it were tested every 5 minutes or had to wear a full hazmat suit, then yes, I think that takes it wayyyy too far and then would be much more upset about it. I guess I just don't see how the current alternatives prohibit people from participating in society. I guess some places say only vaccinated people, but most seem to just require a negative test within the last 72 hours or something.
- bandyaboot 5y ago
  So the mandate that employers of over 100 people must require them to be vaccinated or tested weekly is bad because eventually those people will have to stop participating in society?

mpyne 5y ago

> Pro-life not pro-tyranny! Forcing people to take a vaccine that was rolled out almost immediately, without due process is not protecting anything. It had 'due process', the same process any other vaccine would receive (including previous vaccines), culminating in an FDA authorization for use. All based on decades of research and 18 months of "shots in arms" data to back it up, when we know after a great deal of experience that vaccine side effects would show up in weeks, not years. That doesn't make the Pfizer vaccine a "silver bullet" but it has not sideswiped due process and there's no additional data to be gained from waiting longer. So we're at the situation where if the courts decide this vaccine mandate is contrary to the public health, no vaccine mandate could be enforced either.

w4zm0ng3r 5y ago

[dead]

westcort 5y ago

Got news for you. You don’t get to drink and drive, you don’t get to yell fire in a theater, and you don’t get to run red lights. Nothing new here but a bunch of cowards afraid of needles and doing anything not mandated by Fox News.

westcort 5y ago

You are exposed to millions of antigens daily, and almost none are FDA approved. This isn’t at all like a new chemical entity, it is a short-lived antigen that trains your immune system, then goes away. This isn’t 1960, it’s 2021. It’s safe, certainly safer than COVID, and necessary to protect you, your family, your neighbors, and our society.