17 ms·

Among the Unvaccinated

29 points by holonomically 5y ago

chairman_mao 5y ago
I'm happy to see the the Great Firewall is working on this submission (half of the comments are flagged).
anovikov 5y ago
Nearly every problem in the western societies is a side consequence of freedoms. Soviet Union had none of those! Would i like to go back? No, i'd much rather live with a bunch of these gun-hugging anti-vaxxers in MAGA hats next door. You can opt out of them but it was much harder to opt out of communism.
- Arnt 5y ago
  If they fill the hospitals, you can't really opt out of them when you break a leg. Going unvaccinated wouldn't be a problem except that the unvaccinated and the vaccinated share the same insurance system and the same hospitals.
  - anovikov 5y ago
    It's still a lot better than sharing the same gulag
    - breakyerself 5y ago
      Sounds like a false dichotomy to me
  - NullPrefix 5y ago
    That's sounds like something for the free market to solve.
    - Arnt 5y ago
      Many countries have decided against that, because many of the big transactions involve a customer on a stretcher, in no shape to make an informed decision. Come to think of it, the times when you need a hospital are the times when you're not fit to shop around for options, or a fairly good approximation.
      - NullPrefix 5y ago
        Argument for "same insurance system" part still applies.
        Arnt 5y ago
        That's true. Splitting or opting out of that leaves you with only one shared resource. Given that you still have that shared resource, is changing the other one worthwhile? I have no opinion on that.
    - retrac 5y ago
      You expect the market to budget in a large surplus of ICU beds and anaesthesiologists on the off-chance we need lots of beds in a pandemic? Or are you suggesting bidding war for ICU beds?
  - ABoredBirb 5y ago
    Exactly. And it only gets worse when the hospitals are at capacity with them and people start dying of preventable causes. Wax poetic about freedoms all you want, but public health is not the place for it.
    - lovethyenemy 5y ago
      >Wax poetic about freedoms all you want, but public health is not the place for it. If people are not free to make poor health decisions, when are we going to lockdown Mcdonalds? >An overwhelming majority of people who have been hospitalized, needed a ventilator or died from Covid-19 have been overweight or obese, the CDC said https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughly-78percent-of-people-hospitalized-were-overweight-or-obese.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-ro...
  - fol 5y ago
    I find this to be a deeply flawed argument. Taking the "insurance system and hospitals" as the unchangeable axiom, to which all else must subordinate is either deliberate misdirection or just small thinking. I propose is precisely the insurance and medical systems that need reforming, and if the insane amounts of political effort and money were spent on improving the (DEEPLY flawed) medical systems instead of these flawed vaccine campaigns and coersive measures, I think we would all be in a much better place. (Except maybe for the insurance company / hospital execs)
  - landemva 5y ago
    'share the same...' Classic socialist group think. Private property and economic incentives to start businesses, in say healthcare, can fix this. What about the third category of people who had it, recovered, and can prove it with tests and a Dr. letter? Calling me 'unvaccinated' overlooks the recovered aspect of disease.
0dayz 5y ago
To side step this a bit, I've noticed the same attitude from incels, and the same reaction by the more educated population to these groups (mockery & contempt). All the while having a few even acknowledge most incels are vulnerable men with some form of trauma. Which is similar here too most people dont start bad, its events and experience that changes them.
nickthemagicman 5y ago
This poor guy got bells palsy from the vaccine. And he's healthy 56 years old which is a very low-risk group to begin with. The statistics for a healthy 56 year old dying of C19 are extremely minimal. A healthy politician in Australia appareny also came down with Bell's palsy recently after getting the vaccine. Victor Dominello. "If they talk to me long enough, they notice, even six months later, I still have some lingering symptoms of Bell’s Palsy, which I got following my vaccination. I still have to put drops in my right eye every now and then, still have to drink oddly out of only one side of my mouth. I can’t honestly say there isn’t some minor risk, even though I do add and emphasize, “I would have still gotten vaccinated again. Having my risk of death cut down by 10 times is like, huge man. Worth a few eye drops now and then.” The susceptibility of people to news media fear mongering influencing them to do things directly against their best interest, like injecting experimental medication or the poor voting for less taxes on the rich... will never cease to amaze me. The power of propaganda.
- romanovcode 5y ago
  While there is a link between COVID vaccine and Bell's palsy, in general it seems one would have greater risk of getting Bell's palsy from COVID itself rather than from the vaccine.
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    > greater risk of getting Bell's palsy from COVID itself Maybe if you include all age groups..but in a healthy young person? The oddly flagged thread below has a calculation that shows the possibility that it's worse with references from Jama and Lancet.
  - NullPrefix 5y ago
    >greater risk of getting Bell's palsy from COVID itself rather than from the vaccine Is there any actual science to this?
    - morsch 5y ago
      Here's a place to start: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00467-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... which cites https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/fullarticle/2781368 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/fullarti... among others More generally, Bell's palsy is associated with viral infections of the upper respiratory tract (not limited to covid, and among other things). So it's not surprising that it's a (rare) complication of covid. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/bells-palsy/symptoms-causes/syc-20370028 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/bells-palsy/s...
gfstlll 5y ago
The title is fake news. The article describes a small subset of the unvaccinated, or does the author believe that 33% of Germans for example are remotely like the people he mocks? Poor writing, poor content.
cnbla 5y ago
The piece looks like it was a high school assignment, so I'll be mild. It is an incoherently written propaganda piece that uses weird imagery, ageism (over 50), stereotypes (Trump voters) and anecdotes to vilify the unvaccinated. In reality working doctors, nurses, flight attendants, teachers etc. are unvaccinated and even quit their jobs over the issue. In reality, a large numbers of real anti-vaxxers are woke young treehuggers who believe in healing crystals rather than old deplorable Trump voters. Calling yourself an intellectual in the URL does not make you one.
prohobo 5y ago
This is all very compassionate and well-meaning, but people who aren't vaccinated against COVID aren't all traumatized, uneducated and adhering to their political tribe. Many people haven't taken the vaccinations because they understand that they're not very helpful for them or their community. The COVID vaccines don't work properly and don't last very long. They don't stop transmission, and they're at best mildly protective to the health of people under 50. At worst they might cause heart problems and other unexpected side-effects. In balance, they're mostly superfluous to the health of most people. In what world is it ethical for governments to force untested therapies on people while side-stepping laws that were established to prevent just that? How does it make sense to blatantly coerce people to take the shots, while thinking yourself virtuous and saying you're "just trying to help"? If this was a lifesaving vaccine against a horrible death and a sure-fire way to end the pandemic, it might make sense - but then would coercion and censorship be necessary? Independent cost-benefit analysis reports (as crude as they must be - at least someone is trying to calculate it openly) find that most "anti-COVID" interventions of governments in the past 2 years have killed more people than they've saved. I have no sympathy for people who push the necessity of such interventions, who don't understand that there's a high probability that they might be wrong. No epidemiologist prior to 2019 ever suggested that locking down healthy people was a good idea; and not just because that's not a cool thing to do, but because it doesn't work and it's ultimately harmful. Suddenly, because China did it we all believe it's the best thing to do? In terms of understanding scientific consensus, and trying to "find the truth of the matter", the first most basic and crucial rule is to NOT accept conflicts of interest. All governments "encouraging" the COVID vaccinations are locked into contracts with Pfizer, Moderna, etc. for the next 5-10 years. They espouse the scientific assertions of those companies and outright censor scientific assertions that contradict them. To trust them despite this, is sheer stupidity. How many times does this need to be repeated until it gets through to people? Do we really need to repeat the atrocities of the past, over and over again? This is all a sad joke. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc. etc.; why not actually understand the problem before trying to solve it? Has there been honest cost-benefit analysis? No one needs melancholic condescension, we need appropriate solutions that work. Not coming to terms with this, and feeling sad about the poor stupid people who didn't make the same decision you did doesn't make you virtuous or helpful; it makes you a useful idiot. I don't say that as an insult, it's a socio-political phenomenon that enables all of the dumbest and most dangerous societal "decisions" throughout history. You want to save lives and end the emergency? Start ventilating indoor areas properly, start expanding healthcare infrastructure to deal with surges, start encouraging people to have healthy lifestyles, start developing proper vaccines (if that's even currently possible, considering the weakness of Flu vaccines), start developing therapies for helping those who become sick, stop locking down healthy people, stop restricting people's ability to make money and live their lives.
nickthemagicman 5y ago
"If they talk to me long enough, they notice, even six months later, I still have some lingering symptoms of Bell’s Palsy, which I got following my vaccination. I still have to put drops in my right eye every now and then, still have to drink oddly out of only one side of my mouth. I can’t honestly say there isn’t some minor risk, even though I do add and emphasize, “I would have still gotten vaccinated again. Having my risk of death cut down by 10 times is like, huge man. Worth a few eye drops now and then.”

29 points by holonomically 5y ago

I'm happy to see the the Great Firewall is working on this submission (half of the comments are flagged).

Nearly every problem in the western societies is a side consequence of freedoms. Soviet Union had none of those! Would i like to go back? No, i'd much rather live with a bunch of these gun-hugging anti-vaxxers in MAGA hats next door. You can opt out of them but it was much harder to opt out of communism.

Arnt 5y ago
If they fill the hospitals, you can't really opt out of them when you break a leg. Going unvaccinated wouldn't be a problem except that the unvaccinated and the vaccinated share the same insurance system and the same hospitals.
- anovikov 5y ago
  It's still a lot better than sharing the same gulag
  - breakyerself 5y ago
    Sounds like a false dichotomy to me
- NullPrefix 5y ago
  That's sounds like something for the free market to solve.
  - Arnt 5y ago
    Many countries have decided against that, because many of the big transactions involve a customer on a stretcher, in no shape to make an informed decision. Come to think of it, the times when you need a hospital are the times when you're not fit to shop around for options, or a fairly good approximation.
    - NullPrefix 5y ago
      Argument for "same insurance system" part still applies.
      - Arnt 5y ago
        That's true. Splitting or opting out of that leaves you with only one shared resource. Given that you still have that shared resource, is changing the other one worthwhile? I have no opinion on that.
  - retrac 5y ago
    You expect the market to budget in a large surplus of ICU beds and anaesthesiologists on the off-chance we need lots of beds in a pandemic? Or are you suggesting bidding war for ICU beds?
- ABoredBirb 5y ago
  Exactly. And it only gets worse when the hospitals are at capacity with them and people start dying of preventable causes. Wax poetic about freedoms all you want, but public health is not the place for it.
  - lovethyenemy 5y ago
    >Wax poetic about freedoms all you want, but public health is not the place for it. If people are not free to make poor health decisions, when are we going to lockdown Mcdonalds? >An overwhelming majority of people who have been hospitalized, needed a ventilator or died from Covid-19 have been overweight or obese, the CDC said https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughly-78percent-of-people-hospitalized-were-overweight-or-obese.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-ro...
- fol 5y ago
  I find this to be a deeply flawed argument. Taking the "insurance system and hospitals" as the unchangeable axiom, to which all else must subordinate is either deliberate misdirection or just small thinking. I propose is precisely the insurance and medical systems that need reforming, and if the insane amounts of political effort and money were spent on improving the (DEEPLY flawed) medical systems instead of these flawed vaccine campaigns and coersive measures, I think we would all be in a much better place. (Except maybe for the insurance company / hospital execs)
- landemva 5y ago
  'share the same...' Classic socialist group think. Private property and economic incentives to start businesses, in say healthcare, can fix this. What about the third category of people who had it, recovered, and can prove it with tests and a Dr. letter? Calling me 'unvaccinated' overlooks the recovered aspect of disease.

0dayz 5y ago

To side step this a bit, I've noticed the same attitude from incels, and the same reaction by the more educated population to these groups (mockery & contempt). All the while having a few even acknowledge most incels are vulnerable men with some form of trauma. Which is similar here too most people dont start bad, its events and experience that changes them.

nickthemagicman 5y ago

This poor guy got bells palsy from the vaccine. And he's healthy 56 years old which is a very low-risk group to begin with. The statistics for a healthy 56 year old dying of C19 are extremely minimal. A healthy politician in Australia appareny also came down with Bell's palsy recently after getting the vaccine. Victor Dominello. "If they talk to me long enough, they notice, even six months later, I still have some lingering symptoms of Bell’s Palsy, which I got following my vaccination. I still have to put drops in my right eye every now and then, still have to drink oddly out of only one side of my mouth. I can’t honestly say there isn’t some minor risk, even though I do add and emphasize, “I would have still gotten vaccinated again. Having my risk of death cut down by 10 times is like, huge man. Worth a few eye drops now and then.” The susceptibility of people to news media fear mongering influencing them to do things directly against their best interest, like injecting experimental medication or the poor voting for less taxes on the rich... will never cease to amaze me. The power of propaganda.

romanovcode 5y ago
While there is a link between COVID vaccine and Bell's palsy, in general it seems one would have greater risk of getting Bell's palsy from COVID itself rather than from the vaccine.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  > greater risk of getting Bell's palsy from COVID itself Maybe if you include all age groups..but in a healthy young person? The oddly flagged thread below has a calculation that shows the possibility that it's worse with references from Jama and Lancet.
- NullPrefix 5y ago
  >greater risk of getting Bell's palsy from COVID itself rather than from the vaccine Is there any actual science to this?
  - morsch 5y ago
    Here's a place to start: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00467-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... which cites https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/fullarticle/2781368 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaotolaryngology/fullarti... among others More generally, Bell's palsy is associated with viral infections of the upper respiratory tract (not limited to covid, and among other things). So it's not surprising that it's a (rare) complication of covid. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/bells-palsy/symptoms-causes/syc-20370028 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/bells-palsy/s...

gfstlll 5y ago

The title is fake news. The article describes a small subset of the unvaccinated, or does the author believe that 33% of Germans for example are remotely like the people he mocks? Poor writing, poor content.

cnbla 5y ago

The piece looks like it was a high school assignment, so I'll be mild. It is an incoherently written propaganda piece that uses weird imagery, ageism (over 50), stereotypes (Trump voters) and anecdotes to vilify the unvaccinated. In reality working doctors, nurses, flight attendants, teachers etc. are unvaccinated and even quit their jobs over the issue. In reality, a large numbers of real anti-vaxxers are woke young treehuggers who believe in healing crystals rather than old deplorable Trump voters. Calling yourself an intellectual in the URL does not make you one.

prohobo 5y ago

This is all very compassionate and well-meaning, but people who aren't vaccinated against COVID aren't all traumatized, uneducated and adhering to their political tribe. Many people haven't taken the vaccinations because they understand that they're not very helpful for them or their community. The COVID vaccines don't work properly and don't last very long. They don't stop transmission, and they're at best mildly protective to the health of people under 50. At worst they might cause heart problems and other unexpected side-effects. In balance, they're mostly superfluous to the health of most people. In what world is it ethical for governments to force untested therapies on people while side-stepping laws that were established to prevent just that? How does it make sense to blatantly coerce people to take the shots, while thinking yourself virtuous and saying you're "just trying to help"? If this was a lifesaving vaccine against a horrible death and a sure-fire way to end the pandemic, it might make sense - but then would coercion and censorship be necessary? Independent cost-benefit analysis reports (as crude as they must be - at least someone is trying to calculate it openly) find that most "anti-COVID" interventions of governments in the past 2 years have killed more people than they've saved. I have no sympathy for people who push the necessity of such interventions, who don't understand that there's a high probability that they might be wrong. No epidemiologist prior to 2019 ever suggested that locking down healthy people was a good idea; and not just because that's not a cool thing to do, but because it doesn't work and it's ultimately harmful. Suddenly, because China did it we all believe it's the best thing to do? In terms of understanding scientific consensus, and trying to "find the truth of the matter", the first most basic and crucial rule is to NOT accept conflicts of interest. All governments "encouraging" the COVID vaccinations are locked into contracts with Pfizer, Moderna, etc. for the next 5-10 years. They espouse the scientific assertions of those companies and outright censor scientific assertions that contradict them. To trust them despite this, is sheer stupidity. How many times does this need to be repeated until it gets through to people? Do we really need to repeat the atrocities of the past, over and over again? This is all a sad joke. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc. etc.; why not actually understand the problem before trying to solve it? Has there been honest cost-benefit analysis? No one needs melancholic condescension, we need appropriate solutions that work. Not coming to terms with this, and feeling sad about the poor stupid people who didn't make the same decision you did doesn't make you virtuous or helpful; it makes you a useful idiot. I don't say that as an insult, it's a socio-political phenomenon that enables all of the dumbest and most dangerous societal "decisions" throughout history. You want to save lives and end the emergency? Start ventilating indoor areas properly, start expanding healthcare infrastructure to deal with surges, start encouraging people to have healthy lifestyles, start developing proper vaccines (if that's even currently possible, considering the weakness of Flu vaccines), start developing therapies for helping those who become sick, stop locking down healthy people, stop restricting people's ability to make money and live their lives.

nickthemagicman 5y ago

"If they talk to me long enough, they notice, even six months later, I still have some lingering symptoms of Bell’s Palsy, which I got following my vaccination. I still have to put drops in my right eye every now and then, still have to drink oddly out of only one side of my mouth. I can’t honestly say there isn’t some minor risk, even though I do add and emphasize, “I would have still gotten vaccinated again. Having my risk of death cut down by 10 times is like, huge man. Worth a few eye drops now and then.”