4 ms·

Comparing it to discrimination based on skin color seems extremely disingenuous. I don't care if you get vaccinated; but I also recognize that your are making

Comparing it to discrimination based on skin color seems extremely disingenuous. I don't care if you get vaccinated; but I also recognize that your are making a suboptimal choice, based on available data, if you don't.

fuckyah 5y ago
Wrong, the available data shows, that the vaccines do not significantly reduce spread, and only offer a individual protection for several months.
thepangolino 5y ago
What a lot of people seem to miss is the amount of discrimination the covid passports being generalised are enabling. I pitty those with too etnic names.
eganist 5y ago
> I don't care if you get vaccinated, but I also recognize that your are making a suboptimal choice, based on available data, if you don't. The [dead] comments in reply to yours seem to imply that choosing to refuse a vaccine (without a sound medical reason to do so, e.g allergies) isn't a choice, which is how they — and I assume millions of others — justify the comparison to racism. It is, of course, ludicrous on its face as traits such as race are in fact truly immutable, whereas a decision whether or not to vaccinate is certainly subject to change up until onset of illness leading to death.
- tyleo 5y ago
  This is a very charitable reading of the [dead] comments. In spite of that, I think I agree with your final point: “It is, of course, ludicrous on its face as traits such as race are in fact truly immutable, whereas a decision whether or not to vaccinate is certainly subject to change up until onset of illness leading to death.”
  - eganist 5y ago
    In fairness, I only skimmed them and didn't really give them the time of day. You know, [dead] and all.
- laverya 5y ago
  Perhaps a better comparison should be discrimination on the basis of religion, then.
uxp100 5y ago
If you get vaccinated is a choice heavily correlated to skin color, at least in my neck of the woods. Less than 40% of black men are vaccinated here, and conspiracies that covid-19 was created by Israel so that they could create the vaccine so that they could sterilize black men are aired on the radio. (There was an anti vax program and a pro vax program, but like, what could some moderate pastor say to respond to that? I don’t think that’s true?)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bluecalm 5y ago
  Just because more black men around there are dumb doesn't mean it's racist policy to stigmatize dumb choices.
  - dang 5y ago
    Please review the site guidelines and don't post flamebait to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - bluecalm 5y ago
      I am sorry if you interpreted it as a flamebait. I just pointed out a sadly very common reasoning error using the data parent provided (that in their area black people make very bad choices when it comes to vaccines). The error is so common in public discourse it's worth pointing out every time as it makes discussion hard as it can always be killed by quoting a stat implying the other side is racist.
      - dang 5y ago
        It was obvious flamebait. You may have had a more nuanced intention in your head, but those don't communicate themselves—the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=disambiguate%20burden%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). The kind of thing you did post is statistically highly likely to turn into a nasty flamewar, so please don't do it again. Your reply here contains some of the same, though not quite as bad. Please edit this sort of flamebait swipe out of your HN posts in the future.
sjwalter 5y ago
> suboptimal choice According to you. Lots of decisions in life involve many factors. Ever get a job offer in a new city with more pay when you love your current job? So many things to consider, so many variables, means there's no "optimal" and universal decision. Your optimal is not someone else's. In this case there are plenty of factors. Personal ones like: * Have you already had and recovered from covid giving you far superior immunity than the short-term shot-based immunity? * Are you likely to encounter covid if you rarely encounter many other humans in a rural location? * Are you someone with high-risk of covid complication or not? That is, are you fit and healthy and young or old or fat or sickly? * Do you encounter regularly people who are more vulnerable like grandparents or fat people? Then less personal concerns, like how well you understand pharmaceutical dev. Three brand-spankin' new vaccine technologies with zero long-term safety data. (Sure the news says "PERFECTLY SAFE AND EFFECTIVE!" but we all know we can't know that--but we all have different perceptions of risk and risk tolerances.) Etc. Etc. So engineer-y to just say, "Yes, I've boiled down the situation, here's the optimal solution."
- tommit 5y ago
  > * Have you already had and recovered from covid giving you far superior immunity than the short-term shot-based immunity? This one is fair > * Are you likely to encounter covid if you rarely encounter many other humans in a rural location? If you never leave your farm ... I don't care. If you tend to mingle with other people even sometimes, I'd already consider it pretty reckless. > * Are you someone with high-risk of covid complication or not? That is, are you fit and healthy and young or old or fat or sickly? This one tires me out a bit because it's been a pandemic for a while now, but it's not only yourself you are protecting by getting the shot. > * Do you encounter regularly people who are more vulnerable like grandparents or fat people? Again, even if you sometimes encounter vulnerable people, you should go ahead and get the shot. What exactly is the measurement here? "Oh, I cross paths with a maximum of five old people and eight overweight people a month. That's too little to care about." IMO, all points following your first one are not good reasons to not get the shot. Regarding the "less personal concerns", how many more shots does the rest need to get for people to stop screaming long-term safety data? Do you honestly believe that only a fraction of the people wanting to see the "long-term studies" have any idea how pharmaceutical developments usually function? What constitutes as long term? How many more times do we need to point out that no vaccine ever had any side-effects on a multi-year scale? So yes, there may be a couple factors to consider, but most of what you listed shouldn't fly as an actual factor. It may be very engineer-y to say they have analyzed the situation and found the optimal solution, but I 100% understand where they are coming from. Idk man, I'm tired.
eqvinox 5y ago
Vaccination-based "discrimination" is not discrimination at all. Discrimination can only happen based on factors beyond your control. You can't control your skin color. You can't control your gender, sexual preferences, country of origin, etc. either. Not getting the vaccine is a choice. Choices have consequences. This logic also dictates further scenarios: - vaccine not available to everyone? ⇒ yes, distinguishing on vaccination status would be discrimination since you may not have the choice. - vaccine required or forbidden by law? ⇒ yes, now things get really complicated. Especially if you travel elsewhere with different rules.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > Discrimination can only happen based on factors beyond your control. What about religious discrimination, since converting to a new religion is possible?
  - eqvinox 5y ago
    That's one for the philosophers that I'm not gonna touch with a 10ft pole. [Ed.: to clarify, "sensible" arguments can be made either way, and I'm not sure it's easily decidable.]

fuckyah 5y ago

Wrong, the available data shows, that the vaccines do not significantly reduce spread, and only offer a individual protection for several months.

thepangolino 5y ago

What a lot of people seem to miss is the amount of discrimination the covid passports being generalised are enabling. I pitty those with too etnic names.

eganist 5y ago

> I don't care if you get vaccinated, but I also recognize that your are making a suboptimal choice, based on available data, if you don't. The [dead] comments in reply to yours seem to imply that choosing to refuse a vaccine (without a sound medical reason to do so, e.g allergies) isn't a choice, which is how they — and I assume millions of others — justify the comparison to racism. It is, of course, ludicrous on its face as traits such as race are in fact truly immutable, whereas a decision whether or not to vaccinate is certainly subject to change up until onset of illness leading to death.

tyleo 5y ago
This is a very charitable reading of the [dead] comments. In spite of that, I think I agree with your final point: “It is, of course, ludicrous on its face as traits such as race are in fact truly immutable, whereas a decision whether or not to vaccinate is certainly subject to change up until onset of illness leading to death.”
- eganist 5y ago
  In fairness, I only skimmed them and didn't really give them the time of day. You know, [dead] and all.
laverya 5y ago
Perhaps a better comparison should be discrimination on the basis of religion, then.

uxp100 5y ago

If you get vaccinated is a choice heavily correlated to skin color, at least in my neck of the woods. Less than 40% of black men are vaccinated here, and conspiracies that covid-19 was created by Israel so that they could create the vaccine so that they could sterilize black men are aired on the radio. (There was an anti vax program and a pro vax program, but like, what could some moderate pastor say to respond to that? I don’t think that’s true?)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bluecalm 5y ago
Just because more black men around there are dumb doesn't mean it's racist policy to stigmatize dumb choices.
- dang 5y ago
  Please review the site guidelines and don't post flamebait to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - bluecalm 5y ago
    I am sorry if you interpreted it as a flamebait. I just pointed out a sadly very common reasoning error using the data parent provided (that in their area black people make very bad choices when it comes to vaccines). The error is so common in public discourse it's worth pointing out every time as it makes discussion hard as it can always be killed by quoting a stat implying the other side is racist.
    - dang 5y ago
      It was obvious flamebait. You may have had a more nuanced intention in your head, but those don't communicate themselves—the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=disambiguate%20burden%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). The kind of thing you did post is statistically highly likely to turn into a nasty flamewar, so please don't do it again. Your reply here contains some of the same, though not quite as bad. Please edit this sort of flamebait swipe out of your HN posts in the future.

sjwalter 5y ago

> suboptimal choice According to you. Lots of decisions in life involve many factors. Ever get a job offer in a new city with more pay when you love your current job? So many things to consider, so many variables, means there's no "optimal" and universal decision. Your optimal is not someone else's. In this case there are plenty of factors. Personal ones like: * Have you already had and recovered from covid giving you far superior immunity than the short-term shot-based immunity? * Are you likely to encounter covid if you rarely encounter many other humans in a rural location? * Are you someone with high-risk of covid complication or not? That is, are you fit and healthy and young or old or fat or sickly? * Do you encounter regularly people who are more vulnerable like grandparents or fat people? Then less personal concerns, like how well you understand pharmaceutical dev. Three brand-spankin' new vaccine technologies with zero long-term safety data. (Sure the news says "PERFECTLY SAFE AND EFFECTIVE!" but we all know we can't know that--but we all have different perceptions of risk and risk tolerances.) Etc. Etc. So engineer-y to just say, "Yes, I've boiled down the situation, here's the optimal solution."

tommit 5y ago
> * Have you already had and recovered from covid giving you far superior immunity than the short-term shot-based immunity? This one is fair > * Are you likely to encounter covid if you rarely encounter many other humans in a rural location? If you never leave your farm ... I don't care. If you tend to mingle with other people even sometimes, I'd already consider it pretty reckless. > * Are you someone with high-risk of covid complication or not? That is, are you fit and healthy and young or old or fat or sickly? This one tires me out a bit because it's been a pandemic for a while now, but it's not only yourself you are protecting by getting the shot. > * Do you encounter regularly people who are more vulnerable like grandparents or fat people? Again, even if you sometimes encounter vulnerable people, you should go ahead and get the shot. What exactly is the measurement here? "Oh, I cross paths with a maximum of five old people and eight overweight people a month. That's too little to care about." IMO, all points following your first one are not good reasons to not get the shot. Regarding the "less personal concerns", how many more shots does the rest need to get for people to stop screaming long-term safety data? Do you honestly believe that only a fraction of the people wanting to see the "long-term studies" have any idea how pharmaceutical developments usually function? What constitutes as long term? How many more times do we need to point out that no vaccine ever had any side-effects on a multi-year scale? So yes, there may be a couple factors to consider, but most of what you listed shouldn't fly as an actual factor. It may be very engineer-y to say they have analyzed the situation and found the optimal solution, but I 100% understand where they are coming from. Idk man, I'm tired.

eqvinox 5y ago

Vaccination-based "discrimination" is not discrimination at all. Discrimination can only happen based on factors beyond your control. You can't control your skin color. You can't control your gender, sexual preferences, country of origin, etc. either. Not getting the vaccine is a choice. Choices have consequences. This logic also dictates further scenarios: - vaccine not available to everyone? ⇒ yes, distinguishing on vaccination status would be discrimination since you may not have the choice. - vaccine required or forbidden by law? ⇒ yes, now things get really complicated. Especially if you travel elsewhere with different rules.

josephcsible 5y ago
> Discrimination can only happen based on factors beyond your control. What about religious discrimination, since converting to a new religion is possible?
- eqvinox 5y ago
  That's one for the philosophers that I'm not gonna touch with a 10ft pole. [Ed.: to clarify, "sensible" arguments can be made either way, and I'm not sure it's easily decidable.]