4 ms·

My thoughts exactly. Why suffer through 1-2 days of sickness every 6 months to protect myself against an illness that I've already had and poses no threat to my

My thoughts exactly. Why suffer through 1-2 days of sickness every 6 months to protect myself against an illness that I've already had and poses no threat to my demographic anyway? Sounds like the cure is worse than the disease. I smell a rat.

junon 5y ago
Because it reduces spread and thus reduces the chance of mutations becoming dominant. The vaccine is not only about protecting the individual.
- swader999 5y ago
  It doesn't reduce spread in a significant enough amount to make a difference. This seems especially true with Omicron and the spread through vaccinated air travellers. It encourages mutating variants to escape/prevail because it reduces severity so you are more likely to function socially and keep spreading it.
  - junon 5y ago
    > It doesn't reduce spread in a significant enough amount to make a difference Yes, it does. > This seems especially true with Omicron and the spread through vaccinated air travellers. Nobody knows yet. We don't have enough data. Anyone who says something definitive about Omicron is either basing it off of a small amount of early data, or is lying to you. Things like infection rate, hospitalization and death are all lagging indicators. We do not have enough data to make such assertions yet. > It encourages mutating variants to escape/prevail because it reduces severity so you are more likely to function socially and keep spreading it. This we agree on - which is why vaccination is so important. It does reduce spread. Not sure where you got the idea it does not. --- E (to the person who responded to me): Your response was flagged and dead before I even came back to look, so it wasn't me. Nice try calling me "cowardly" though. The vaccine does reduce spread of the virus(es) it is made for. That statement had little to do with omicron. My second point about assertions still stands. I don't think my comment was that hard to decipher, and certainly didn't warrant calling me names. Being purposefully obtuse about relatively simple concepts is generally not well received on HN. Perhaps that's why you were immediately flagged.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      >Yes, it does. >Anyone who says something definitive about Omicron is either basing it off of a small amount of early data, or is lying to you. So which is it for you? You seem to understand that a small amount of early data isn't enough to gain certainty, and since you say "yes it does" without acknowledging any uncertainty, I'm going to go with you've chose the "lying to you" option. Edit: Props to the cowardly act that flagged rather than face the hypocrisy.
    - notch656a 5y ago
      OK so you're now clarifying: >The vaccine does reduce spread of the virus(es) it is made for. That statement had little to do with omicron. I appreciate you backtracking and admitting it would be hypocritical for you to state the vaccine reduces the spread of Omicron in significant enough amount to make a difference, since you admitted yourself it would be a lie to say it with certainty or a presumption made on limited data. I stand by the flagging, wherever it came from was cowardly, especially since as a green account I can't flag back. I did not name you out for it specifically, so you can drop the victim act. The world doesn't revolve around you bro, if I call the act of flagging my comment cowardly you don't have to presume it was directed at you unless you did it yourself. Calling an act cowardly isn't name calling, because it describes an act not a person, but I understand you're fired up to play yourself the victim. But it's really suspicious you make such a big deal of the cowardly description I called out for the flagger, when you claim you didn't flag at all. Being obtuse is talking about omicron, then saying "yes it does" stop the spread, and then confronted with your own statements you go "but nuh uh, I wasn't talking about omicron." Come to think of it, calling someone obtuse when you think name calling is inappropriate might make you a hypocrite again, not that it means anything to you.

junon 5y ago

Because it reduces spread and thus reduces the chance of mutations becoming dominant. The vaccine is not only about protecting the individual.

swader999 5y ago
It doesn't reduce spread in a significant enough amount to make a difference. This seems especially true with Omicron and the spread through vaccinated air travellers. It encourages mutating variants to escape/prevail because it reduces severity so you are more likely to function socially and keep spreading it.
- junon 5y ago
  > It doesn't reduce spread in a significant enough amount to make a difference Yes, it does. > This seems especially true with Omicron and the spread through vaccinated air travellers. Nobody knows yet. We don't have enough data. Anyone who says something definitive about Omicron is either basing it off of a small amount of early data, or is lying to you. Things like infection rate, hospitalization and death are all lagging indicators. We do not have enough data to make such assertions yet. > It encourages mutating variants to escape/prevail because it reduces severity so you are more likely to function socially and keep spreading it. This we agree on - which is why vaccination is so important. It does reduce spread. Not sure where you got the idea it does not. --- E (to the person who responded to me): Your response was flagged and dead before I even came back to look, so it wasn't me. Nice try calling me "cowardly" though. The vaccine does reduce spread of the virus(es) it is made for. That statement had little to do with omicron. My second point about assertions still stands. I don't think my comment was that hard to decipher, and certainly didn't warrant calling me names. Being purposefully obtuse about relatively simple concepts is generally not well received on HN. Perhaps that's why you were immediately flagged.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    >Yes, it does. >Anyone who says something definitive about Omicron is either basing it off of a small amount of early data, or is lying to you. So which is it for you? You seem to understand that a small amount of early data isn't enough to gain certainty, and since you say "yes it does" without acknowledging any uncertainty, I'm going to go with you've chose the "lying to you" option. Edit: Props to the cowardly act that flagged rather than face the hypocrisy.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    OK so you're now clarifying: >The vaccine does reduce spread of the virus(es) it is made for. That statement had little to do with omicron. I appreciate you backtracking and admitting it would be hypocritical for you to state the vaccine reduces the spread of Omicron in significant enough amount to make a difference, since you admitted yourself it would be a lie to say it with certainty or a presumption made on limited data. I stand by the flagging, wherever it came from was cowardly, especially since as a green account I can't flag back. I did not name you out for it specifically, so you can drop the victim act. The world doesn't revolve around you bro, if I call the act of flagging my comment cowardly you don't have to presume it was directed at you unless you did it yourself. Calling an act cowardly isn't name calling, because it describes an act not a person, but I understand you're fired up to play yourself the victim. But it's really suspicious you make such a big deal of the cowardly description I called out for the flagger, when you claim you didn't flag at all. Being obtuse is talking about omicron, then saying "yes it does" stop the spread, and then confronted with your own statements you go "but nuh uh, I wasn't talking about omicron." Come to think of it, calling someone obtuse when you think name calling is inappropriate might make you a hypocrite again, not that it means anything to you.