9 ms·

I have a friend who is allergic to many vaccines. A bad reaction as a kid led to him needing years of rehab. He's also high risk for Covid. He's pro-vaccine in

I have a friend who is allergic to many vaccines. A bad reaction as a kid led to him needing years of rehab. He's also high risk for Covid. He's pro-vaccine in general I guess I should add, but his doctor told him to not get the covid shots because the risk was too high Whenever I mention that it's cruel to exclude people like him from society, due to vaccine requirements, when people like him are presumably what all these rules were meant to protect, a little mob came together to denounce the idea and say that he absolutely should never be allowed in public again. Almost everybody was safe from covid -- it was a handful of high risk people who we were trying to protect. In theory. But instead, all the low risk people wanted to throw the high risk people under the bus to save themselves. Eg, healthy people couldn't go to movie theatres, but my grandma's care home had outbreak after outbreak, with no resources spared to isolate people like her. Or an other friend who was high risk, but worked in retail -- zero resources available to keep her away from all the sick people (this was back before everyone was quadruple vaxed). It was disgusting

epgui 4y ago
I'm deadly allergic to eggs, and the only flu vaccine easily available to me is made with eggs, so I don't take it. There are many other medically valid reasons to not take a vaccine. There are even some (a very small number) of people whose religious convictions are a valid reason to get an exemption. The issue is that the overwhelming majority (>99%) of people who choose not to vaccinate, do so for bad reasons, which amounts to making an uninformed medical decision, and one that adversely impacts other people in addition to themselves. These people are what the controversy is actually about. Anyone bullying people who have medical issues is a bad person and needs to chill.
- falcolas 4y ago
  More importantly, their uninformed medical decision disproportionally hurts the minority groups you called out above. It's not the vaccinated population who I'm concerned about, but those who have legitimate medical reasons to not take the vaccine.
  - epgui 4y ago
    Agreed.
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  The issue is that the overwhelming majority (>99%) of people who choose not to vaccinate, do so for bad reasons, which amounts to making an uninformed medical decision, and one that adversely impacts other people in addition to themselves. These people are what the controversy is actually about. I really don't think that's what is going on. I used to be on an antivax list (for unrelated reasons -- I am not an antivaxxer) and these were people with serious health problems and loved ones with serious health problems who had been treated terribly by extended family, the medical system, etc. and they were desperate to be heard by someone who believed them that "This vaccine is a real and serious problem for me/my loved ones!" and the "nutters" were the only ones giving them any support. I didn't get a proper diagnosis for my condition until my mid thirties. I was treated like a hypochondriac before that, among other things. Not everyone is fortunate to know what their medical issue is yet. Many people who have real issues with vaccines simply don't know a good means to argue for their right to use their own best judgement, make their own medical decisions and try to take care of themselves and they turn to whatever "support" systems they can find, which aren't always a good means to achieve their ends.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    Yes, it's important to not deprecate individuals' personal informed good faith opinions in favor of the top-down overprescriptive medical system. But this concern doesn't apply to the main contingent of unvaccinated, either. The sheer majority of the vaccine hesitant have had their head pumped full of nonsense by the anti-American narratives of Fox News and its ilk, then validated by Facebook. The common refrain isn't one of not being able to get vaccinated for any specific medical concern. Rather in the best case it falls back to ambiguous FUD, and often involves group identity and not giving in to those other people. And yes, it sucks that the legitimately unvaccinated can get lumped in with those adding to a public health problem as some misguided political statement. As a libertarian, I'm personally quite frustrated at the damage they've done to the general concept of freedom. But that's all the more reason to call it out for the anti-rationality that it is, rather than letting them continue to burn goodwill towards legitimate good faith points by hiding behind them in bad faith.
    - 4y ago
- adamiscool8 4y ago
  In my age+health cohort, the known and documented risks of the vaccines outweigh the known risks of COVID-19, but you assume “bad reasons” because it’s not a religious objection or medical contraindication. What makes your risk calculus any more valid than mine? I would go so far as to say it’s anti-science to lump 99% of the vaccine rejectors as “uninformed”. I’d venture the average mechanistic knowledge of these products is higher than in the rejectors than in the vaccinated set.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    You have a 1/100000 chance of a usually minor condition. Some have a 1/10 chance of dying from COVID. It's your right to avoid the vaccine. It's also moral to prevent you from mixing with the elderly.
    - TrevorJ 4y ago
      Good point, and now that we know the vaccines don't prevent transmission, the same goes for the vaccinated I suppose.
      - epgui 4y ago
        They do prevent transmission. God, I wish misinformation would not spread so easily. (Edit: I'm a biochemist, merely relaying a consensus position, in my area of expertise, and getting downvoted. Nice.)
        TOMDM 4y ago
        If we're being specific, they reduce transmission, they don't wholesale prevent it. My frustration is people will look at "decreases mortality by xx%" or "decreases spread by y%" and conclude that it's not worth taking even when the risks are slim to non existent. Hacker News is a place where we talk about billion dollar industries that are built on someone doing something 2% better than the other guy, but all that reason goes out the window when it comes to healthcare and it's killing hundreds of thousands of people.
hackerlight 4y ago
> a little mob came together to denounce the idea and say that he absolutely should never be allowed in public again. Emphasis on "little", I suppose? This sounds like a strawman. I don't think many would have argued that someone with a legitimate medical reason to not get vaccinated should be excluded from anything.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  How would it even come to be known? If I was allergic to a vaccine and someone asked me about my vaccines I would say "I have taken every vaccine I am able to" or something like that. Exclusion of the willingly unvaccinated is possible and widespread mainly because such people are surprisingly vocal and bring up the topic without prompting.
- mike_hearn 4y ago
  Very few argued that, but it's what happened. Recall that COVID unvaccinated non-citizens still may not enter the USA for any reason.
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    False. Children, people traveling for emergencies, and anyone medically unable to take the vaccine may travel to the U.S. without it.
    - TrevorJ 4y ago
      It sounds good, but I can tell you from experience that getting the exception on medical grounds is quite difficult, even with pretty incontrovertible reasons. Doctors were very much pressured to not put their career on the line and would rather sweep you under the rug.
  - poizan42 4y ago
    One of the exceptions from the vaccine requirement listed on https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/proof-of-vaccination.html#noncitizen https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/proof-of... is: "Persons with documented medical contraindications to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine"
alsetmusic 4y ago
> Whenever I mention that it's cruel to exclude people like him from society, due to vaccine requirements I know that I’ve only advocated for people who are voluntarily unvaxxed, but medically eligible, face increased scrutiny. I would never suggest anything of the sort for your friend. That’d be like discriminating against someone who requires a wheelchair or cannot see.
- TrevorJ 4y ago
  I think that's reasonable. It's a shame this viewpoint was almost totally absent from the discussion over the last few years. Incredibly disappointing.
- yucky 4y ago
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
I'd assumed that such people got medical exemptions in most countries: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-covid-pass#if-you-are-unable-to-get-vaccinated-for-medical-reasons https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-covid-pass#if-you-are-unable... But maybe all the people respondng to your comments online where from nations that didn't do this.
SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> Whenever I mention that it's cruel to exclude people like him from society, Your friend was at higher risk from COVID due to to their medical condition. It might be cruel to ask them to reduce their social interaction, but many medical conditions are like that. Their feelings don't change the problem or reduce the risk. It does does not seem to be completely unfounded.
- chrismcb 4y ago
  I think there is a difference between asking someone to reduce their social interaction and forcing them to reduce their social interaction
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    > there is a difference between asking someone to reduce their social interaction and forcing them Is there a difference? In what sense? What distinction is a virus going to make? A virus doesn't see that difference in motivation, it just sees warm cells. What difference would this distinction make to the epidemiology and public health? None. If you're going to argue the ethical "personal freedom" sense only, then like with smoking in public and my personal freedom to not inhale second-hand smoke, you're going to have to take into account the ethical dimension of saving lives and not transmitting disease to innocent bystanders. In both cases we breath the same air. A "personal freedom only" approach to public heath when we breath the same air is, and always will be, laughably unworkable: it's simply a category error, the wrong tool. If the COVID pandemic hasn't made that clear then I don't know what will.
    - t0bia_s 4y ago
      So... Should we ban alcohol, tobacco, cars and force everyone to wear helmets? Sometimes is just better to not pretend that we are immortal. We forget how to live under the hood of fear from death.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
lamontcg 4y ago
> I have a friend who is allergic to many vaccines. A bad reaction as a kid led to him needing years of rehab. He's also high risk for Covid. He's pro-vaccine in general I guess I should add, but his doctor told him to not get the covid shots because the risk was too high Has your friend asked another doctor for a second opinion? It is unlikely that anyone who is allergic to prior vaccines would be allergic to the mRNA vaccines. There is no such thing as a broad spectrum vaccine allergy, there's just allergies to the individual components. If they were allergic to eggs and the flu vaccine they can safely get an mRNA vaccine.
- gspencley 4y ago
  My wife is in a similar boat. I'm vaccinated, she is not. We are both very "pro vaccine." But when she was a child she was hospitalized and had a near death experience due an allergic reaction. Our family doctor, the same doctor that recommended that everyone else in our family get vaccinated, told her to err on the side of caution and take other precautions. Why should she not trust the doctor that knows our family medical history and has taken care of all of us for, in the case of our children, their entire lives? In other words, let's say a different doctor DID give a second opinion. Why would / should she trust that opinion more?
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    > Why should she not trust the doctor that knows our family medical history and has taken care of all of us for, in the case of our children, their entire lives? Because that sounds ridiculous. Unless the allergen that caused your wife's allergic reaction is in the vaccines then there's no additional risk. Consult with an actual immunologist specialist who has a deep understanding of the physical mechanisms behind allergies and can properly weigh the risks from the prior allergic reaction and the risks posed by vaccines. The idea that your GP somehow is better informed than a specialist through having been with you all your lives is very poor logic.
dqh 4y ago
> Almost everybody was safe from covid -- it was a handful of high risk people who we were trying to protect. Just on that point, it’s also worth considering what happens when hospitals are overwhelmed.
thiht 4y ago
> I mention that it's cruel to exclude people like him from society Which is exactly why we specifically don't exclude people like him from society. There are obviously exemptions in every sane country. In France there are exemptions for this cases and some people still acted like "BuT wHat AbOUt AlleRgIes", like they cared at all. They just didn't want to get vaccinated.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

epgui 4y ago

I'm deadly allergic to eggs, and the only flu vaccine easily available to me is made with eggs, so I don't take it. There are many other medically valid reasons to not take a vaccine. There are even some (a very small number) of people whose religious convictions are a valid reason to get an exemption. The issue is that the overwhelming majority (>99%) of people who choose not to vaccinate, do so for bad reasons, which amounts to making an uninformed medical decision, and one that adversely impacts other people in addition to themselves. These people are what the controversy is actually about. Anyone bullying people who have medical issues is a bad person and needs to chill.

falcolas 4y ago
More importantly, their uninformed medical decision disproportionally hurts the minority groups you called out above. It's not the vaccinated population who I'm concerned about, but those who have legitimate medical reasons to not take the vaccine.
- epgui 4y ago
  Agreed.
DoreenMichele 4y ago
The issue is that the overwhelming majority (>99%) of people who choose not to vaccinate, do so for bad reasons, which amounts to making an uninformed medical decision, and one that adversely impacts other people in addition to themselves. These people are what the controversy is actually about. I really don't think that's what is going on. I used to be on an antivax list (for unrelated reasons -- I am not an antivaxxer) and these were people with serious health problems and loved ones with serious health problems who had been treated terribly by extended family, the medical system, etc. and they were desperate to be heard by someone who believed them that "This vaccine is a real and serious problem for me/my loved ones!" and the "nutters" were the only ones giving them any support. I didn't get a proper diagnosis for my condition until my mid thirties. I was treated like a hypochondriac before that, among other things. Not everyone is fortunate to know what their medical issue is yet. Many people who have real issues with vaccines simply don't know a good means to argue for their right to use their own best judgement, make their own medical decisions and try to take care of themselves and they turn to whatever "support" systems they can find, which aren't always a good means to achieve their ends.
- mindslight 4y ago
  Yes, it's important to not deprecate individuals' personal informed good faith opinions in favor of the top-down overprescriptive medical system. But this concern doesn't apply to the main contingent of unvaccinated, either. The sheer majority of the vaccine hesitant have had their head pumped full of nonsense by the anti-American narratives of Fox News and its ilk, then validated by Facebook. The common refrain isn't one of not being able to get vaccinated for any specific medical concern. Rather in the best case it falls back to ambiguous FUD, and often involves group identity and not giving in to those other people. And yes, it sucks that the legitimately unvaccinated can get lumped in with those adding to a public health problem as some misguided political statement. As a libertarian, I'm personally quite frustrated at the damage they've done to the general concept of freedom. But that's all the more reason to call it out for the anti-rationality that it is, rather than letting them continue to burn goodwill towards legitimate good faith points by hiding behind them in bad faith.
  - 4y ago
adamiscool8 4y ago
In my age+health cohort, the known and documented risks of the vaccines outweigh the known risks of COVID-19, but you assume “bad reasons” because it’s not a religious objection or medical contraindication. What makes your risk calculus any more valid than mine? I would go so far as to say it’s anti-science to lump 99% of the vaccine rejectors as “uninformed”. I’d venture the average mechanistic knowledge of these products is higher than in the rejectors than in the vaccinated set.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  You have a 1/100000 chance of a usually minor condition. Some have a 1/10 chance of dying from COVID. It's your right to avoid the vaccine. It's also moral to prevent you from mixing with the elderly.
  - TrevorJ 4y ago
    Good point, and now that we know the vaccines don't prevent transmission, the same goes for the vaccinated I suppose.
    - epgui 4y ago
      They do prevent transmission. God, I wish misinformation would not spread so easily. (Edit: I'm a biochemist, merely relaying a consensus position, in my area of expertise, and getting downvoted. Nice.)
      - TOMDM 4y ago
        If we're being specific, they reduce transmission, they don't wholesale prevent it. My frustration is people will look at "decreases mortality by xx%" or "decreases spread by y%" and conclude that it's not worth taking even when the risks are slim to non existent. Hacker News is a place where we talk about billion dollar industries that are built on someone doing something 2% better than the other guy, but all that reason goes out the window when it comes to healthcare and it's killing hundreds of thousands of people.

hackerlight 4y ago

> a little mob came together to denounce the idea and say that he absolutely should never be allowed in public again. Emphasis on "little", I suppose? This sounds like a strawman. I don't think many would have argued that someone with a legitimate medical reason to not get vaccinated should be excluded from anything.

jeffbee 4y ago
How would it even come to be known? If I was allergic to a vaccine and someone asked me about my vaccines I would say "I have taken every vaccine I am able to" or something like that. Exclusion of the willingly unvaccinated is possible and widespread mainly because such people are surprisingly vocal and bring up the topic without prompting.
mike_hearn 4y ago
Very few argued that, but it's what happened. Recall that COVID unvaccinated non-citizens still may not enter the USA for any reason.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  False. Children, people traveling for emergencies, and anyone medically unable to take the vaccine may travel to the U.S. without it.
  - TrevorJ 4y ago
    It sounds good, but I can tell you from experience that getting the exception on medical grounds is quite difficult, even with pretty incontrovertible reasons. Doctors were very much pressured to not put their career on the line and would rather sweep you under the rug.
- poizan42 4y ago
  One of the exceptions from the vaccine requirement listed on https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/proof-of-vaccination.html#noncitizen https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/proof-of... is: "Persons with documented medical contraindications to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine"

alsetmusic 4y ago

> Whenever I mention that it's cruel to exclude people like him from society, due to vaccine requirements I know that I’ve only advocated for people who are voluntarily unvaxxed, but medically eligible, face increased scrutiny. I would never suggest anything of the sort for your friend. That’d be like discriminating against someone who requires a wheelchair or cannot see.

TrevorJ 4y ago
I think that's reasonable. It's a shame this viewpoint was almost totally absent from the discussion over the last few years. Incredibly disappointing.
yucky 4y ago

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

I'd assumed that such people got medical exemptions in most countries: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-covid-pass#if-you-are-unable-to-get-vaccinated-for-medical-reasons https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-covid-pass#if-you-are-unable... But maybe all the people respondng to your comments online where from nations that didn't do this.

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago

> Whenever I mention that it's cruel to exclude people like him from society, Your friend was at higher risk from COVID due to to their medical condition. It might be cruel to ask them to reduce their social interaction, but many medical conditions are like that. Their feelings don't change the problem or reduce the risk. It does does not seem to be completely unfounded.

chrismcb 4y ago
I think there is a difference between asking someone to reduce their social interaction and forcing them to reduce their social interaction
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  > there is a difference between asking someone to reduce their social interaction and forcing them Is there a difference? In what sense? What distinction is a virus going to make? A virus doesn't see that difference in motivation, it just sees warm cells. What difference would this distinction make to the epidemiology and public health? None. If you're going to argue the ethical "personal freedom" sense only, then like with smoking in public and my personal freedom to not inhale second-hand smoke, you're going to have to take into account the ethical dimension of saving lives and not transmitting disease to innocent bystanders. In both cases we breath the same air. A "personal freedom only" approach to public heath when we breath the same air is, and always will be, laughably unworkable: it's simply a category error, the wrong tool. If the COVID pandemic hasn't made that clear then I don't know what will.
  - t0bia_s 4y ago
    So... Should we ban alcohol, tobacco, cars and force everyone to wear helmets? Sometimes is just better to not pretend that we are immortal. We forget how to live under the hood of fear from death.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago

lamontcg 4y ago

> I have a friend who is allergic to many vaccines. A bad reaction as a kid led to him needing years of rehab. He's also high risk for Covid. He's pro-vaccine in general I guess I should add, but his doctor told him to not get the covid shots because the risk was too high Has your friend asked another doctor for a second opinion? It is unlikely that anyone who is allergic to prior vaccines would be allergic to the mRNA vaccines. There is no such thing as a broad spectrum vaccine allergy, there's just allergies to the individual components. If they were allergic to eggs and the flu vaccine they can safely get an mRNA vaccine.

gspencley 4y ago
My wife is in a similar boat. I'm vaccinated, she is not. We are both very "pro vaccine." But when she was a child she was hospitalized and had a near death experience due an allergic reaction. Our family doctor, the same doctor that recommended that everyone else in our family get vaccinated, told her to err on the side of caution and take other precautions. Why should she not trust the doctor that knows our family medical history and has taken care of all of us for, in the case of our children, their entire lives? In other words, let's say a different doctor DID give a second opinion. Why would / should she trust that opinion more?
- lamontcg 4y ago
  > Why should she not trust the doctor that knows our family medical history and has taken care of all of us for, in the case of our children, their entire lives? Because that sounds ridiculous. Unless the allergen that caused your wife's allergic reaction is in the vaccines then there's no additional risk. Consult with an actual immunologist specialist who has a deep understanding of the physical mechanisms behind allergies and can properly weigh the risks from the prior allergic reaction and the risks posed by vaccines. The idea that your GP somehow is better informed than a specialist through having been with you all your lives is very poor logic.

dqh 4y ago

> Almost everybody was safe from covid -- it was a handful of high risk people who we were trying to protect. Just on that point, it’s also worth considering what happens when hospitals are overwhelmed.

thiht 4y ago

> I mention that it's cruel to exclude people like him from society Which is exactly why we specifically don't exclude people like him from society. There are obviously exemptions in every sane country. In France there are exemptions for this cases and some people still acted like "BuT wHat AbOUt AlleRgIes", like they cared at all. They just didn't want to get vaccinated.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]