7 ms·

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 reason

by 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.
  - ifyoubuildit 4y ago
    > 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 I believe that you honestly believe this, but as a living counter example of what you describe (don't watch infotainment style news for anything but entertainment, made my decision based on available studies), I wonder how you have gone about validating that perception? Is there a chance that you're assuming the loud cartoon characters you see on social media, or a few of your friends/family/coworkers are representative of the wider population? Does this "main contingent" really make up the bulk of this group? Or are they just the most offensive, and therefore most noticeable?
    - epgui 4y ago
      I mean, I can’t speak for the other commenter, but there are a ton of papers studying the interaction of political beliefs and both generally anti-science views as well as opposition to public health guidance.
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.

by epgui 4y ago

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.
- ifyoubuildit 4y ago
  > 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 I believe that you honestly believe this, but as a living counter example of what you describe (don't watch infotainment style news for anything but entertainment, made my decision based on available studies), I wonder how you have gone about validating that perception? Is there a chance that you're assuming the loud cartoon characters you see on social media, or a few of your friends/family/coworkers are representative of the wider population? Does this "main contingent" really make up the bulk of this group? Or are they just the most offensive, and therefore most noticeable?
  - epgui 4y ago
    I mean, I can’t speak for the other commenter, but there are a ton of papers studying the interaction of political beliefs and both generally anti-science views as well as opposition to public health guidance.

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.