[HN Gopher] NYC to mandate proof of vaccination for many indoor ...
___________________________________________________________________
NYC to mandate proof of vaccination for many indoor settings
Author : underseacables
Score : 220 points
Date : 2021-08-03 14:56 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (nypost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (nypost.com)
| mrfusion wrote:
| We've had nearly two years to expand our hospital resources. Why
| didn't we do that instead of taking away bodily autonomy?
| alecst wrote:
| Pretty dismal discussion in here at the time of writing. Largely
| complaints about tyranny. Makes me sad that we can't have a calm
| discussion about the merits of the policy.
|
| From what I can tell, you might be opposed to this policy if:
|
| 1. You have fears about getting a vaccine, moreso than for
| coronavirus. If this is you, do you prefer a mask mandate? And if
| so, how do you enforce this in a restaurant, where anyone eating
| takes off their mask right away?
|
| 2. You have fears about the privacy implications. If so, what are
| those fears? Perhaps your vaccination status can lead people to
| make inferences about your health?
|
| 3. You are not particularly concerned about the community spread
| of coronavirus (and the implications of that)
|
| There aren't a lot of choices. You can 1) avoid high-risk areas
| and escape infection/spreading disease, in which case, this
| policy doesn't really directly affect you. Or 2) you can take
| your chances with coronavirus, which you will get sooner or
| later, and spread it. Or 3) you can "take your chances" with the
| vaccine which, statistically and biologically, is safer than
| getting coronavirus and reduces spread.
|
| This policy allows people to choose from 1) and 3) but not 2),
| which is in all ways the worst decision. Unless, of course, you
| think that the vaccine is more dangerous than coronavirus. And
| then I don't really know what to say.
|
| (lightly edited for clarification)
| AndrewBissell wrote:
| > _Unless, of course, you think that the vaccine is more
| dangerous than coronavirus. And then I don 't really know what
| to say._
|
| There are vast demographics for which this is actually the
| case. Children under 18, for example.
|
| If you think these passports will only ever be used to check
| for Covid vaccination status, or that they'll be rolled back
| once Covid is no longer killing appreciable numbers of people,
| you're as gullible as they come and I can only assume have been
| paying no attention to how these sorts of "temporary," "for the
| duration of the 'emergency' " measures have progressed over the
| past 20 years. This is the tip of the spear for implementing
| permanent a social credit system in the West.
|
| Yeah, let's let the state mandate that you buy an injection
| every year from private pharmaceutical companies, with
| extremely dodgy records and motivated entirely by profit, just
| to participate in normal life. What could go wrong?
| jackson1442 wrote:
| I'm just going to ignore most of your fearmongering here but
| the proof of vaccination in the US is literally a piece of
| cardstock. I don't think anyone's getting a social credit
| score based on how many times they show their index card to
| the host at a restaurant.
|
| > There are vast demographics for which this is actually the
| case. Children under 18, for example.
|
| [ citation needed ]
| swader999 wrote:
| Right, you might trust Biden or Cuomo to use all this social
| credit type data from a passport flashed to go anywhere but
| would you trust the next Trump? There is no reason to give
| the state this much power. No reason at all.
| tajustice wrote:
| ID laws are inherently racist, and have been leveraged by white
| supremacists for decades to keep POC from enjoying the rights
| and privileges they're guaranteed under the law.
|
| Businesses requiring vaccination IDs are de facto
| discriminating against POCs and other minorities because POCs
| and minorities are less likely to have ID, and less likely to
| be vaccinated.
| ok123456 wrote:
| The coronavirus doesn't discriminate.
|
| Edit: Can't reply to the child since it's dead, but for the
| record, I got my covid vaccinations at an AME church (i.e.,
| black) back in April.
|
| Edit 2:
|
| >Anecdotal evidence is always useful for bigotry. I went to
| an AME church (i.e., black) back in April and the church was
| denied vaccines.
|
| No you didn't.
|
| > The statistical facts are clear: POCs are much less likely
| to have access to vaccines, to be vaccinated, and to have
| IDs. Requiring ID is inherently racist.
|
| What facts? You're just making up stuff.
|
| This has nothing to do with voter ID or voter suppression.
| You're just trolling, poorly.
| [deleted]
| tajustice wrote:
| But ID laws and vaccine access do discriminate.
| tajustice3 wrote:
| It literally states POCs are less likely to be vaccinated
| (and have proof of vaccines).
|
| Sorry, facts don't care about your feelings. Mandatory
| vaccine ID is racist bigotry.
|
| Your concern trolling, poorly.
| tajutice4 wrote:
| You're trolling and denying facts.
|
| It literally states POCs are less likely to be vaccinated
| (and have proof of vaccines).
|
| Sorry, facts don't care about your feelings. Mandatory
| vaccine ID is racist bigotry.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| tajustice2 wrote:
| Anecdotal evidence is always useful for bigotry. I went to
| an AME church (i.e., black) back in April and the church
| was denied vaccines.
|
| The statistical facts are clear: POCs are much less likely
| to have access to vaccines, to be vaccinated, and to have
| IDs. Requiring ID is inherently racist.
| tajustice2 wrote:
| >I got my covid vaccinations at an AME church (i.e., black)
| back in April.
|
| No you didn't.
|
| Here are the facts:
| https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fewer-black-
| america...
|
| https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-
| fact-...
| gadders wrote:
| This discriminates against the same parts of the population
| that are unable to get an ID to be able to vote. I would think
| a vaccine passport would need some other form of ID first so it
| can be tied to a particular person.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| Off topic but, there is nobody that is unable to get an ID in
| the US if they want one.
| jstanley wrote:
| I don't actually know, but it seems unlikely that illegal
| immigrants can get an ID from the government?
| _-david-_ wrote:
| Since they are here illegally they are not even supposed
| to be here so it doesn't seem like an issue.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| Well, they could get one if they wanted but it takes a
| few extra steps. Namely, becoming a legal citizen.
| tzs wrote:
| ...if they have sufficient time and money. Many less well
| off people have neither, especially in states that have
| purposefully limited the hours of their offices that issue
| ID and put such offices far from poorer neighborhoods and
| far from public transit routes.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| Here is an exercise for you. Go find somebody that you
| think might not have sufficient time or money to get an
| ID and ask them if they have one. Then ask them if they
| think there were any barriers to them getting an ID.
|
| I bet dollars to donuts you will be surprised by the
| answer.
| tzs wrote:
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/gettin
| g-a...
|
| https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/4/7157037/us-voter-id-
| req...
|
| https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-
| fact-...
|
| https://www.npr.org/2018/09/07/644648955/for-older-
| voters-ge...
|
| https://rewirenewsgroup.com/ablc/2014/10/16/well-
| actually-pr...
|
| https://www.theregreview.org/2019/01/08/shapiro-moran-
| burden...
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/here
| s-h...
|
| https://scholars.org/contribution/high-cost-free-photo-
| voter...
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| Sorry, I don't trust any media when power or money are on
| the line. Talk to real people.
|
| I'm curious, what solution do you propose to exclude the
| 23.4 million non-citizen residents, 10.3 million illegal
| residents and 5.2 million felons from voting? How do you
| verify that somebody is legally permitted to vote?
| cm2187 wrote:
| That's not the only reasons people wouldn't want to take the
| vaccine. For instance lots of people already had covid
| (particularly in NYC), and developed a natural immunity, which
| from the low reinfection rate, seems to be rock solid. It
| doesn't make a lot of sense to require that population to take
| a vaccine.
|
| As for the vaccine being more or less dangerous than the virus,
| I think for any population over 40 or in poor health, the trade
| off is clearly in favour of the vaccine. But if you are 20 and
| in good health, I am not sure it is that obvious.
|
| I am not overly concerned about the vaccine myself, and I got
| vaccinated even though I had covid (mostly to be able to
| travel), but I have some sympathy for people who decline to be
| vaccinated, particularly when all the population at risk had a
| chance to get vaccinated. At this point this is them managing
| their own risk. Their life, their decision.
| alecst wrote:
| I agree that you can make the case that proof of antibodies
| should be treated like proof of vaccination. I can't see the
| harm in that and think it's a point worth bringing up.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > As for the vaccine being more or less dangerous than the
| virus, I think for any population over 40 or in poor health,
| the trade off is clearly in favour of the vaccine. But if you
| are 20 and in good health, I am not sure it is that obvious.
|
| The risks of complications from the virus are many orders of
| magnitude higher than risks of complications from the
| vaccine, even for people in their 20s.
| cm2187 wrote:
| Whatever the numbers are, you are balancing a minuscule
| risk against another minuscule risk. That's not going to be
| a convincing argument.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > Whatever the numbers are, you are balancing a minuscule
| risk against another minuscule risk. That's not going to
| be a convincing argument.
|
| The rate of complications from COVID-19 infections among
| people in their 20s is absolutely not "minuscule".
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > The risks of complications from the virus are many orders
| of magnitude higher than risks of complications from the
| vaccine, even for people in their 20s.
|
| For those who already had the virus and developed an immune
| response the risks are different.
| bob33212 wrote:
| How is this any different than requiring people to wear shoes
| in specific locations? Some people prefer not to wear shoes,
| but for the legal liability and the risk of injury many
| locations require shoes. Don't go to those places if you feel
| strongly about not getting the vaccine or wearing shoes
| slumdev wrote:
| Shoes don't have systemic side effects.
| bob33212 wrote:
| https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/1998/cpsc-nike-announce-
| recall-...
| slumdev wrote:
| A small cut on the skin is systemic?
|
| What definition of the word systemic are we using?
| bob33212 wrote:
| Yes, cuts that get infected can cause problems for the
| whole human system. What definition are you using? How
| many people have died from the vaccine?
| slumdev wrote:
| I'm just using the VAERS data. Trust the science.
| esyir wrote:
| Having seen firsthand how medical care workers downplay
| side effects of vaccination, I certainly trust it less.
| bob33212 wrote:
| You can keep your science, I trust Jesus.
| danhak wrote:
| The government does not have a shoe mandate. As far as I
| know, individual businesses are free to have whatever
| policies they wish regarding shoes.
| cm2187 wrote:
| I got sick like a dog for a day after my first dose, and
| had a pain in the arm for a week after my second dose. You
| can't compare injecting a pathogen in someone's body to
| wearing clothes.
| bob33212 wrote:
| Tell that to the people who were injured by Nike.
| https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/1998/cpsc-nike-announce-
| recall-...
| pengaru wrote:
| > You can't compare injecting a pathogen in someone's
| body to wearing clothes.
|
| A vaccine is not a pathogen, a pathogen is a disease-
| causing agent, vaccines are not causing disease, they
| cause an immune response to _prevent_ future disease.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| You can't honestly see the difference between an easily
| visible piece of clothing versus medical data that many
| people consider private between them and their
| physician(s)? There is zero chance this is a good faith
| argument.
| bob33212 wrote:
| Obviously I can see shoes on people's feet easier than I
| can see antibodies inside someone. But the point isn't
| how I find out if you are wearing shoes or not. The point
| is that someone is telling you that you have to do
| something to your body. Putting on shoes and getting a
| vaccine are both actions that you may want to decide to
| do on your own and not have someone else tell you that
| you have to do.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| It's a matter of degrees my guy, and people aren't
| rabidly frothing at the mouth to eject non-shoe wearers
| from common society.
| bob33212 wrote:
| True, And people are not calling businesses that require
| shoes socialist. Social media is making all these idiots
| act like the world is ending if someone requires a
| vaccine or refuses to get the vaccine.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| There's also a difference when a business decides on it's
| own to mandate shoes, versus a government mandate for all
| businesses.
|
| I would be just as against a government mandate that all
| private establishments _must_ have a no shirt /no shoes
| policy.
|
| I don't even think a vaccine mandate for private
| businesses would be constitutional under the first
| amendment, the courts have recognized multiple times that
| freedom of association is protected even if it is not
| explicit in the constitution.
| bob33212 wrote:
| OK so we are on the same page. If every private business
| requires a vaccine, the people who don't want to get
| vaccinated can just do something else other than go to
| businesses.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| I don't think it's that simple for "every private
| business" to collectively all of a sudden decide that
| vaccines will be mandatory, "businesses" are not a hive
| mind and it will be inevitable that "no vaccine required"
| businesses will prop up to fill the void.
| bob33212 wrote:
| OK, businesses that want to have unvaccinated people in
| their stores will be able to do that.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| Sure. Some are even going so far as to ban vaccinated
| people from their establishments as well.
|
| https://www.newsweek.com/chris-cuomo-tony-roman-clash-
| bizarr...
|
| I'm not a fan of a divided society like this - it is not
| a good sign for the long term health of a nation.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _For instance lots of people already had covid
| (particularly in NYC)_
|
| According to NYC.gov[1], there have been about 980k cases of
| COVID in a city with a population of over 8 million. About
| 12% of the population has had COVID.
|
| [1] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-
| totals.pag...
| NonContro wrote:
| https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-
| 7...
|
| Seroprevalence has been measured at 74% for Ultra-Orthodox
| Jewish populations in the UK.
|
| Its not a surprise that ethnic and religious minorities are
| anti-vaxx - many of them already had COVID.
|
| I'm anti-mandatory vaccinations for the same reason, as a
| COVID survivor. All the evidence is showing that this
| natural immunity is superior to vaccines, but I'm treated
| like a second-class citizen.
| Marsymars wrote:
| > All the evidence is showing that this natural immunity
| is superior to vaccines
|
| Does it? The evidence I've seen indicates that it's
| robust, but not necessarily superior to vaccines.
| eruleman wrote:
| That's because seroprevalence isn't as legible to the
| state as vaccination is.
| cm2187 wrote:
| That's cases. There was hardly any testing during the first
| wave, which hit NY particularly. The numbers are likely
| significantly higher.
| tudelo wrote:
| Yeah. Hardly any testing as in even with every single
| covid symptom you could not get a test depending on your
| age and prior conditions. Now, you can walk in to clinics
| with no wait and get a rapid test ASAP. It's very
| different.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Yes, it is probably higher. The 980k figure also counts
| over 200k probable cases and probable deaths, so some of
| the untested are baked into the total figure.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I have a family member who, despite acknowledging that seat
| belts work and save lives, refuses to wear his seat belt purely
| out of petty spite "because I'm not gonna let the tyrannical
| government tell me what to do!" This endless conversation about
| vaccines is feeling more and more like that. Orthodox
| Individualism has become a religion.
| swader999 wrote:
| Hypocrite if they still use brakes.
| minikites wrote:
| >Orthodox Individualism has become a religion.
|
| Over the last 40-some years, Conservatives and Republicans
| have been incredibly successful at destroying the idea of
| government which is effective and serves the public. The
| result is that oppositional defiance and grievance politics
| are all we have left.
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| Over the past 40 years elected officials have done a great
| job of passing legislation that shows they are incompetent,
| corrupt, and have no ones best interested except their own
| and will use any excuse to increase their control over
| people.
| [deleted]
| minikites wrote:
| >a great job of passing legislation
|
| This is what I mean by "grievance politics". This is not
| true, but "feels" like it it is. If Congress has done "a
| great job of passing legislation", what were the
| legislative achievements of the Trump administration? How
| did that government reduce its role in our lives? How did
| the government "shrink" in any way, which is supposed to
| be the Republican promise?
|
| Republicans/Conservatives don't think the government
| should provide for society in the same way that
| Democrats/Liberals do. It's why Republicans politicized
| wearing a mask and now vaccination, because it's the
| government doing things. More importantly, telling them
| to do things. It's why Republicans universally obstruct
| the progress of the Democrats (see Mitch McConnell not
| filling a Supreme Court seat) but the reverse isn't
| generally true. Republicans don't want to pass much of
| anything, and many Democrats vote for the things they do.
|
| Ultimately, it doesn't matter who is blamed for
| corruption and incompetence, it still serves to further
| the idea that government shouldn't do anything. That's
| not an option when there's a disease ripping though
| society, which is why the reaction against vaccination
| and masking is so strong. It's directly challenging the
| idea that government and society can be effective at
| solving a problem if we work together. The Jeffersonian
| ideal of a weak government presiding over a agrarian
| society is outdated and not a meaningful model for modern
| society.
| vikingerik wrote:
| > the idea that government shouldn't do anything. That's
| not an option when there's a disease ripping though
| society
|
| Yes it is an option, always. Government always has the
| option to do nothing and leave people to their own
| decisions. There is no objective truth that this should
| ever have been any kind of government issue at all.
|
| If you use an emergency to justify expanding government
| power, what you get is a perpetual emergency.
| minikites wrote:
| How should this pandemic have been addressed, then? How
| would "leav[ing] people to their own decisions" address
| climate change, or any other national/global issue?
| glial wrote:
| > Government always has the option to do nothing and
| leave people to their own decisions.
|
| Government doing nothing doesn't just leave us to our own
| decisions, it makes us more vulnerable to the decisions
| of others. You could even argue that the whole point of a
| government is to limit the impact that my decisions have
| on you, and vice versa.
| ok123456 wrote:
| They haven't passed any meaningful legislation since The
| New Deal.
| jdhn wrote:
| The Patriot Act and the ACA have been quite meaningful.
| pengaru wrote:
| Except not wearing a seatbelt harms noone but yourself, and
| frankly it's up to the individual if they value surviving a
| car accident.
|
| I've had police tell me the rationalization for seatbelt laws
| is by minimizing ambulance use in crashes, it saves the lives
| of others and reduces traffic congestion. This is the
| reasoning put forth for making not wearing a seatbelt a
| ticketable offense. Last I checked emergency services like
| ambulances aren't even considered an essential service
| provided by the government, yet we're being nickel and dimed
| by the government on their behalf as something so essential
| we mustn't unnecessarily affect their availability.
|
| Seat belt laws seem mostly about fundraising for local
| governments from where I'm sitting. When they have a budget
| shortfall, suddenly traffic stops are tacking on seat belt
| tickets like gangbusters.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Seatbelts prevent you from becoming a several hundred pound
| projectile that can injure or kill other people in and
| outside of your car.
| pengaru wrote:
| The most likely of situations... we somehow ignore when
| it comes to allowing motorcycles to operate on the same
| public roads.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _The most likely of situations.._
|
| Happens enough to be a problem[1][2][3].
|
| [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC419765/
|
| [2]
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/08/03/unbuckled-
| bac...
|
| [3] https://www.washington.edu/news/2004/01/20/unbelted-
| drivers-...
| pmarreck wrote:
| Given that the Delta variant is so contagious that it would
| require 90% vaxxed to achieve herd immunity, I see the
| situation as largely hopeless for those who fail to see the
| wisdom of getting vaccinated
|
| The crazy thing is that the knee-jerk backlash against this
| vaccine has carried over into ALL vaccines for many people...
| So expect to see measles, polio, etc. etc. all over again
| thanks to the polarization involved at this point
| swayvil wrote:
| We settled this point at Nuremburg.
|
| Involuntary experimental medical procedures are what the bad
| guys do.
| Clubber wrote:
| Don't tell the CIA that.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio.
| ..
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| "CIA bad!" is pretty common trope around here. I think many
| would consider the CIA, in part or whole, to be a subset of
| the bad guys.
| Clubber wrote:
| >I think many would consider the CIA, in part or whole,
| to be a subset of the bad guys.
|
| Yes, that's what I was insinuating.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| My gut feeling is closer to
|
| 4. You perceive the government as taking more and more power
| without ever giving any back.
|
| I don't know if this is true, but that is the reason for my
| instinctual opposition and I haven't overriden it yet.
| eruleman wrote:
| We're still taking off our shoes at the airport even though
| it was a "temporary" measure started in 2006.
| tboyd47 wrote:
| Requiring people to consume a medical product, especially one
| that has not been subject to the full FDA approval process,
| just to live their normal lives is morally wrong. They are
| making people into test subjects for a multinational
| corporation. It doesn't matter if we already do this to an
| extent with other vaccines; nothing in the past has ever come
| close to this.
|
| It doesn't matter if you think the vaccine is more or less
| dangerous than the coronavirus. It goes back to basic human
| dignity and human rights. You wouldn't want strangers mandating
| injections into your body that you don't want. No one would be
| okay that, unless they are insane.
|
| You might make the argument that anti-vaxxers are endangering
| others' health by being out in public without a vaccine, but
| that's only a claim. Lots of people make claims about others
| infringing their rights all the time, and a nontrivial number
| of those are baseless. A huge number of assumptions about
| medical science and constitutional law would need to be tested
| in court for it to hold any weight, unless you're willing to
| jettison the entire process of civil society.
| pcurve wrote:
| We live in a society that operates under a set of laws,
| including entrusting public officials and experts to make
| decisions on our behalf.
|
| Not all the laws are going to be popular. I'm sure not
| everybody is thrilled about schools requiring all children be
| vaccinated. People can object to it and express concerns
| about, and you can even try to change it through legislation.
| But the majority will prevail.
|
| Regarding your statement: "You might make the argument that
| anti-vaxxers are endangering others' health by being out in
| public without a vaccine, but that's only a claim." It's a
| claim backed by stats. On an individual level, it may be
| discriminatory to accuse an anti-vaxxer of endangering others
| without specific proof. But in aggregate, unvaccinated people
| are more likely to be infected and also spreading disease
| unknowingly. At least until the Delta variant came along, and
| now the officials have revised guidelines to ensure everyone
| wears mask.
|
| Do I think it was premature to let vaccinated people go
| without mask? Sure. It wasn't my call. But nobody has a
| crystal balls into the future. So we adapt.
|
| In the long run, operating this fashion has served us well.
| swader999 wrote:
| Right, and the check against these laws becoming unjust is
| the constitution.
| sprafa wrote:
| Stop getting your opinions from Facebook misinformation as if
| it's a Macdonalds burguer bro.
| mthoms wrote:
| Your rights end when exercising them endangers _my_ life and
| the lives of my family. That's also a basic tenet of civil
| society (see traffic laws for example).
| corey_moncure wrote:
| My body, my choice only applies when we're talking about
| terminating the lives of unborn children, right?
| Daishiman wrote:
| As far as many of us are concerned, fetuses do not have
| human status, so the argument is absolutely irrelevant
| for most as a comparison.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| A fetus is by definition a human. In fact it is the third
| stage of human development. This is why people argue
| against personhood. The claim is you can be a human fetus
| but not have personhood yet.
| AngryData wrote:
| So is using spermicidal lube considered killing children?
|
| A ball of cells and flesh that cannot survive outside of
| another human does not and should not have human rights.
| Otherwise we gotta start considering the human rights of
| cancerous growths.
| dont__panic wrote:
| Do unborn children occasionally pop out of women's
| bodies, enter other people's bodies, and reproduce
| uncontrollably to a point where they stop those other
| people from breathing?
|
| If so, we can apply the same logic to coronavirus and
| pregnancy. If not, you're just drawing a false parallel.
| corey_moncure wrote:
| "The needs of society can override the individual's right
| to bodily self-determination". This is the thesis you
| need to tear down. Whence goes the vaccine, so goes
| abortion.
| krapp wrote:
| >Whence goes the vaccine, so goes abortion.
|
| We've had mandatory vaccinations for over a century,
| certainly since Roe V. Wade, and yet abortion is still
| legal.
|
| Half the US believes abortion is murder and a sin against
| God and yet as far as I know, never has anyone tried to
| use the existence of vaccination laws as a pretext for
| making abortion illegal. That wouldn't even make sense.
| h_anna_h wrote:
| The point is the comparison between the life of others vs
| the "right to bodily self-determination".
| bsagdiyev wrote:
| But if you're vaccinated then you're not at risk? I say as
| a vaccinated person.
| bart_spoon wrote:
| What about the immunocompromised? Those who can't have
| the vaccine. To say nothing of breakthrough infections
| and the fact that the mutation rate is tied to the number
| of infections, and therefore a vaccinated person's
| immunity could indeed be impacted by large contingents of
| unvaccinated persons being infected. And how about the
| financial cost of COVID? Perhaps we should make it so
| that if one gets severe COVID and has no proof of
| vaccination, all coverage of medical costs by insurance
| are voided. You can't make a reasonable argument that
| society should be on the hook for paying for your life
| saving medical treatment when you intentionally deny
| free, effective preventative measures.
| jdhn wrote:
| This focus on the immunocompromised is so strange to me.
| Bad flu season? Nobody really cared about them. Bad cold
| season? Again, nobody really cared about them. Yet covid
| comes around, the vaccines are produced, and suddenly
| everyone keeps talking about the immunocompromised. At
| some point, we have to just tell those who are
| immunocompromised that we're going to reopen society, and
| they have to be responsible for managing their own risk.
| swader999 wrote:
| There simply isn't enough of them to justify the counter-
| measures.
| eschulz wrote:
| Traffic permit and licensing laws meet a high standard for
| which there is significant legal precedent. Your statement
| does not have a legal basis in the US or under Common Law.
| While we have had health tests to ender the country, we
| have not had them to go to a public place. We have never
| required the flu shot to got to a bar or nightclub. I too
| am not antivax, but I don't think you have the right to
| require those around you in public places to take a new
| vaccine that has not even undergone the normal rigors of
| FDA approval.
| q3k wrote:
| > You wouldn't want strangers mandating injections into your
| body that you don't want.
|
| I mean, compulsory vaccination is a thing in many countries,
| and I think it's a net good for the world?
| zepto wrote:
| Compulsory injection with compounds that are not medically
| approved because they haven't been tested to accepted
| standards is a good thing?
|
| For what it's worth, I'm vaccinated and wear a mask in
| every public encounter until I've discussed the risks with
| whoever I am dealing with whether required to or not.
|
| However I strongly disagree with mandatory medical
| treatment of any kind.
|
| I could imagine a law for emergency vaccinations that I
| would find acceptable, but it would need to have _a lot_ of
| safeguards.
| asdff wrote:
| If it wasn't tested to accepted standards, it wouldn't
| have been delivered into my arm months ago.
| zepto wrote:
| You're just wrong. It's only approved for emergency use -
| by waiving the accepted standards.
| oezi wrote:
| Hundreds of million of people is pretty good testing by
| now. Consider that they caught the blood clots with
| AstraZeneka which is less than 1 in 100,000. The
| vigilance systems works very well.
| zepto wrote:
| The 'vigilance system' has nothing to say about long term
| complications yet, hasn't led to FDA approval, and is
| neither an accepted nor approved way to test vaccine
| safety.
| q3k wrote:
| > Compulsory injection with compounds that are not
| medically approved because they haven't been tested to
| accepted standards is a good thing?
|
| First, that's not what the GP said. It's also not what
| I'm saying.
|
| Second, where I live the vaccine I got [1] went through a
| well-defined process designed explicitly to safely but
| swiftly approve medicine for emergency use, eg. during
| pandemics [2].
|
| [1] - https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/c
| omirnaty
|
| [2] - https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-
| regulatory/marketing-auth...
| zepto wrote:
| > compulsory vaccination is a thing
|
| You said this, and we are referring to a vaccine that is
| not FDA approved.
|
| 'Well defined' doesn't mean anything. The vaccines have
| not been approved according to normal medical standards.
| q3k wrote:
| > 'Well defined' doesn't mean anything. The vaccines have
| not been approved according to normal medical standards.
|
| Except they have. They've literally been approved using
| medical standards developed to handle time-critical
| medicine approval, which is as much of an approval
| process as the standard non-fast-tracked system. The
| studies are there, they're just taken from much earlier
| in the development process of the medicine than usually,
| and the approval is granted for a shorter period with
| continuous close monitoring and repeated follow up
| reviews.
|
| The reason this accelerated approval isn't used for all
| medicine is not because it's less safe, but because it's
| more expensive and more effort consuming for all parties
| involved. Things are less sequential and more parallel,
| but all the important steps are still there.
|
| https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-
| regulatory/overview/publi...
|
| Compare:
|
| Fast-tracked:
| https://www.ema.europa.eu/sites/default/files/timeline_-
| _fas...
|
| Standard:
| https://www.ema.europa.eu/sites/default/files/timeline_-
| _sta...
| bart_spoon wrote:
| So your hang up is the FDA giving full approval? Because
| recent reports indicate that will likely be happening for the
| Pfizer vaccine next month.
|
| Somehow I think there will be a major shifting of goalposts
| by the anti-vax camp around that time.
| textgel wrote:
| > Requiring people to consume a medical product just to
| live their normal lives is morally wrong.
|
| > So your hang up is the FDA giving full approval?
|
| Perhaps they will but could you save the strawman arguments
| for then as well.
| bart_spoon wrote:
| It's not a strawman. We already require a variety of
| vaccinations so the "requiring people to consume a
| medical product is wrong" argument is bunk. The only
| differentiation is that this vaccine has yet to receive
| full approval. I'm simply focusing on the only relevant
| part of the argument that is being made here, and
| pointing out that in 6 weeks it won't hold any water
| anymore.
| makomk wrote:
| Recent reports indicate that the reason it's getting FDA
| approval so soon is not because of any specific scientific
| evidence or the standard FDA process, but instead it's
| being approved early as a deliberate political tactic to
| undermine this argument used by people who don't trust the
| vaccines: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/04/fda-
| approval-pfizer...
|
| I don't think it's the "anti-vax camp" who's behind the
| major shifting of the goalposts here.
| closeparen wrote:
| Requiring me to consume a novel virus in order to live my
| life is morally wrong. You're making me into a test subject
| for the bats.
|
| The whole point of civil society is to solve coordination
| problems and deliver public goods like sanitation and health.
| If it can't accomplish something as basic as vaccination then
| it is blatantly unfit for purpose. Absolutely, jettison it!
| The truly crazy idea here is that we would retain and bear
| the costs of a civil society which is so incompetent at its
| bread and butter job.
|
| We don't leave the water mains to gush into the street, we
| don't leave the sewers to back up into the toilets, and we
| don't leave the viruses to circulate in the bars.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| I assume you are for mandatory vaccine of every
| communicable disease right? Every person should be required
| to have ebola, flu and every other vaccine before they go
| to a bar. If you do not support this then you believe in
| letting viruses circulate in the bars.
| closeparen wrote:
| You don't need an ebola vaccine because you're not going
| to encounter ebola at a bar. The few outbreaks which
| occurred in the US were contained through tracing and
| isolation.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| Ok, then what about the flu vaccine? Thousands die in the
| US every year from it.
| eropple wrote:
| How many compulsory vaccines were necessary for you to attend
| school?
|
| For me, it was three or four at least, and until some
| genuinely inimical people decided vaccines were a good way to
| get famous at the expense of the body politic, _nobody
| cared_.
| AndrewBissell wrote:
| Are you drawing a comparison between requiring vaccinations
| (with 30+ year safety records) against measles and polio,
| for children to attend public school, with requiring
| vaccinations (with no long-term safety data whatsoever)
| against Covid for people to go to public establishments?
|
| Did you ever need proof of a polio vaccine to get into
| Equinox?
| eropple wrote:
| Hi! Thanks for asking! I very much am drawing that
| comparison, because there is literally no--and I mean
| that, _literally no_ --evidence from a credible source to
| suggest that the possibility exists in terms of actual
| pathways to a long-term problem. Should that evidence be
| forthcoming from sources with a credible tether to
| reality, I will re-evaluate my position, but unlike so
| many of the fearful types who insist one "should do their
| own research", I have, and this is the conclusion I've
| come to, and to such a degree of certainty that I am
| comfortable with the requirement.
|
| Further, I am also asserting that the fearmongering to
| the contrary is foolish and worth immediate discount. And
| given that literal disinformation ops are trying to
| recruit YouTubers to take a ninety degree swerve from
| tech or whatever they normally do to talk _very
| seriously_ about the _just asking questions_ about
| vaccination, I am okay with being pretty damned hard on
| this.
|
| Thanks for asking!
| goostavos wrote:
| I think it's weird when people take this hyper confident,
| hyper dismissive black and white "thanks for asking!"
| stance on an extremely complex topic.
|
| My spicy hot take: this shit is fantastically
| complicated. At the very least, I think it has to be
| acknowledged that accurate medical reporting at scale is
| apparently a Hard Problem and not at all as solved as we
| would like to think. I don't know how you're defining
| sources with a "credible tether to reality," but I'd
| point to the problem with establishing such things _as
| itself a problem_. VAERS is a perfect example of such a
| problem. Despite all the hubris in this thread acting
| like they've blown the case wide open, VAERS folks are
| well aware that their data is trash.
| eropple wrote:
| It is absolutely a hard problem. It is a hard problem
| being hit with the full weight of a fantastic amount of
| money and intellect to get it right the first time.
|
| When the contrary position is not generally the position
| of either genuine _goddamned loons_ or the much more
| unfortunate case of people given historically very valid
| reasons for hesitancy that in this case no show sign of
| being true, there might be a reason to re-evaluate that
| stance.
|
| Right now? I'm good.
| corey_moncure wrote:
| So do you consider VAERS to have a credible tether to
| reality?
| Daishiman wrote:
| No. It isn't. VAERS just dumps people who have any
| medical condition at the time of vaccination. Neither
| correlation nor causation can be inferred from the data.
| The data has no reporting standards, no verifiability. It
| is not a study on vaccine side-effects (of which there
| have been many).
|
| Using VAERS as proof of anything is a literal
| demonstration that the person in question has no idea
| what he's talking about.
| cooljacob204 wrote:
| Which is funny because the same people claim a lot of
| Covid deaths are from other medical conditions.
| jcranmer wrote:
| VAERS is basically a self-reporting facility for any
| adverse condition that occurred vaguely in the vicinity
| of being vaccinated, and its quality should be assessed
| as such.
|
| In other words, VAERS data should be treated as at most a
| "this may be worth looking into," and certainly nowhere
| near a level of "this is a definitive proof something
| goes wrong." Especially in a time when tens of millions
| of people are getting vaccinated with the same vaccine at
| the same time, you're going to get lots of reports of
| people falling ill with something just by sheer
| coincidence.
| muaytimbo wrote:
| Actually there already have been previously undocumented
| side effects with the new vaccines, heart inflammation
| with the mRNA vaccines and blood clotting with a couple
| of the others. These were the short term side effects
| that weren't caught during the safety trials. We have
| zero data about long term side effects.
|
| While I can't give you an "actual pathway to a long-term
| problem" by which I assume you mean a mechanism of action
| I will note science is hard, scientists can't always
| predict what will happen, and serendipitous discoveries
| happen daily. The long term risk is unknown. I think if
| you're at risk for serious infection you should get
| vaccinated, if you're not really at risk it's more
| difficult to weigh the relative risks.
| oezi wrote:
| There has never been a vaccine with a side effect found
| after more than 2-3 months. Long term side-effects are
| not a thing for vaccines.
|
| Source: Interview with head of German vaccination
| recommendation commission.
| muaytimbo wrote:
| mRNA vaccines are new, so there's no appropriate
| historical comparison, it's apples and oranges. There's
| more uncertainty.
|
| Also long term side effects have been documented in other
| mammals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine-
| associated_sarcoma#:~:....
| AndrewBissell wrote:
| Your source is wrong. The Pandemrix swine flu vaccine
| caused narcolepsy in children which did not start showing
| up for a year after the first doses were administered,
| and it took authorities another year after that to
| acknowledge the link to the vaccine.
| textgel wrote:
| That we know of, just as we "Knew" these vaccines would
| effectively prevent transmissions and wouldn't have side
| effects.
| eropple wrote:
| They do effectively prevent transmissions, against the
| strains to which they were tailored. They still do a
| pretty good job against strains to which they were not
| specifically tailored. The problem is that not enough
| people _have them_.
|
| The side effects that are able to be actually
| substantiated by credible sources have been generally
| quite mild and very, very rare.
| [deleted]
| rPlayer6554 wrote:
| Those vaccines have had years of use behind them. The
| coronavirus mRNA vaccines are a completely new technology
| and haven't even been given anything past emergency
| approval. This is an apples and oranges comparison.
| bingidingi wrote:
| MRNA vaccines are not new, but the efficacy is. There are
| drugs on the market right now with much less r&d behind
| them. The main problem with the covid vaccines are
| political machinations.
| pklausler wrote:
| What's your excuse for avoiding the J&J vaccine?
| tedunangst wrote:
| Not the best argument. Adenovirus vector is possibly less
| studied than mRNA, with a number of not great failure
| modes.
| Uberphallus wrote:
| And this is a completely new virus. If regular vaccines
| vs mRNA is apples to oranges, then vaccines vs. any other
| option to solve the problem is oranges to a truckload of
| durian.
| standardUser wrote:
| "The coronavirus mRNA vaccines are a completely new
| technology"
|
| There have been mRNA vaccines in human clinical trials
| for around 10 years and they have been studied for around
| 30 years. There are countless examples of other non-
| controversial medicines developed and studied for far
| shorter lengths of time.
| 12elephant wrote:
| What is one mRNA vaccine that has been approved by the
| FDA?
| [deleted]
| tboyd47 wrote:
| This is a day-old comment on a thread which never made it
| to front page HN, and now 5 snarky replies appear in less
| than 30 minutes. Do you guys all work in the same room or
| something?
| [deleted]
| eropple wrote:
| It was on the front page not five minutes ago.
| stnmtn wrote:
| No, I think like someone above said this thread was added
| to something called a "second chance pool" on HN, which
| means it gets reposted to the frontpage after X amount of
| time for a second time, and it rewrites the timestamps.
| So I think that's what you're seeing
| hemloc_io wrote:
| Vaxed and pro-vax, but I'm pretty opposed to this policy out of
| NYC. (And I suspect other cities soon). I'm personally a bit of
| a privacy nut so take that as you will, but open to changing my
| mind.
|
| To have a different take than other people, I just don't know
| if this precedent is really one that we want to start,
| particularly if you are liberal/leftist.
|
| For e.g. let's say we're at the beginning of the HIV epidemic,
| and the govt mandates a policy requiring you to have a negative
| HIV test in order to go-to any bar/restaurant etc or there are
| a bunch of private businesses that say they don't want to risk
| their patrons from getting HIV, so require a negative HIV test
| in order to enter, or even that their patrons are just
| uncomfortable being around people with HIV so they mandate it.
|
| HIV patients aren't a protected class so it could happen and
| there's nothing anyone can do about it, yet I bet most of the
| people wanting these vaccine card mandates now would disagree
| with that policy.
|
| Businesses being able to reject/accept customers can already
| run into some weird civil rights issues already, and it's
| strange that so many people who are ostensibly left wing are
| advocating for libertarian positions on what a business should
| be able to discriminate on, because it benefits their team this
| time.
|
| How many people out there argued that a business should have to
| bake a gay wedding cake, b/c businesses shouldn't discriminate
| on your sexual preference, but think they should on your
| personal health decisions? (Which, since vaccines work means
| that patrons in that business who are vaccinated shouldn't be
| in any particular extra danger.)*
|
| More frustrating is that if we want more people to be vaxxed
| there's many more things that we that aren't punitive, but
| probably don't feel as fair. (aka why did I get nothing for
| getting vaxed but XYZ got 100-1000$/lottery/free tickets
| whatever.) Since a large portion of the unvaxed aren't the
| Trumpian sterotype, but concerned with things like having to
| take days off of work to deal with side effects. [0]
|
| 0: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-
| co...
|
| * This discounts the generation of new variants outside the
| business, since this policy is ostensibly targeted at keeping
| patrons safe, not at being a pseudo-mandate for getting the
| vaccine.
| briane80 wrote:
| Ivermectin has shown great promise not only treating symptons
| of covid (5000% reduction in viral load in one paper) but also
| as a prophylactic. The small studies released recently suggest
| up to 83% effectiveness as a prophylactic. Of course larger RCT
| will need done, but fat chance of that with the economic
| incentive for big pharma and their politcal cronies and the
| weird political push to get EVERYONE vaccinated.
|
| Getting downvoted by the hive mind so here's some links to a
| paper and offical news sources-
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
|
| https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/...
|
| https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v...
|
| https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-scientist-says-...
|
| meta study - https://ivmmeta.com/
|
| https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indian-ba...
|
| https://www.pfizer.com/science/coronavirus/antiviral-efforts...
| swader999 wrote:
| It saved my ass. My regular gp's advice was just to live with
| long covid for the next 12 months or so until it went away.
| He couldn't prescribe it so I found the horse paste and got
| better.
| polote wrote:
| This measure can't be a way to create "zero covid spaces"
| because people who are vaccinated can still transmit the virus
| (even though less than unvaccinated people, but it doesnt seem
| to be a 90% reduction either). So the goal here is to increase
| the vaccination rate.
|
| It seems pretty weird to ask the indoor business owners to be
| the ones who are in charge of controlling that the vaccination
| rate is increasing and to be the one who are punished because
| the vaccination rate is not high enough.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| But we're okay requiring masks, and we're okay putting the
| onus on businesses to enforce _that_.
|
| I'd much rather enforce vaccinations than masks.
| polote wrote:
| It more or less made sense to require masks when people
| where unvaccinated. But now there is no reason to be OK to
| require masks either unless you are for mask wearing
| mandate for everything, everywhere, all the time
| giantg2 wrote:
| "It more or less made sense to require masks when people
| where unvaccinated. But now there is no reason to be OK
| to require masks either unless you are for mask wearing
| mandate for everything, everywhere, all the time"
|
| Well, CDC is saying even vaccinated people should be
| masking. So it seems we are moving to a public-space mask
| everywhere all the time.
| coccinelle wrote:
| I think CDC is saying vaccinated people should be
| masking, because they may still transmit the virus to all
| the unvacinated out there that have a much higher
| likelihood of ending up at the hospital should they get
| infected. If all were vaccinated, transmission would be
| much less of a problem (since risk of acute symptoms
| would be way lowered) and I'm not sure the CDC would
| mandate masks.
| giantg2 wrote:
| If that's true though, then the argument frequently given
| about requiring vaccinations to prevent mutation is not
| very strong if vaccinated people are still infectious
| hosts. So it seems the need to masks even with
| vaccination exists.
| asdff wrote:
| The CDC doesn't care about cases, they care about
| hospitalizations, and 99% of hospitalizations are
| unvaccinated people. If everyone is vaccinated and the
| virus is passing freely, the CDC couldn't care less
| because very few people would be going to the hospital.
| Just like how we don't mandate masks for the common cold,
| since that doesn't overload our hospital system like
| COVID has.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "If everyone is vaccinated and the virus is passing
| freely, the CDC couldn't care less because very few
| people would be going to the hospital."
|
| The CDC does worry about infections due to the risk of
| escaped mutants.
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-
| covid-19-only-a...
| [deleted]
| trident5000 wrote:
| Or you could...require neither at this point in time.
|
| If you're worried about covid then get the vaccination. For
| people who want to take a risk, let them do it.
|
| I have the vaccine so why do I care if Im around people
| that have covid? We believe in science right?
| [deleted]
| admax88q wrote:
| You believe in science? Great!
|
| What does the science tell you about the risks to
| vaccinated individuals when exposed to other vaccinated
| individuals or to non vaccinated individuals?
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| ...that they're really darn low either way! Not zero, and
| with very bad consequences if you win the lottery, but as
| far as I can tell if you're vaccinated (or under 12)
| you're at more risk from the flu!
| paganel wrote:
| > "zero covid spaces"
|
| As a tangent, I wish we would get rid of this "zero covid
| spaces" mania, makes having a reasonable discussion between
| those who want to continue our lives as normal as possible
| given the circumstances (I am one of them) and those who want
| to get back to an illusory "pre-covid normal" basically
| impossible.
|
| One of my grand-mothers died of tuberculosis about 10 years
| ago. Imo it's as nasty a death as death by covid is. A quick
| web search tells me 1.4 million people die of TB each year, I
| suppose an average of 1.4 million (give or take a few
| hundred-thousands) have died of TB each year for the last
| half-century at least. Nobody ever talked about us disrupting
| our daily lives in order to bring TB cases to zero.
| starlust2 wrote:
| The U.S. only has around 600 deaths from TB per year. Covid
| was 100x more deaths with lockdowns and other restrictions
| factored in.
|
| Not even remotely the same thing.
| paganel wrote:
| Sorry that I wasn't clear, I'm not from the US, I know
| this is an US-article but I see that push to get to zero
| covid cases in many places, no matter the continent.
|
| Probably covid deaths will trickle down to 500-600 per
| year in places like the US in a few years, a combination
| of higher access to vaccines and better health
| facilities, and the number will remain high in places
| like India/SE Asia, just like it now happens with TB.
| starlust2 wrote:
| The US numbers still show that TB can be mitigated
| without intrusive widespread restrictions.
|
| The majority of deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa and SE
| Asia. That leads me to believe that the differentiator is
| access to medical care, primarily access to life saving
| drugs.
| jb775 wrote:
| Your covid numbers are 100x skewed and essentially fake.
| trutannus wrote:
| > It seems pretty weird to ask the indoor business owners to
| be the ones who are in charge of controlling that the
| vaccination rate is increasing and to be the one who are
| punished because the vaccination rate is not high enough.
|
| So far the data coming out of the EU has indicated that when
| passports and certificates were introduced, there was an
| uptick in vaccination the day the measure was introduced.
| Estonia, for instance, has seen this happen.
| schrijver wrote:
| The Netherlands has seen willingness to vaccinate rise from
| around 60% at the start of the crisis to 87% right now, and
| part of this success is attributed to the fact that the
| government always made it clear that vaccination was not
| going to be mandatory, and testing would be an alternative.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > It seems pretty weird to ask the indoor business owners to
| be the ones who are in charge of controlling that the
| vaccination rate is increasing and to be the one who are
| punished because the vaccination rate is not high enough.
|
| If their businesses are spreading the disease then it seems
| entirely reasonable.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| With vaccinated people acting as asymptomatic spreaders -
| this is impossible to know.
| cratermoon wrote:
| Pretty much this. Businesses that are known to be
| problematic, like restaurants and bars, should expect that
| their choice to stay open and continue serving people comes
| with responsibilities. They don't operate free of
| consequences, and they shouldn't expect to externalize
| those consequences.
|
| However, it really sucks that the people who mostly end up
| trying to enforce the mandate are the staff who already
| have, in most countries, jobs that most of us would not
| consider fun. The people most likely to insist on going out
| to eat and entertain are, generally, the sorts of
| unpleasant folk that already treat waitstaff poorly.
| standardUser wrote:
| "...people who are vaccinated can still transmit the virus "
|
| Well, yes, In the same way an infant may fight Muhammad Ali.
| Futurama references aside, the vast majority of data shows
| that vaccinated people are far less likely to spread the
| virus.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the goal here is to increase the vaccination rate_
|
| The goal is to avoid overloading the hospital system.
| Vaccinated people spreading the Delta variant amongst each
| other is not going to do that. Unvaccinated people getting
| sick will.
| AndrewBissell wrote:
| > _The goal is to avoid overloading the hospital system._
|
| This is clearly not the goal -- there have been no
| additions to hospital capacity since the pandemic started
| in earnest 17 months ago.
| wtfzse wrote:
| Remember the hospital ship and the stadium hospital and
| all those hospitals they stood up and had to take down
| because no one was using them?
|
| Remember the goddamn tiktok nurses?
|
| Seriously the level of propaganda warfare being waged on
| the American populace is entirely _INSANE_.
| Daishiman wrote:
| This is definitely not the case where I live. Existing
| units were shifted, capacity was reserved, some makeshift
| isolation units built on containers were purchased. At
| any rate, that is a substantial cost to build out and
| maintain.
| rajin444 wrote:
| > The goal is to avoid overloading the hospital system
|
| If that's the goal we need to decide what things are ok to
| go to the hospital for and what aren't. A lot of hospital
| visits could be prevented if we took the obesity epidemic
| seriously - I imagine the CFR of covid would be way down if
| America was not so obese.
|
| And if we're ok with mandating vaccines, we should
| definitely be ok with mandating a healthy bodyfat %. The
| health gains from the latter would dwarf that of the
| former.
| standardUser wrote:
| "A lot of hospital visits could be prevented if we took
| the obesity epidemic seriously:"
|
| That's a lovely multi-generational idea and we should
| work towards it in the coming decades. Meanwhile, as 400
| Americans die of a preventable illness every single day,
| we should prioritize reducing the hospitalization rate.
| Florida became the most recent state to halt surgeries at
| some hospitals... again.
| usaar333 wrote:
| Is there evidence NYC's hospital system could be
| overloaded?
|
| UK just peaked (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/); Does NYC
| have significantly worse vaccine coverage in vulnerable
| populations or worse capacity?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _Is there evidence NYC 's hospital system could be
| overloaded?_
|
| Yes, because exactly that happened in March and April of
| 2020, leading to tens of thousands of deaths. Here's your
| evidence[1][2][3].
|
| [1] https://abc7ny.com/nyc-hospital-queens-coronavirus-
| news/6070...
|
| [2] https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/us/brooklyn-hospital-
| coronavi...
|
| [3] https://www.foxnews.com/health/nyc-hospitals-
| overwhelmed-by-...
| usaar333 wrote:
| That's before a considerable amount of population gained
| some level of immunity. UK experienced relatively low
| hospitalization in their last wave.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Hospitalizations in the US have increased 400% since the
| beginning of July, and in NYC specifically[1], they have
| doubled with steep positive rate-of-change.
|
| [1] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-
| trends.pag...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Is there evidence NYC 's hospital system could be
| overloaded?_
|
| My friend, a plastic surgeon, was drafted to tend to an
| entire floor of folks on ventilators. No other doctors.
| Occasionally, an exhausted nurse. He spent the last
| twenty years doing face lifts. I think some patients were
| in doctor's offices.
|
| We also halted surgeries and cancer patients' visits and
| hosts of other stuff to keep the strained system from
| going New Delhi.
| cm2187 wrote:
| Not if they are 20 or already had covid.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Not if they are 20 or already had covid_
|
| We have inconclusive data on the protection past
| infection affords with respect to the Delta variant. We
| have decent data showing the mRNA vaccines work. We also
| have inconclusive but pointed data about the Delta
| variant being more problematic for younger people [1].
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/03/health/covid-
| young-adults...
| jb775 wrote:
| HOSPITALS HAVE LITERALLY BEEN EMPTY SINCE DAY 1.
| cratermoon wrote:
| > people who are vaccinated can still transmit the virus
|
| Just FYI, a vaccinated person, like anyone else, can only
| transmit the virus if they have a symptomatic breakthrough
| case.
| chitowneats wrote:
| So you're saying there's no such thing as asymptomatic
| spread of COVID-19? Isn't asymptomatic spread a primary
| reason for the unprecedented restrictions and mass testing?
|
| Edit: Down voters, I would appreciate an explanation for
| the down votes. Am I missing something simple or is OP
| mistaken?
| cratermoon wrote:
| You know, I'd almost forgotten about asymptomatic spread,
| and I'm glad you asked. My assertion about vaccinated was
| based on a non-scientific interpretation of something I
| read. I'm afraid I lack the expertise to really answer in
| depth. So the best I can do is point to the sources that
| address it. "The viral load in these breakthrough cases
| was about three to four times lower than the viral load
| among infected people who were unvaccinated"
| https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-crucial-
| vacci...
|
| So as best I understand it, the vaccinated are orders of
| a magnitude less likely to be asymptomatic spreaders,
| compared to the unvaccinated. As with pretty much
| everything relating to disease and epidemiology, there
| are very few absolutes.
| standardUser wrote:
| You are (mostly) correct. It is _pre-symptomatic
| transmission_ that has driven most of the spread. By
| comparison, asymptomatic carriers have been shown in
| studies to spread the virus much less effectively. People
| can still get infected after being vaccinated (or having
| recovered naturally), but they are far more likely to
| have a truly asymptomatic case and therefore less likely
| to spread the virus.
| isolli wrote:
| Would you have a reference? I have been speculating the
| same for a while, but by now I wish we had some proof
| rather than speculation.
| chitowneats wrote:
| That's an interesting distinction I will look into more.
| Thank you for the reply.
|
| If this is the case, I stand by my questioning of OP's
| statement: "a vaccinated person, like anyone else, can
| only transmit the virus if they have a symptomatic
| breakthrough case."
|
| This seems an oversimplification.
| vkou wrote:
| Vaccinated people produce a much lower viral load. The lower
| the viral load that your body takes in, when you get
| infected, the less serious your symptoms/the lower your risk
| of hospitalization and death.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Researchers found that vaccinated people can produce the
| same viral load as one exhibiting symptoms (and
| unvaccinated).
| vkou wrote:
| _Can_ , or _do_? How frequently? How much lower is their
| viral load, on average, than an unvaccinated person 's?
|
| You are either making a truly extraordinary claim, or are
| supporting my point. If vaccination significantly reduces
| viral load in 95% of cases, it's true that it _might_ not
| reduce it for everyone. But it makes a huge difference,
| in terms of public health. Both epidemics, and viral
| infections are a numbers game. Reduce the denominator in
| an exponent, or a constant multiplier, and you get the
| difference between life and death.
| thisiscorrect wrote:
| "do"
|
| [1] https://www.news-
| medical.net/news/20210803/Unvaccinated-and-... [2] https:
| //www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v...
| chadash wrote:
| Alternatively, I'd be much more comfortable going out if I
| knew everyone around me would be vaccinated.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| But a lot of them can still be positive (i think 30% with
| AZ vaccine), and somehow noone tests the vaccinated ones,
| so you'd never know, and most of them are asymptomatic, so
| they don't even know it.
|
| I got my vaccine early on, and haven't been tested since.
| chadash wrote:
| Still a lot of unknowns, but seems pretty clear that
| vaccinated people are _less likely_ to contract and
| spread. So I like my odds better among a vaccinated
| crowd.
| tracedddd wrote:
| We shouldn't applaud the normalization of health status checks
| outside a border crossing. The world has a nasty trend of using
| crises to erode privacy and we collectively never recover -
| what was sold as temporary becomes permanent, endlessly
| extended and expanded.
|
| I'm not an antivaxer. The vaccine works and I believe it's
| really safe. I'm vaccinated. Nearly anyone who is capable to go
| to a bar can easily go get vaccinated. If they don't, I'm not
| interested in saving them from themselves, honestly.
|
| If the spread or variant breakthrough or some other aspect is
| so critical that we need to resort to novel privacy violations
| we should just shut down again instead.
| jrockway wrote:
| What sort of things will health checks be used for in the
| future? Once Covid is gone, I don't think people will really
| care about your health information beyond entities that
| already care (health insurance providers denying coverage
| because of preexisting conditions, etc.) Certainly, The Mets
| won't care if you got your flu shot this year, and your local
| bar probably won't care that you didn't get your annual
| physical. If unrelated companies start caring about your
| health information after the pandemic, we should tell them to
| fuck off.
|
| Covid is a public health crisis -- the single most dangerous
| existential threat we as a society are currently facing --
| and we have great tools to kill it dead. Letting it spread
| right now is just stupid, because we can end this plague once
| and for all. While we're working on it, I think it's totally
| fair to let someone check your vaccination status before you
| pack yourself into close quarters with them. It's not a
| matter of the government or the corporate overlords wanting
| your health information. As the person standing next to you
| in a crowded bar, I don't want you there if you're not
| vaccinated. If indoor businesses won't check customers, then
| I won't go to those indoor businesses, and if enough people
| think like me, those businesses are gone forever.
|
| Get vaccinated or stay home. You have a choice!
|
| (The real threat during crises like these is things like "we
| shouldn't have a free press, because nutjobs are spreading
| misinformation". That is an exceedingly dangerous line of
| thinking and we should push back against that hard, because
| the cure is worse than the disease. That's not the case with
| Covid -- the cure is much better than the disease.)
| asdff wrote:
| We could honestly probably save billions in healthcare
| costs if we mandated a yearly physical and cancer
| screening. It would lift our economy catching these costly
| diseases and health issues while they are still easily and
| cheaply treatable.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| You'd also save billions, if you forced diets on people,
| forbid cigarettes, stopped selling sugar water with
| colorings, forbid driving, forbid skiing, hiking,
| climbing, and all other dangerous sports, keep social
| isolation every flu season, forbid casual sex (stds,
| unwanted children),... you'd just somehow have to stop
| suicides in the end.
| pmarreck wrote:
| The solution here is for healthcare coverage to offer you
| a discount if you submit to any testing that the parent
| comment said was mandatory. That gives you the freedom to
| take on more risk at personal financial cost to yourself
| dalmo3 wrote:
| Why? Suicides would save you even more. Corpse removal
| would get cheaper at scale.
|
| All that money would be gone towards border control,
| though.
| peder wrote:
| Once a system is in place, it'll be repurposed and never go
| away. Also, "Once Covid is gone". By what metric will it be
| "gone"? Are you talking zero COVID? That's never ever
| happening.
| laurent92 wrote:
| Macron in France set the goal at 90% vaccination. At that
| level across a continent, Covid could be gone.
|
| Rule #1 in politics: Always set the bar to success at
| idealistic level, so you can fail and blame it on the
| scapegoats who didn't trust the government. "BECAUSE some
| people didn't vaccinate, we must lock down everyone again
| and ruin your economy. Blame it on them!" (Mao revolution
| failed because there were still _some_ naysayers; Saving
| women fails because there are still some men opposed to
| true equality defined by unreachable levels of
| compliance, etc).
|
| But politicians are talented: When you can't actually
| solve a crisis (and Covid can't be solved because it's
| out there, now), you'd better quickly find a scapegoat to
| concentrate everyone's blame on.
| hartator wrote:
| > Once Covid is gone
|
| It will never be completely gone though, like terrorism.
| [deleted]
| blub wrote:
| If this were an existential threat to society maybe that
| would justify mandatory vaccination, but it's not even
| close to that. Even the most badly battered countries have
| not only managed to survive, but found a way to cope with
| the pandemic.
| schrijver wrote:
| > What sort of things will health checks be used for in the
| future? Once Covid is gone (...)
|
| Will it be gone? As far as I understand, the Delta variant
| remains contagious even among vaccinated people, so it will
| likely stay around. Now that there's vaccines, it's just
| less dangerous (to the vaccinated). But any system of
| health checks you set up now could stay in place for a long
| time.
|
| > The Mets won't care if you got your flu shot this year
|
| The flu shot is a pretty interesting example. People die
| all the time because others didn't get their flu shot.
| Where I live only half of the healthcare workers get it.
| The Mets could save lives by requiring that their patrons
| get it. And yet we don't get very worked up about these
| jabs. Maybe covid showed us that we should? I don't know,
| but it shows that covid isn't some unique phenomenon, and
| that the way we deal with will have repercussions how we
| deal with other health issues going forward.
| [deleted]
| nradov wrote:
| You're exaggerating. COVID-19 is a serious public health
| problem that we need to address, but in no way an
| existential crisis. CDC data shows an overall 99.6%
| survival rate, with the vast majority of deaths being
| elderly people with serious co-morbid conditions.
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-
| updates/burd...
|
| Due to privacy concerns I certainly won't be sharing my
| health information with random businesses.
| tantalor wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
| tracedddd wrote:
| Pointing out a slippery slope doesn't mean it isn't worth
| considering the consequences.
|
| My position is indeed speculative, however it's not without
| evidence. We very rarely regain rights or freedoms when
| they are taken so I think it's valid to be concerned about
| the same thing happening here.
| tantalor wrote:
| > not without evidence
|
| Please give examples
| adventured wrote:
| Letting the US Government, at the behest of the
| President, wage war nearly anytime it feels like it,
| without prior authorization of Congress. Slippery slope
| meet the forever war machine.
|
| Trade & tariff conflicts of the 1930s, which spiraled
| from a smaller economic conflict into a larger economic
| conflict and into the great depression. All because the
| government was given too much leash to run with.
|
| Letting the government (and Fed) bail out Wall Street
| repeatedly and institutionalize too big to fail as an
| economic policy.
|
| The US Government specializes in lubricating slopes and
| speeding down them.
| tracedddd wrote:
| Patriot Act.
| claytongulick wrote:
| "Interpreting" the Interstate Commerce Clause to grant
| the Federal Government the power to regulate controlled
| substances?
|
| At this point, there is no power conceivable that the
| Federal government could not claim under the umbrella of
| "it might affect commerce somewhere".
|
| Most of the powers the Federal government has seized from
| the states have been rationalized under the ICC. Like
| making it illegal for a farmer to grow wheat on his own
| farm to feed his own animals. [1]
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
| timr wrote:
| Six months ago, I was routinely told that my fears of
| vaccine passports were "conspiracy theory", and the same
| arguments about the slippery slope were invoked.
|
| At some point, you just have to look down and notice that
| the slope of the ground is negative, and everything is
| greasy.
| reidjs wrote:
| What's bad about a vaccine passport? Do you think
| unvaccinated people should be allowed to travel
| internationally? Isn't that really dangerous?
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| In slovenia, you need a vaccine passport (or a <48h old
| test) to drink coffee outside, infront of the cafe, in
| fresh air... yes, we're sliding deep and fast.
| nradov wrote:
| Should we also check vaccine passports for people who
| cross the border illegally?
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Vaccinated people can still spread the virus according to
| the CDC. This is just an endemic thing we have to live
| with.
| timr wrote:
| > What's bad about a vaccine passport?
|
| Other people have covered that in many comments
| throughout this thread. I _personally_ don 't want to
| live in a world where I am asked to show my papers --
| _whatever those papers may be_ -- to participate in daily
| life.
|
| > Do you think unvaccinated people should be allowed to
| travel internationally?
|
| I think so, but it's certainly within the rights of any
| nation to choose the rules by which foreigners may enter
| their country. I care less about this than I do about
| having to show a "passport" to get food.
|
| > Isn't that really dangerous?
|
| In a _highly vaccinated population_? No. That 's the
| point of vaccines. Once the threat of (involuntary)
| serious and illness and death has been abrogated, SARS-
| CoV2 takes its place amongst the pantheon of other
| respiratory viruses that we have lived with for
| centuries.
| pmarreck wrote:
| > I personally don't want to live in a world where I am
| asked to show my papers -- whatever those papers may be
| -- to participate in daily life.
|
| Has that participation ever involved _travel to another
| country_? Standard passports exist for very good
| reasons... otherwise, there wouldn 't be 100% of nations
| who depend on them (are there even any nations that don't
| ask for one?)
| pmarreck wrote:
| > We very rarely regain rights or freedoms when they are
| taken so I think it's valid to be concerned about the
| same thing happening here.
|
| The doctors who gained, then lost, _police powers_ to
| enforce quarantine during the "Spanish Flu" would like
| to have a word
| the_reformation wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| The first paragraph is how I feel. I'm vaccinated, but fat
| luck asking to see the card. I almost laughed when it was
| suggested to me at the vaccination site, by the
| administrating nurse, that I should get it laminated and put
| it on a lanyard.
| tayo42 wrote:
| Do you not show your ID at a bar? What privacy are you giving
| up here?
| wtfzse wrote:
| It isn't about privacy dumbass. It is about freedom of
| movement and travel - something the 5th amendment enshrines
| perfectly well in English for those of us in the USA.
|
| "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
| otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
| indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the
| land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
| service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
| person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
| jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
| criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
| deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
| of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
| without just compensation."
|
| https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Rights/Travel/Righ
| t...
|
| This entire "mandate", "law" whatever you want to call is
| 100% completely unconstitutional. Yes, it might take a year
| to travel through the courts but it is _clearly_
| unconstitutional.
| swader999 wrote:
| Do they scan it with a call to the cloud to verify it?
| That's the real threat here - continuous tracking, ability
| to turn it off or geo fence you to a certain area.
| tayo42 wrote:
| I'm not sure the implentation but I have gotten my ID
| scanned to get into places and to buy lotto tickets
|
| Do you pay cash for everything? nnever use a credit card?
| Don't fly?
| swader999 wrote:
| All of those kinds of transactions are voluntary. This
| will become a scanable thing because if it doesn't it
| won't be a workable system.
| lurquer wrote:
| > Nearly anyone who is capable to go to a bar can easily go
| get vaccinated.
|
| It's too risky to themselves and others for unvaccinated
| people to drive to a bar to drink alcohol. Ha. Similar to
| swabbing the injection site for lethal injections to avoid
| infections.
| AlexTWithBeard wrote:
| Why would you be opposed to a policy requiring everyone to jog
| three miles every day? Jogging is good for your health, its
| side effects are minor and benefits to the society in whole
| will be tremendous.
| pklausler wrote:
| If I choose to stop running, I'm not increasing a health risk
| for others. Sloth is not contagious.
| textgel wrote:
| You're potentially taking up a hospital bed at some point
| that could be used for someone else.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Giving a small list and saying everyone must fit into these
| boxes is incomplete logic.
|
| You could be anti-needle. You could have health issues. You
| could be in an isolated community. You could have got the
| vaccine and are not worried about their kid.
|
| You could be anything.
| [deleted]
| l33tman wrote:
| 4. You already have had COVID-19 and feel the added (minor)
| protection by 1-2 vaccine shots gets you into more cons than
| pros.
| jhgb wrote:
| The "added protection" is not "minor" in any sense.
| goostavos wrote:
| The forgotten minority :(
| roenxi wrote:
| A selection of other arguments, roughly ordered by strength:
|
| 1. This is mandating that vaccine companies make more money,
| the incentives are suspect. We might reasonably expect people
| who already had COVID should have better immunity than the
| vaccinated since the vaccination is basically just a simulation
| of having COVID. Why not then be suspicious of reasoning
| motivated by unscrupulous profiteers? People will be getting
| vaccinated who don't want or need it, which raises an eyebrow.
| This policy is probably a fig leaf for government handouts to
| big pharma.
|
| 2. The evidence changes. We don't know what the 2 year effects
| of COVID are yet since the disease hasn't existed for 2 years.
| Even now week-to-week what everyone knows can change. I do not
| trust that the scientific basis for this decision will still be
| sound in 12 months - the data here is raw.
|
| 3. What about the argument that people have a right to control
| their own bodies? There has been a concerted push by reasonable
| people for that, eg, in the area of abortions. If the NYC
| government can demand vaccination for the greater good then it
| is basically the same logic as demanding carriage of babies to
| term for the greater good. We know a lot of people disagree
| with that logic.
|
| 4. You also haven't distinguished between (1) thinking that the
| vaccine is a bad idea and (2) thinking that governments feeling
| empowered to mandate the most experimental vaccines in a
| generation is unwise. It already appears they don't work as
| advertised given that having taken the vaccine doesn't
| acceptably improve their risk profile vs. COVID (in the NY
| government's opinion). Which I think it does.
|
| 5. The far more effective measure would be tight border
| controls to prevent even worse variants - the biggest risk here
| as far as I can tell has always been something like a delta
| variant appearing and breaking through the first generation of
| vaccines. But defending against that would inconvenience the
| people making the decisions, so it is unlikely they'll think of
| that. The decision makers aren't serious about stopping the
| virus, so their decisions made to allegedly stop the virus are
| suspect.
| dcolkitt wrote:
| > Unless, of course, you think that the vaccine is more
| dangerous than coronavirus. And then I don't really know what
| to say.
|
| I'd still encourage everyone to vaccinate for pro-social
| reasons, but for the young and the healthy I don't think this
| is such a ridiculous assertion. I'm virtually 100% confident
| that vaccines are completely safe and effective. However for a
| large fraction of people they will make you _feel like shit_
| for 2-5 days.
|
| Let's just do a quick QALY based tradeoff for a healthy 25-year
| old. To make it interesting let's also say that she was already
| previously infected with Covid. The baseline CFR for this age
| group is approximately 0.004%. For someone with antibodies this
| number's at least 50% for subsequent infections.
|
| Assuming 70 years of remaining life expectancy, Covid infection
| would lead to the loss of 12 hours of life expectancy. In
| contrast, I'd definitely prefer to be dead than live with the
| post-vaccine symptoms I experienced. And for me the suffering
| lasted about 96 hours. And I'm not atypical here. In that
| sense, vaccines are nearly ten times worse from a QALY
| perspective than the risk of being unvaccinated.
|
| Again, all that being said, I was vaccinated and would
| encourage everyone else to do the same. But for the typical
| healthy 20-something, skipping the vaccine isn't necessarily
| irrational-- just selfish.
| dan-robertson wrote:
| I'm a healthy 25 year old. I think simple QALY metrics for me
| getting the vaccine or risking getting COVID naturally are
| roughly even (the COVID side fluctuates as the chance of
| getting the virus changes) at around a 1e-6 chance of serious
| complications. The AstraZeneca vaccine seems to have a
| slightly higher chance of complications.
|
| These simple, individualised analyses are about the extent of
| what public health authorities may do when deciding on the
| safety or benefits of a treatment. However they exclude other
| advantages to being a person with a vaccine:
|
| - maybe some of your friends are being very cautious about
| the virus (for rational or irrational reasons) and being your
| vaccinated means more meaningful interactions with them
|
| - maybe your employer lets vaccinated people return to the
| office (and you want to return). Or maybe there are other
| things that require vaccines (when I went up to university I
| had to confirm that I'd had a bunch of vaccines, for example)
|
| - maybe you want to be altruistic and reduce the risk you
| cause to other people
|
| - better ability to travel internationally
|
| - if everyone does it then there is less of an ability for
| further mutations to develop
|
| I mostly understand why health authorities are limited, and
| perhaps those simple statistics are the right thing to
| communicate to the public. But I think in our society as it
| is, getting the vaccine is still +ve EV for young people.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| 4. You had covid, and you don't want to pay pharmaceutical
| companies to go to McDonalds.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| > You have fears about getting a vaccine, moreso than for
| coronavirus. If this is you, do you prefer a mask mandate? And
| if so, how do you enforce this in a restaurant, where anyone
| eating takes off their mask right away?
|
| I'd rather have a mask mandate, like we did earlier. Lacking
| one is ridiculous because it's trivial to lie and forge a
| vaccine card. First they said masks wouldn't help, then they
| said the vaccine was enough. Both steps have been wrong.
| Societies are being petulant and refusing to just skip to the
| effective option because they want to party and avoid cooking.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _it 's trivial to lie and forge a vaccine card_
|
| New York State has a digital vaccine tracking system and
| pass. Naturally, out of state people would find it easier to
| commit fraud.
| citilife wrote:
| > Pretty dismal discussion in here at the time of writing.
| Largely complaints about tyranny. Makes me sad that we can't
| have a calm discussion about the merits of the policy.
|
| Ill bite and present a good faith argument.
|
| Let's start with the fact COVID-19 is not a very scary disease.
| The media makes it seem FAR worse than the reality.
|
| Yes, there are risks. It appears to be 2-4x more deadly than
| influenza, but primarily impacts people with pre-existing
| conditions. As such, those individuals should protect
| themselves. If society needs to make some minor accommodations
| that may make sense. Example, perhaps we allow elderly to shop
| 6-9am at stores. They're given n95's, etc.
|
| To put it in perspective, in 2020 people in their 80's have a
| 20% higher chance of death than 2019, so if you have a 5%
| chance of dying per year, we're talking 6%. That's not
| dramatic.
|
| > 1. You have fears about getting a vaccine, moreso than for
| coronavirus. If this is you, do you prefer a mask mandate? And
| if so, how do you enforce this in a restaurant, where anyone
| eating takes off their mask right away?
|
| The evidence cloth masks are effective doesn't exist. As such,
| the policy doesn't make sense. Surgical and N95 masks do have
| evidence they help, but aren't primarily what people are using.
|
| If you're talking about "fears about getting the vaccine", the
| vaccine isn't approved and there are treatments for covid-19.
| Meaning we shouldn't have emergency use authorization at this
| point AND it's not an FDA approved drug. Even if it becomes
| approved, I would not expect anyone to take it without
| discussing with their doctors.
|
| Trials today are not completed. All we have are preliminary
| reports (phase 1, 2, 3):
|
| https://www.modernatx.com/covid19vaccine-eua/providers/clini...
|
| Long term impacts wont be known for 5-10 years. Further, many
| people can't have the vaccines.
|
| I dont' see an issue with the vaccines, but people should be
| informed and not coerced.
|
| > 2. You have fears about the privacy implications. If so, what
| are those fears? Perhaps your vaccination status can lead
| people to make inferences about your health?
|
| In terms of privacy, the 4th amendment protects against
| government search and seizures. When government mandates papers
| being reviewed, they are effectively acting as agents of the
| state and doing searches.
|
| Further, doctors should be the ones managing care, not
| bureaucrats. Historically, CDC and FDA issue suggestions and
| provide evidence. It's dangerous to try and enforce vaccines
| when we aren't taking into account pre-existing conditions. For
| instance, there are drugs, ages, pre-existing conditions, all
| of which impact vaccine effectiveness and risk profile(s).
|
| Coercing people to take a take part in a human experimentation
| is something we consider a crime against humanity.
|
| > 3. You are not particularly concerned about the community
| spread of coronavirus (and the implications of that)
|
| The disease is already wide spread and approximately everyone
| has been exposed. Arguably the vast majority have a partial
| immunity (had the disease or vaccine). If it's still spreading,
| there's nothing we can do. Further, the delta variant spreads
| more easily, but is less deadly. So we shouldn't really worry
| here.
| gizmo wrote:
| It's simple.
|
| If you're vaccinated you shouldn't care whether other people in
| the restaurant are. That's the point of vaccination after all.
|
| And if you're not vaccinated obviously you're not going to be
| in favor of this new mandate.
|
| The people who support policies like these are vaccin efficacy
| denialists, petty tyrants, and doomers of various sorts.
|
| And there are good reasons to not want to live in a "papers
| please" society.
| jhgb wrote:
| > If you're vaccinated you shouldn't care whether other
| people in the restaurant are. That's the point of vaccination
| after all.
|
| That is actually not the point of vaccinations. The point of
| vaccinations is public health.
| admax88q wrote:
| That's not the point of vaccination.
|
| A group of people in a room all vaccinated is safer than a
| group of people half vaccinated.
|
| The vaccine is not a boolean on off switch, it's a percentage
| wise improvement over nothing, and it compounds when those
| around are also vaccinated.
| [deleted]
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| How about...
|
| 4) You recognize this as yet another crisis that the government
| is using to unconstitutionally increase its powers. 9/11 and
| the Patriot Act and Iraq/Afghanistan being a recent example.
|
| This stuff happens again and again and yet somehow the default
| position is "convince me why this is a bad thing."
|
| History education needs more funding, and fast.
| grllierg wrote:
| Fuck you fascist!
|
| Burn in hell!
| timr wrote:
| I am pro-vaccine (and fully vaccinated), but I don't support
| this policy at all.
|
| I don't believe this will have much of a net effect on
| vaccination rate, I believe it will disproportionately
| negatively impact poor and minority populations in NYC who
| _already_ have a bad /mistrustful relationship with health care
| and government, and it is obviously a huge new governmental
| intrusion into our daily lives. It might well lead to anger and
| violence (as similar moves have across Europe).
|
| These are my opinions, but I think the strongest arguments
| against it are facts: if you are fully vaccinated, _you are at
| essentially no risk of serious illness from SARS-CoV2_. And
| literally anyone who wants a vaccine can get one. Those who
| choose not to get vaccinated are making a risk calculation;
| they are making a _choice_.
|
| This policy comes from an almost hysterical fixation on
| "cases", which are not a metric of any meaning. SARS-CoV2 is
| not going away. We should be reacting rationally to rates of
| hospitalization and deaths -- and right now, those are barely
| changed in NYC, thanks to the very high vaccination rate
| amongst the vulnerable population:
|
| https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-trends.pag...
|
| One can certainly argue that there exist small groups of people
| for whom the vaccine is not perfect protection. This is true,
| but it's no different than _all other viruses_ , which have
| threatened immunocompromised people forever. We have never
| before justified such intrusive government policies based on
| the risks faced by these individuals. So while I empathize with
| them, this still seems like over-reach to me.
| tootie wrote:
| I think there is also ample precedent for policy that
| prevents or discourages people from putting themselves at
| unnecessary risk of death or injury. If it's illegal to
| attempt suicide, then it stands to reason that we can pass
| rules against exposing yourself to Covid even if you are
| foregoing opportunities to protect yourself.
| myrandomcomment wrote:
| I have been in Manhattan for the last week with my family. I
| have seen 10+ free vaccinations locations. If you want to get
| vaccinated you can, no matter what your means.
|
| Not being vaccinated put the risk on the kids, which is
| unconscionable.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| > if you are fully vaccinated, you are at essentially no risk
| of serious illness from SARS-CoV2.
|
| Terrible first order logic. The threat from the virus is not
| only immediate risk to the individual, it is also further
| transmissions increasing the risk of creating new
| breakthrough variants. Every infected person is a gamble that
| risks nullifying the effectiveness of vaccines, so the goal
| must be to bring down infections as strongly as possible.
|
| >We have never before justified such intrusive government
| policies based on the risks faced by these individuals
|
| we should have. Tolerating disease spread and threats to
| vulnerable populations when vaccines are available that are
| practically risk-free (or the risk being magnitudes smaller
| than the payoff) is ridiculous. Maybe this finally shakes
| people awake and puts public health and safety to the top of
| the agenda rather than people throwing tantrums like children
| about government incursion.
|
| edit: and another point I forgot, with such a significant
| unvaccinated population we will very likely see surges in
| admissions in winter again. Public health resources are
| limited. Unnecessary Covid hospitalizations cause immense
| opportunity cost in the form of crowding out care and driving
| costs. Which in many cases other sick people and the public
| will have to carry.
| bingohbangoh wrote:
| Won't there always be a variant popping up somewhere in
| some part of the world though?
|
| The idea that "if we all got vaccinated, we could have zero
| variants" reeks of "zero COVID" thinking
| telxos wrote:
| "We need to be more like the Chinese and be smart about
| this"
| datameta wrote:
| More unvaccinated people -> more people getting covid ->
| more chances for mutation into variants
|
| It's really that simple. We want as few active infections
| as possible globally so that existing vaccinations can
| work for the variants they were made in mind with.
| Otherwise we will be at the disadvantage in a perpetual
| arms race trying to quickly stamp out the global "fires"
| of new variants.
| [deleted]
| swayvil wrote:
| He says : It's irrational. It's intrusive. It's over-reach.
|
| You reply : But the threat is so great that such is
| justified.
|
| I have heard this dialog before.
| acituan wrote:
| > The threat from the virus is not only immediate risk to
| the individual, it is also further transmissions increasing
| the risk of creating new breakthrough variants
|
| > Tolerating disease spread and threats to vulnerable
| populations when vaccines are available that are
| practically risk-free (or the risk being magnitudes smaller
| than the payoff) is ridiculous
|
| Those are very different justifications with very different
| policy implications, it is best not to conflate the two.
|
| If breakthrough variants was the major concern (and it
| should have been) vaccine rollout should have been _fast_
| in addition to very high percentages, and vaccinated
| /unvaccinated population mix should have been minimized
| with policy. Anything less gives the perfect arena for
| evolutionary algorithm to learn its way around the vaccine
| immunity.
|
| Second issue is the fading immunity of current vaccines in
| comparison to natural immunity. Vaccines got
| disproportionate attention and funding at the expense of
| covid _treatment_ bets, which would have helped with
| developing higher natural immunity levels. To what degree
| conflicts of interests due to EUA play in this, we don't
| know. But once booster shots enter the "mandatory"
| territory, that will cause an additional drop in
| compliance. How many boosters can we really mandate, for
| how many years?
| clukic wrote:
| The vulnerable populations aren't vaccinated. The vaccination
| rate in Brooklyn for people 65+ is just a bit over 50% (51%
| white/54% African American).
|
| If cases keep rising I don't see any reason why
| hospitalizations and deaths won't follow. Unless the delta
| variant is less dangerous or treatments have improved
| tremendously.
|
| So, the options are 1)Stop indoor dining 2)Accept the public
| health implications or 3) Require vaccinations for high risk
| activities. I feel like option 3 imposes the least harm.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _If cases keep rising I don 't see any reason why
| hospitalizations and deaths won't follow._
|
| They already have. Hospitalization rates have multiplied by
| a factor of nearly 4x from the 12,000 COVID
| hospitalizations in early July to the 40,000 COVID
| hospitalizations today in early August.
| trident5000 wrote:
| Or you know, let people decide if they want to take a risk.
| What do I care if someone doesnt want to get vaccinated and
| put themselves at risk? Thats on them. Just like they can
| go bungee jump or drive a race car.
| standardUser wrote:
| Primarily because of the threat to our healthcare system,
| but also because of those with high risk of breakthrough
| infection and those who cannot be vaccinated. I find it a
| little hard to believe that anyone who has lived through
| this pandemic does not understand this.
| 12elephant wrote:
| > those who cannot be vaccinated
|
| You mean the same people this mandate will prevent from
| participating in society?
| trident5000 wrote:
| Put unvaccinated people who catch covid last in line at
| hospitals. Problem solved.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Considering a lot of vaccinated people can spread the
| virus, the immunocomprimised are already fscked, and
| should stay at home.
|
| For everyone else, there are vaccines, or if they want,
| they can risk it without. Give priority to vaccinated
| patients, and you're done.
| standardUser wrote:
| Vaccinated people do not spread the virus nearly as
| effectively as unvaccinated people.
|
| And you did not address the threat to our hospital
| system, which has been the number one concern for a year
| and a half. Surgeries are already being halted in
| multiple states... again. You might view it differently
| if it was your hospital that postponed your surgery
| because unvaccinated people had filled all their beds
| because of a preventable illness.
| cwkoss wrote:
| It's an infectious disease. This isn't an issue of "you
| can risk your own life and health" - unvaccinated people
| are risking the lives of many others in their
| communities.
|
| You can't kill your neighbor's grandmother by bungee
| jumping.
| rcpt wrote:
| It's odd. When people don't heed fire evacuations to try
| and save their homes they put first responders at risk
| and are lionized by the press.
|
| https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2009/08/14/bonny-
| dooners-b...
| timr wrote:
| > The vulnerable populations aren't vaccinated. The
| vaccination rate in Brooklyn for people 65+ is just a bit
| over 50% (51% white/54% African American).
|
| Yes, they are. In NYC, 73% of adults over 65 are fully
| vaccinated, and 77% have had at least one dose:
|
| https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-
| vaccines.p...
|
| You're cherry-picking regions of low vaccination, but
| ignoring the overall metrics.
| clukic wrote:
| It's the local demographics that matter. I live in
| Brooklyn. I don't care what the vaccination rate is in
| the entire US, or NY state, and I'm hardly ever in
| Manhattan. I don't dine indoors because the vaccination
| rate in my neighborhood is 39%. And, while I'm probably
| not going to the hospital knowing that I might put one of
| my unvaccinated neighbors in there matters to me.
| timr wrote:
| > It's the local demographics that matter
|
| The local demographics don't matter unless there's a
| serious impact on the hospitals. That's why we started
| down this road, remember? It wasn't to eliminate death.
|
| > I don't dine indoors because the vaccination rate in my
| neighborhood is 39%.
|
| Are you vaccinated? If you are, you're worrying about
| something that is irrelevant to you. Avoiding restaurants
| because _other people_ made a different choice is silly.
|
| > And, while I'm probably not going to the hospital
| knowing that I might put one of my unvaccinated neighbors
| in there matters to me.
|
| Ever had a head cold or the flu? You've put an elderly
| person at risk. Sorry, but it's true.
|
| _You can never eliminate this kind of risk._ If your
| standard is "I must never present a risk to anyone else,
| ever" then you're going to have a really difficult life.
| You can live that way if you like, but don't force it on
| me.
| telxos wrote:
| Spot on. I am fully vaccinated but at this point it isn't
| about Covid.
|
| To paraphrase Mr. Bonaparte, a politician loves power like a
| musician loves his music.
|
| I have done all I can do. If you don't want to get
| vaccinated, good luck!
|
| If you are vaccinated and that terrified just stay inside or
| go out in a bee-keeper outfit. Let the normal people get on
| with their lives already.
|
| Of course I am downvoted in 2 seconds lol. Just glad I am old
| and lived a great life. Ya'll are fucked.
| pmarreck wrote:
| > We have never before justified such intrusive government
| policies based on the risks faced by these individuals.
|
| Except for that time doctors were given _police powers_ to
| enforce quarantine during the "Spanish Flu" spikes...
| jaywalk wrote:
| > if you are fully vaccinated, _you are at essentially no
| risk of serious illness from SARS-CoV2._
|
| This is demonstrably false if you actually look at hospital
| admissions.
| notJim wrote:
| Do you have a cite? I thought vaccination reduced
| hospitalization to nearly zero. Here's a link where the
| highest state is at .06% https://www.kff.org/policy-
| watch/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrou...
| peteretep wrote:
| "the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is 96% effective against
| hospitalisation after 2 doses; the Oxford-AstraZeneca
| vaccine is 92% effective against hospitalisation after 2
| doses"
|
| https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vaccines-highly-
| effective...
| notJim wrote:
| That's relative risk, not absolute risk. It's not saying
| 8% of people will be hospitalized, it's saying vaccinated
| people are hospitalized 92% less than unvaccinated
| people. Your absolute risk is much much smaller than 8%.
| polynomial wrote:
| I'm not meaning to take sides here, but there are very real
| assertions being made that at the very least vaccination
| lowers the statistical probability of death to <1%, which
| is obviously seems like something we can verify with
| admission and fatality data.
| jaywalk wrote:
| I haven't heard anything to the contrary, so I'll assume
| that's true. But as far as "serious illness" goes, I'd
| say it's pretty serious once you're admitted to a
| hospital.
| preinheimer wrote:
| > And literally anyone who wants a vaccine can get one.
|
| Completely false. There's several groups that might want the
| vaccine that can't get it. Including: children and the immuno
| compromised.
|
| 32 kids were hospitalized in one week in Alabama last month.
| A state with half the population of NYC.
|
| https://www.al.com/coronavirus/2021/07/infant-among-
| children...
| isleyaardvark wrote:
| Not to mention the adults who want to but can't take sick
| time in case they feel side effects.
| notJim wrote:
| I think immune compromised people can generally get the
| vaccine, but there are questions about how effective it is.
| Some have proposed they may need a 3rd dose.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _don 't believe this will have much of a net effect on
| vaccination rate_
|
| People who are still opposed to getting vaccinated, versus
| simply apathetic, are probably never going to be convinced.
| These measures should encourage the apathetic. For the
| others, it's cutting losses and hoping it encourages
| quarantine--whether that be staying home or moving. (Being
| unvaccinated upstate or in Tennessee is less problematic than
| being unvaccinated in Manhattan.)
|
| If we take the promise of mRNA platforms at face value, we
| are heading into an increasingly disease-free future with a
| strong minority self selecting affliction. I imagine we'll
| see more debates of this form if _e.g._ there is a population
| that is inoculated against Covid, most STDs, the flu, _et
| cetera_ ; and one that is not.
| davidf18 wrote:
| I live in NYC.
|
| I can't tell you how important it is to keep people who are
| unvaccinated away from those of us who are vaccinated.
|
| For those that don't know, NYC has very crowded indoors
| situations because of the cost of real estate. We are all
| close together.
|
| No sympathy whatsoever for those who refuse to get a vaccine
| and even offered $100 to get the vaccine.
|
| People never have the right to infect another human being.
| That is just the way it is.
|
| No "rights" supersede the right to not be infected by non-
| vaccinated people. None.
| biztos wrote:
| The country I'm in right now, Hungary, seems to be doing as
| you suggest.
|
| They have about 75% vaccinated I think (a mix of just about
| all the vaccines available anywhere) and there is no mask
| mandate nor proof-of-vaccine mandate as of a few weeks ago.
| (Airport might be an exception, I haven't been.).
| Interestingly it is also against the law to require anyone to
| NOT wear a mask -- and I see about one person in 10 with a
| mask on the tram, usually none in the shops.
|
| Border controls to neighbor countries are very light so there
| isn't really anything preventing the unvaccinated or for that
| matter infected from entering the country.
|
| I have no idea how this will turn out, I personally expect a
| big new wave among the unvaxxed in Europe after the summer,
| but if you're curious what happens with an implicit policy of
| leaving the unvaccinated to their fate, keep an eye on
| Hungary, especially when the cold drives everyone indoors
| around October.
|
| (And there were a LOT of restrictions before the vaccination
| rate went up, but unlike Germany nobody was out protesting
| against them.)
| mcguire wrote:
| " _We have never before justified such intrusive government
| policies based on the risks faced by these individuals._ "
|
| That would be false.
|
| https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/hn/immunization.asp
|
| which points to
|
| https://www.shotsforschool.org/child-care/
|
| https://www.shotsforschool.org/7th-grade/
|
| https://www.shotsforschool.org/k-12/
|
| And then there's
|
| https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-b-
| chapter-...
| timr wrote:
| We have never required anything like this _to go to a
| restaurant_. Or the gym. Or the beach. This is a huge new
| step.
|
| Pointing out that children must be vaccinated against
| viruses that _disproportionately harm children_ in order to
| participate in _public education_ is true, but irrelevant
| to the question. Pointing out that we require certain
| vaccinations of _immigrants_ is true, but irrelevant to the
| question.
|
| (Not for nothing: we require immigrants to pass a
| citizenship test and a background check, too. If the
| standard is _" anything that is OK for US immigration is OK
| for going to Chick-Fil-A"_, then we're going to have to
| disagree...)
| 0xB31B1B wrote:
| this just isn't remotely true. There is a long history in
| the US of cities and sub national governments requiring
| vaccination, limiting the things the unvaccinated can
| participate in, and fining people who refuse to be
| vaccinated. https://www.history.com/news/smallpox-
| vaccine-supreme-court There is a long history of case law
| establishing the rights of subnational US governments to
| act in the interests of their citizens in protecting
| public health.
| gumby wrote:
| > We have never required anything like this _to go to a
| restaurant_. Or the gym. Or the beach. This is a huge new
| step.
|
| Indeed, instead there used to be mandatory, involuntary
| quarantine enforcement, sometimes (typhus, polio) on a
| per-household basis with the enforcement notice posted
| prominently on the front door. That restricted not only
| restaurants and beach visits but all visits of any kind.
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| Notably, the quarantine enforcement you describe were
| much more stringent requirements, levied against specific
| people who were believed to be infected or at elevated
| risk of infection (such as arrivals from overseas), never
| as a standing order issued against the population of the
| state's residents. Moreover, the quarantine laws which
| authorize this sort of thing in New York City demand due-
| process protections, such that those who are quarantined
| must receive notice that they are entitled to judicial
| review of the quarantine order.
|
| Further reading:
|
| https://regs.health.ny.gov/volume-
| title-10/content/section-2...
| timr wrote:
| I'm not exactly sure which side of the argument you're on
| here, but ignoring the utility and/or practicality of
| quarantine on a mass scale, I wouldn't compare it to a
| policy requiring _everyone_ to show their papers to go to
| McDonalds.
|
| It's almost like people are arguing _" we did
| {restrictive policy} once, so any form of restriction is
| of the same form!"_
|
| I mean...hell: we had _slavery_ once. So maybe let 's set
| aside the idea that prior infringements of individual
| liberty justify _future_ infringements of individual
| liberty?
| tw04 wrote:
| I'd argue you not getting vaccinated and adding to the
| potential of a mutation that makes the vaccine
| ineffective is a violation of MY individual liberties,
| and the Supreme Court agrees. Which is why just about
| every state in the US actually can force you to get
| vaccinated, they just haven't.
| [deleted]
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| I personally know several people who have told me that
| they would stab or shoot anyone who tried to force them
| get a vaccine. The logistics of that may be a bit tricky,
| of course.
|
| How would the logistics of forced vaccination go down,
| anyway? Do you think people wouldn't forge their vaccine
| papers, bribe doctors or otherwise get them to be
| sympathetic, or otherwise circumvent/ignore the
| system/rules in order to avoid the vaccine?
|
| As stated elsewhere in this thread, it is not going to be
| possible to stop the virus at this point. We will all
| eventually be exposed and the best we can do is be as
| safe as we believe we need to be and can.
| cassalian wrote:
| Could you provide the source for the supreme court
| agreement? It seems to me that forcing someone to get a
| vaccine would just as much violate their individual
| liberties so I'm rather curious what issue the supreme
| court was specifically addressing
| mcguire wrote:
| Not tw04, but...
|
| https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/us-supreme-
| court-a...
| cassalian wrote:
| Thanks for the link!
| quickthrowman wrote:
| The Supreme Court has ruled that states can mandate
| vaccinations:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
|
| I'm not sure why the misconception that freedom is
| absolute in the US is so widespread.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Weren't these quarantines limited to people who actually
| had the diseases, not just people who weren't vaccinated
| against them?
| searine wrote:
| Suggesting that Adults must be vaccinated against viruses
| that disproportionately harm Adults in order to
| participate in public life is not irrelevant to the
| question
| notJim wrote:
| I think it's a practical thing. We don't require
| vaccination for restaurants, but because vaccination is
| required at schools, practically you can assume that most
| people are vaccinated. And for many of these illnesses,
| we have attained herd immunity (although antivaxers are
| chipping away at that.)
|
| We should want to be in the same world for COVID. I'm
| sorry, but I don't see why I should have to risk getting
| COVID when there is a perfectly safe, free vaccine, that
| if delivered to enough of the population, will allow us
| to achieve herd immunity. The risks of long COVID are
| real. You're either imposing a very safe vaccine on
| people, or a somewhat dangerous illness on them, it seems
| very obvious the best option is to impose the vaccine.
| Alupis wrote:
| Your children don't need to go to a public school, or
| daycare. You can home school if you're so opposed to these
| things.
|
| What alternative do I have for going to the beach - and
| outdoor space? What alternative does the private gym
| owner/operator have?
|
| These steps are not the same as your examples.
| 0xB31B1B wrote:
| ???
|
| >>> Your children don't need to go to a public school, or
| daycare. You can home school if you're so opposed to
| these things.
|
| "you do not need to use public goods, you can stop using
| public goods and substitute them with private goods that
| you provision yourself"
|
| >>> what alternative do I have for going to the beach -
| and outdoor space?
|
| "how dare you challenge my use of public goods, I have no
| alternatives and this is an imposition on my rights as a
| citizen"
|
| For real though, in your self consistent thought
| framework the obvious obligation you have is to buy your
| own bit of beach or private park.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| I was thinking about these categories with the opposite
| approach: we need a safe way [to educate people without
| the burden of home schooling] way more than we need a
| safe way [to eat/exercise without the burden of doing so
| at home].
| Alupis wrote:
| At this point in time, children have experienced an
| infection rate, and complications that are near zero,
| statistically. To date, no child has received a
| vaccination.
|
| Why would we punish the vaccinated, and children, for a
| minority unvaccinated population? A population that
| largely (entirely?) puts their own self at risk and no
| other individual that has taken steps to protect
| themselves from the virus.
|
| Vaccines (in the US at least) are free to anyone that
| wants one at this point. It's been that way for months.
| If someone doesn't have a vaccine, it's because they
| chose to not get one - and therefore take on the risk of
| becoming ill or death. That's their problem... not
| children's problem or vaccinated people's problem.
|
| We're doing all this to protect a population that's
| actively resisting your protection.
|
| With all that said, let's get back to normal here. People
| who don't want vaccines aren't going to get them even if
| you made it the law... be realistic.
| mcguire wrote:
| If I'm interpreting this page (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pr
| ograms/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/COV...) correctly,
| children less than 5 provide 2.4% of cases of COVID in
| California; they are 5.8% of the population so they seem
| to have a lower infection rate (although those 75-79
| provide 1.6% of cases from 2.7% of the population).
| Children between 5 and 17 provide 10.7% of cases from
| 16.7% of the population.
|
| Children have a very non-zero infection rate while they
| do have effectively a zero death rate (no actual
| information on "complications").
| Alupis wrote:
| The data is listed weird, because someone over the age of
| 12 can get the vaccine. A 17 year old has a lot more
| social opportunity to catch the virus, etc.
|
| Regardless, the people who do get sick, typically get
| only midly-so, and rarely (statistically 0) experience
| serious complications or death.
|
| Therefore, my initial conclusion that the risk for
| children is near zero stands.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| I'm not saying we punish children. I'm saying it's more
| important to allow public education to proceed in
| whatever way works than to allow restaurant- and gym-
| going to proceed willy-nilly.
|
| I don't like restrictions in general, but I do prioritize
| these two things in a certain way.
| Alupis wrote:
| Why don't we let it all go forward, was the point I was
| making.
|
| We're trying to protect people that don't want
| protection. Time to move on and get back to normal.
| krapp wrote:
| "Normal" is being vaccinated. This isn't the world's
| first pandemic, nor is it the world's first widespread
| vaccination campaign.
|
| The fear, paranoia and mistrust around vaccinations
| against COVID is not normal. "Just let nature take its
| course" isn't normal, at least not in the modern history
| of civil societies.
| Alupis wrote:
| Regardless of your personal definition of normal, you
| will not convince the unvaccinated people to get
| vaccinated. You've tried, and failed.
|
| Short of going door-to-door with guys with guns and body
| armor, forcefully pinning down people and jabbing them
| with vaccine - nothing you (or anyone) does will convince
| people to get a vaccine if they've decided at this point
| they do not want it for whatever their reasons may be.
|
| So... go about your business as usual. Stop trying to
| protect people that refuse your protection. It's wasted
| effort, and hurts everyone else that is already
| vaccinated.
| lc9er wrote:
| > Your children don't need to go to a public school
|
| You've got this part backwards, if I'm reading this
| correctly. You must adhere to public health mandates to
| send a child to public school. If you choose not to
| abide, then you can opt to send your kid to a private
| school.
| rubicon33 wrote:
| > We should be reacting rationally to rates of
| hospitalization and deaths -- and right now, those are barely
| changed in NYC,
|
| No. No. No. No. No.
|
| Why is this so hard for people to understand? A virus doesn't
| just enter your body, and quietly go away. In MANY cases, it
| can have a lasting effect on your underlying health and
| wellness. This isn't a point of question, it's a known FACT
| that is all too often left out of the discussion entirely.
|
| I am vaccinated. I have friends who are vaccinated, and have
| still gotten COVID. One of them still doesn't have their
| sense of taste and smell back, after nearly 3 weeks post
| symptoms. They describe being brain fog, and tiredness that
| they didn't have before, as well as an "itch" in their lungs
| when exercising that they didn't have before.
|
| There's absolutely no reason to say things like "hysterical
| fixation on cases". Bringing cases down means LESS LIVES LOST
| and less HEALTH lost.
| throwawayswede wrote:
| > No. No. No. No. No.
|
| This kind of attitude turns people away from wanting to
| engage with you, even if your idea has merit.
|
| > There's absolutely no reason to say things like
| "hysterical fixation on cases". Bringing cases down means
| LESS LIVES LOST and less HEALTH lost.
|
| It's naive to think that some people want more lives lost.
| That's the goal of everyone. In the same way, you're asking
| people to understand your perspective, try to keep an open
| mind, and understand the perspective of others. Even if
| you're correct, the only way to help is to understand the
| root of why some people are hesitant.
|
| I'm obviously pro vaccines (in general) and are vaccinated
| for covid, but I'm also pro informed decision making, which
| from my perspective is very lacking (in some contexts) and
| very simplistic (summarized into TikTok-style videos and
| "cute" guitar songs) in others. There is of course valuable
| information out there but it's very difficult to find and
| is mostly lost in the ocean of influencer-driven media,
| turning science into MTV style top 10 countdowns. I happen
| to very rarely watch TV or news related to Covid from any
| source other than Sweden's official organizations, and I'm
| very happy with their information. I also noticed that it's
| very different in cadence from what I usually read people
| trying to say anywhere [1] (contrary to generic Swedish
| media for example, which follows the American example
| mostly). I believe this is one of the main reasons we have
| 40% fully vaccinated and ~60% with at least one shot). And
| there's no noticeable animosity or friction between
| vaccinated or unvaccinated people. There are also very few
| masks going around (mostly older people and 1 out of 100
| young people I see).
|
| From what I understand, scientists doing the research are
| working very hard on this, and they are still not 100%
| clear on all the details. It's naive to dismiss side-
| effects no matter how rare they are, and even more
| dangerous to dismiss fears of people. When you say
| "everyone must get vaccinated whether they understand or
| not" you're not aiding those people who are hesitant
| (regardless of why). Just the other day I watched a
| supercut of different "officials" some saying people can
| "top-off" with a second jab from another kind of vaccine
| while others saying that it's extremely wrong to do so.
| Similar to how the whole mask thing changed over time (and
| even now again with the new variants). This is all to say
| that difference of opinion and understanding is not only
| expected, but it's inevitable. You can't eliminate it, you
| can only face it and discuss it openly.
|
| 1: https://www.1177.se/Stockholm/sjukdomar--besvar/lungor-
| och-l...
| timr wrote:
| Thank you for providing an excellent example of the fear-
| based reasoning surrounding "cases". I understand that you
| are scared, but is incorrect to imply that my opinion comes
| from a lack of understanding of what you're talking about.
|
| > Why is this so hard for people to understand?
|
| I understand your argument, but I _disagree_ with you,
| based on a long education in this area, a deep
| understanding of the data, and personal experience.
|
| > A virus doesn't just enter your body, and quietly go
| away.
|
| Some do not. This one does.
|
| > In MANY cases, it can have a lasting effect on your
| underlying health and wellness.
|
| In _some_ , rare cases, we see examples of post-viral
| syndromes. We have seen these for many different viruses.
|
| > I am vaccinated. I have friends who are vaccinated, and
| have still gotten COVID. One of them still doesn't have
| their sense of taste and smell back, after nearly 3 weeks
| post symptoms.
|
| Again, lingering symptoms following an illness are not
| unknown. Every time I get a head cold, I typically develop
| a cough that lasts > 3 weeks. By ~all current evidentiary
| standards for "long covid", I have had "long cold".
|
| Similarly, my grandmother lost her sense of smell to a head
| cold when I was a child. She never got it back, entirely.
| Sad, but not something that we took extraordinary societal
| interventions to prevent.
|
| > They describe being brain fog, and tiredness that they
| didn't have before, as well as an "itch" in their lungs
| when exercising that they didn't have before.
|
| Neither of these are objectively defined. I have an "itch"
| in my lungs, right now (probably allergies). I have never
| had Covid. When I don't sleep well (which is often, thanks
| to the state of our society), I have trouble focusing. Is
| that "brain fog"?
|
| Point being: some people are going to have after-effects
| from infection. That's unfortunate, but it's not unknown,
| and the virus _isn 't going away_. If the choice is to
| completely up-end our society to prevent people from ever
| getting sick again, then I'm strongly opposed.
| atomashpolskiy wrote:
| One more example: itch in one's throat and nasty
| suffocating cough that does not stop for an hour.
| Surprisingly, this might be caused by reflux (without the
| accompanying stomachache).
|
| I imagine it would be pretty easy for someone not used to
| dealing with gastritis on a regular basis to attribute
| such a symptom to "COVID".
| timr wrote:
| Yeah, all of these "long covid" symptoms overlap
| substantially with other, common things, or have
| otherwise been defined so liberally by these terrible,
| self-reported "studies" that anyone with a normal human
| immune system and a head cold would qualify. Just
| consider the three most common complaints (by far):
|
| Cough & Shortness of breath: allergies, asthma, _typical
| recovery process from any cold or flu_
|
| Fatigue: depression, anxiety, insomnia, _recovery from
| most illness_
|
| Brain fog (whatever that is): depression, anxiety,
| insomnia, recovery from illness...
|
| It's not that "long covid" isn't real...it's just that
| the scientific data for it _at present_ are so vague that
| you can "have" it by being a normal person.
| aplummer wrote:
| > A virus doesn't just enter your body, and quietly go
| away.
|
| > >Some do not. This one does.
|
| It's sad but we really need a way to flag covid
| misinformation like this on HN. There is absolutely no
| proof that covid disappears after a certain amount of
| time, this is obvious because only 2 years has passed
| since 2019. The evidence we have so far is that some
| people remain with long-term symptoms at least as far as
| until now.
| BjoernKW wrote:
| The author of that comment obviously has quite some
| expertise in the matter (see their profile and some of
| their other comments linked to in this thread).
|
| They didn't say that "Long COVID" symptoms aren't real.
| They just stated that this particular virus disappears
| after some time, that is once your immune system manages
| to cope with it and the infection clears out.
|
| This statement is emphatically true. Otherwise, antigen
| and PCR tests would still yield positive results months
| after someone became infected.
|
| An example of a virus not simply disappearing from your
| body anymore once you're infected with it would be HIV.
| aplummer wrote:
| I take "quietly" to mean "without causing havoc and long
| term symptoms" which appears to be the undefined term
| here. This is why I refer explicitly to long term
| symptoms as being what remains.
|
| I stand by my comment, it does not "quietly" go away.
| AndrewBissell wrote:
| A potential mechanism for Covid to produce lingering
| symptoms would be some kind of mast cell activation
| syndrome. I believe that "long Covid" is probably a mix
| of that, actual lung or vascular damage that takes time
| to recover (we have a friend who suffered lung damage and
| referred to the recovery period as "long Covid"), and
| some (possibly quite large) amount of psychosomatic
| subjective experience and amplification of lingering
| symptoms caused by the relentless hype on this issue.
|
| http://farid.jalali.one/MCAS_COVID.pdf?fbclid=IwAR08nCA9i
| sig...
| kaybe wrote:
| > Every time I get a head cold, I typically develop a
| cough that lasts > 3 weeks.
|
| Just a heads-up, that can turn into asthma if you are
| susceptible. Take care to properly heal every time.
|
| (That'd be 'long cold' I guess. We don't need more of
| that stuff.)
| borski wrote:
| Came here to say this. Had this enough times that it
| turns out I do have asthma (now medicated).
| timr wrote:
| Thanks! I'm already allergic to a lot of stuff, so it
| probably is related.
| rubicon33 wrote:
| > Some do not. This one does.
|
| I am sure you believe what you are saying, and I am also
| not doubting that you have some education on the topic,
| but I have to disagree.
|
| Take for example, this study [1] demonstrating
| significant loss of grey matter in the brain for COVID
| patients, both hospitalized and non-hospitalized.
|
| As our understanding of virology evolves it is becoming
| more and more clear that the notion of ephemeral
| infections is just flat out incorrect. You likely
| maintain SOME impact from that infection, its just a
| question of how severe, or in some cases WHEN (see:
| chicken pox -> shingles). Viruses wreak havoc, and that
| is a point which is well documented, and slowly but
| surely people are starting to pay attention.
|
| My gripe with your comment is that it completely
| disregards this point and treats the risk of viruses and
| either death, or no risk at all. The truth is far more
| nuanced than that, and there's legitimate reasons to want
| overall CASE COUNT to come down. It's about saving
| quality of life, including, actual life. Vaccination is
| the path to do that.
|
| I also don't agree with your comment that "If the choice
| is to completely up-end our society to prevent people
| from ever getting sick again, then I'm strongly opposed."
|
| Asking for proof of vaccination is not "completely up-
| ending" our society. It's quite reasonable to ask for
| certain personal hygiene requirements (shirts, shoes,
| etc.) but we can't ask that someone be reasonably
| protected from a getting and spreading a very dangerous
| virus? You're somehow OK with being required to wear
| clothes, which provide almost no protection from
| anything, but not OK with being asked to show that you're
| an unlikely COVID carrier/spreader?
|
| [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21
| 258690v...
| mostertoaster wrote:
| > You're somehow OK with being required to wear clothes,
| which provide almost no protection from anything, but not
| OK with being asked to show that you're an unlikely COVID
| carrier/spreader?
|
| So natural immunity should be included then? I hear all
| these arguments but then people pretend like natural
| immunity is not a thing. Sure maybe it isn't as effective
| as a vaccine (though some argue it is better), but it
| definitely makes you at least unlikely to spread.
|
| I might believe this isn't just a huge power grab and
| people are actually concerned with the health of
| individuals, if folks would acknowledge "the science" of
| natural immunity.
|
| Saying it isn't as good as vaccine means nothing, because
| we are only trying to eliminate more likely spreaders,
| not any statistical chance of spreading.
| nindalf wrote:
| I used to think natural immunity was a thing. Most people
| in India thought so too. Based on surveys, a majority of
| people in cities had been infected in the first wave of
| Covid in 2020. So confident in herd immunity was the
| Indian government that they were happily organising
| programs to give away vaccines to countries around the
| world, thinking it wasn't necessary in India.
|
| As the events of April-July 2021 proved, the new variant
| ripped through a population that was supposed to have
| reached herd immunity. As it stands, 80%+ of people in
| major Indian cities have had an infection. Does that mean
| that covid will never bother India again? I'm guessing
| no.
| camillomiller wrote:
| Enforcing restrictions that are excessive in order to
| just keep cases down is in most case even more
| detrimental to the long-term quality of life of the
| majority of the population. What so many of the
| restrictions enthusiasts don't seem to understand, is the
| long term mental health impact this upending of society
| has had on all of us, and especially on the younger
| generations. I say this as a fully vaccinated individual.
|
| Regarding the specific case, to make my position even
| more nuanced, I don't have a specific problem with having
| to prove vaccination or positive test for indoor dining.
| Here in Berlin that's the rule they used when reopening
| last May, and it never went away. This way, nobody has
| ever really debated it.
| timr wrote:
| > I am sure you believe what you are saying, and I am
| also not doubting that you have some education on the
| topic, but I have to disagree.
|
| Reasonable people can disagree on questions like this.
| But you came out of the gate insisting that I "didn't
| understand", which isn't true.
|
| I understand, I just disagree that this is a
| disproportionate threat to our society that requires
| disproportionate response.
|
| > Take for example, this study [1] demonstrating
| significant loss of grey matter in the brain for COVID
| patients, both hospitalized and non-hospitalized.
|
| FWIW, that study is _terrible_. It is a statistical
| fishing expedition, is improperly controlled (i.e. are
| the changes due to Covid, or something else? You can 't
| tell!), and the whole field of "looking at MRI for
| reductions in gray matter" is littered with spurious
| findings. Here's a comment where I go into this in much
| greater detail:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27927568
|
| > As our understanding of virology evolves it is becoming
| more and more clear that the notion of ephemeral
| infections is just flat out incorrect.
|
| It's not "flat out incorrect"...as I said before, we know
| that post-viral syndromes are real. This is not new
| information.
|
| Having a cough or shortness of breath (by FAR the most
| common "long covid" symptoms) after a infection are no
| more an indication that the virus is lingering in your
| body, than leg pain after a cast is removed is an
| indication that you continue to have a broken leg. It
| takes time to heal.
| rubicon33 wrote:
| That's fair, my apologies for proclaiming that you don't
| understand. I should have known better especially on this
| forum.
|
| I see where you're coming from and I don't entirely
| disagree with your conclusion. The post you linked, makes
| a strong case for not jumping to conclusions based on
| grey matter studies, which I think is sound advice.
|
| That said, I maintain that given the option to get COVID
| or not get COVID, I would greatly prefer the later. You
| similarly won't find me gaming long hours, and I make
| sure to get plenty of sleep. In other words, taking
| precautions that avoid injury is generally a good idea.
| And FWIW, I don't find the controls in that study to be
| terrible? I'm not exactly an authority of statistical
| analysis though, so I'll trust that this is outside my
| scope of understanding.
|
| Where it sounds like we disagree most is whether or not
| the risk of COVID causing injury is worth something as
| small (or large) as asking for proof of vaccination.
|
| It just so happens that I think asking for proof of
| vaccination is a relatively minor thing given the
| possibilities of COVID.
| nradov wrote:
| No matter what you do, at some point you'll likely catch
| a SARS-CoV-2 infection (or maybe you already have). This
| is pretty much inevitable, just like with the other
| endemic common cold coronaviruses. Fortunately
| vaccination can greatly reduce the risk of having
| clinical COVID-19 symptoms.
| jjgreen wrote:
| It's not "asking for proof of vaccination" though is it?
| It's denying access to restaurants, bars and so-on to
| those do not or will not accede to such a demand. I don't
| see that social apartheid as minor thing.
| datameta wrote:
| I had all these concerns prior to this announcement. I
| wouldn't say all of those are now gone. However I must
| point out that the vaccine, at least in the US, is not
| being hoarded by the elite and wealthy. It is in most
| urban areas being made as readily available as possible.
| NYC even started providing a pre-paid $100 debit card
| which offsets time lost from work for those who could not
| afford that. Perhaps I am missing it - what sort of
| divide is being drawn?
|
| Our laws permit a plethora of personal freedoms, but
| those usually end where someone else's begin. Not getting
| a vaccine does not simply mean taking a personal risk -
| it is choosing to be ok with potentially endangering
| others.
| nindalf wrote:
| Please let's not throw around words like apartheid and
| Holocaust in situations that don't warrant it. Both of
| those are commonly used by anti-vax community to draw
| attention to their perceived pain at being requested to
| vaccinate. But they trivialise the incredible violence
| done to millions of people, some of the worst crimes
| committed by our species. Trivialising these just to
| score points is unconscionable.
|
| And let me be clear, taking a shot that is safe and
| effective is not an unreasonable ask. Restricting access
| to leisure to people who are willing to take this
| precaution isn't unreasonable. And no, it's in no way
| comparable to some of the worst crimes committed by
| humans.
| jjgreen wrote:
| There's no "holocaust" in my post, please don't tar me
| with that brush. Apartheid, "separateness" in Afrikaans,
| seems entirely appropriate here. Except that there won't
| be vaccinated bars and non-vaccinated bars, there will
| just be vaccinated bars, those who refuse to show a
| vaccine passport will just have to go sit in the park or
| something.
|
| For the record, I'm fully vaccinated, but if/when bars
| start demanding vaccine passports in the UK, I stop going
| to bars.
| sergiomattei wrote:
| > I understand your argument, but I disagree with you,
| based on a long edudcation, and a deep understanding of
| the data.
|
| Where's the data? I didn't see a single source listed,
| just anecdotes from you and your family.
| timr wrote:
| Where's the data in the OP's comment? Remarkable how fear
| and speculation has a lower evidentiary standard, isn't
| it?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| skystarman wrote:
| So you bring up the "I have the DATA!" Trump card and
| then when asked to provide it your response is, "well,
| no, where is YOUR DATA?"
|
| That long Covid is a pernicious result for many people
| with debilitating effects is well established in the
| literature, it's not controversial.
|
| That refusing to get the virus under control will lead to
| further variants potentially worse than Delta that
| perhaps the vaccines are less able to guard against. Not
| some crazy conspiracy!
|
| What this is ultimately about is many of our fellow
| citizens believe "my choice" and "freedom" means the
| "freedom" to infect other people with a potentially
| debilitating virus rather than they be mildly
| inconvenienced.
| ethanbond wrote:
| We obviously don't know much about PASC/long COVID, but
| the initial data is worth paying attention to. This
| Swedish study says ~10% of healthcare workers who got
| COVID had lingering symptoms.
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33825846/
| ipaddr wrote:
| What about the lingering effects of the vaccine? Many
| seem to have this tiredness or general unwellness.
| nindalf wrote:
| > "Many seem"
|
| Citation needed for such an extraordinary claim.
|
| If you don't mind, could you share data on the UK, a
| place where nearly all adults aged 30+ have received two
| doses of the vaccine? It simplifies the discussion
| because there's no question about self selection bias. If
| there's any negative effects, it should surely have
| manifested in a large subset of this group of tens of
| millions of people, across ages and ethnicities.
|
| Not just a handful of cases here or there. I'm talking
| about 0.01% or more of this population suffering some
| persistent harm. Not something that disappeared after a
| day or two.
| judge2020 wrote:
| And thus no substantial change was made today on HN,
| besides to people who get fatigues seeing 4+ level deep
| comment debates: only reading a few comments before going
| back to reading tech articles.
| shaicoleman wrote:
| > One of them still doesn't have their sense of taste and
| smell back, after nearly 3 weeks post symptoms. They
| describe being brain fog, and tiredness that they didn't
| have before, as well as an "itch" in their lungs when
| exercising that they didn't have before.
|
| They'd might want to look into the I-RECOVER Protocol for
| treating Long COVID:
|
| https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-recove
| r...
|
| https://youtu.be/ZCYM2HW2Ayw?t=321
|
| Also there's emerging data suggesting Long COVID symptoms
| are being triggered by the reactivation of the Epstein Barr
| Virus.
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8233978/
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAmH7IpUpbI
| swader999 wrote:
| That long covid protocol worked for me. Horse paste
| ivermectin because you can't get a prescription for human
| kind where I live. Then followed up by prednisone to
| remove lung inflammation that persisted after ivermectin.
| I had all the long covid symptoms and it was brutal for
| three months.
| desine wrote:
| If the ultimate goal is saving lives, how much of your
| daily life are you willing to sacrifice for public health?
| Willing to forego car ownership? End two day shipping
| speeds for non essential purchases?
| bichiliad wrote:
| Yes, totally -- we are only as healthy and as happy as
| the least of our neighbors. If I had to forgo two day
| shipping or driving in order to bring down traffic
| crashes, improve air quality, etc. that seems like a
| totally fair trade-off. The alternative doesn't look all
| that good.
| rubicon33 wrote:
| I don't think the ultimate goal should be saving lives.
| It should be avoiding the spread of COVID. Saving lives
| would just be a side effect of lower COVID cases (and
| vaccination).
|
| I'm all for re-opening businesses and promoting
| vaccinations. We have to get back to living our lives.
| I'm just tired of the idea people seem to have that it's
| entirely about lives.
| nradov wrote:
| Since SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic in the worldwide human
| population plus some animal species it's impossible to
| avoid the spread. We can slow the spread to a limited
| extent but eventually all of us will be exposed.
| polynomial wrote:
| Hmm, this is a very serious hypothesis. While not
| disputing it as a viable hypothesis, do we have good
| models that support this conclusion? Also, how do these
| (SEIR?) models distinguish E=100 from E being an
| aggregate of different variants, delta etc? Finally, what
| is the relationship between E=100 and R0? I wouldn't
| expect it to be fixed (model independent) but rather a
| given model will assert some relationship between E and
| R0.
|
| Sorry if this is a lot of questions, I do think it's
| valuable to address this with actual models and
| supporting data.
| _ph_ wrote:
| Maybe it is - if so, not fighting it consequently in many
| regions of the world certainly helped with that. But
| slowing the spread is still of essential importance. We
| do have vaccinations, which greatly reduce the risk of
| getting infected and especially the risk of severe
| consequences. Still, the very vulnerable groups of our
| society are carrying a considerable risk even when
| vaccinated. That alone should mandate to keep infection
| count low. And the more we vaccinate and have other
| limiting means in place - like wearing masks in indoor
| public places where it is possible - the lower the
| infection count is. That directly saves quite a few lives
| and a lot of health, but most of it, it buys us time.
|
| Yes, probably everyone gets exposed to the virus in the
| future, but we can decide how quickly. Every month later
| means we might get vaccines which protect close to
| perfection, that we find better medication or at least
| better understand what Covid-19 is all causing and can
| treat better. Also, with any additional infection the
| risk of another significant mutation increases. Even with
| current vaccines, with a high enough vaccination rate any
| outbreaks should be much smaller and more localized. This
| does make a difference.
|
| Mandatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2448/
| trhway wrote:
| >I am vaccinated. I have friends who are vaccinated, and
| have still gotten COVID.
|
| vaccinated people get covid and spread it like
| unvaccinated[1]. Then what is the point of vaccination
| mandate? I really don't understand.
|
| Add to that that since May CDC stopped counting
| breakthrough cases which don't result in hospitalizations.
|
| [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/cdc-study-
| shows-74percent-of...
|
| "About three-fourths of people infected in a Massachusetts
| Covid-19 outbreak were fully vaccinated, according to new
| data published Friday by the CDC.
|
| The new data, published in the U.S. agency's Morbidity and
| Mortality Weekly Report, also found that fully vaccinated
| people who get infected carry as much of the virus in their
| nose as unvaccinated people. "
| _ph_ wrote:
| To my knowledge (which can be wrong), vaccinated people
| do have a much less chance to get infected, and if
| infected on average have a much less viral load (thats
| whey they don't get as sick). As a consequence, they are
| less contributing to spreading the virus than
| unvaccinated people. And as they get less often seriously
| sick, they also reduce the load onto the health sytem.
| thrwwmbkpr wrote:
| Potentially related - "How major media outlets screwed up
| the vaccine 'breakthrough' story" [1]. Outlines media
| mis-interpretation of an unfinished, internal CDC
| presentation last week (roughly lines up with your July
| 30 story).
|
| [1] https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/cdc_date_media_co
| verage_...
|
| I found that while reading daily news from AllSides[2],
| as recommended in a recent HN thread. I really like it so
| far. [2] https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news
| trhway wrote:
| Your link is multipage propaganda spin full of media
| distrust FUD without data, and deja vu - White House
| tweets blaming the media for wrong coverage of hard CDC
| data.
|
| Whereis if you compare the CNBC link i posted with the
| official CDC report linked below you'll find no screwed
| up nor mis-interpretation on the part of CNBC (though
| CNBC didn't mention the 69% vaccination coverage and
| obvious correlation with the observed 74% share of
| infections). And the CDC report is crystal clear:
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
|
| "During July 2021, 469 cases of COVID-19 associated with
| multiple summer events and large public gatherings in a
| town in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, were identified
| among Massachusetts residents; vaccination coverage among
| eligible Massachusetts residents was 69%. Approximately
| three quarters (346; 74%) of cases occurred in fully
| vaccinated persons"
| skystarman wrote:
| It's weird that you are certain this study is a gold-
| standard for medicine when nothing anywhere close to this
| has been shown in any other country.
|
| It's an incredibly small sample size, directly after an
| unusual event after very large indoor public gathering of
| many people.
|
| This is not how science works.
| trhway wrote:
| Your response is extremely typical mix of mis-information
| (see below), generally stated principles bordering in
| their generality on banality and absence of any data.
|
| >nothing anywhere close to this has been shown in any
| other country.
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/29/cdc-
| mask-gu...
|
| "This echoes data seen from studies in other countries,
| including highly vaccinated Singapore, where 75 percent
| of new infections reportedly occur in people who are
| partially and fully vaccinated."
| skystarman wrote:
| >Your response is extremely typical - just generally
| stated principles bordering in their generality on
| banality and without any ounce of data.
|
| Y'see in SCIENCE we have this generally stated principle
| that we don't draw empirical conclusions from a dataset
| of a few hundred observations.
|
| How banal!
|
| "This echoes data seen from studies in other countries,
| including highly vaccinated Singapore, where 75 percent
| of new infections reportedly occur in people who are
| partially and fully vaccinated."
|
| This does absolutely nothing to back up your claim that
| vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the Delta
| variant.
|
| But please ask for help next time you move those
| goalposts, I wouldn't want you hurting yourself.
| trhway wrote:
| >Y'see in SCIENCE we have this generally stated principle
| that we don't draw empirical conclusions from a dataset
| of a few hundred observations.
|
| the statistics would disagree with you on how
| representative a random draw of several hundred would be
| in this situation. Anyway, just an example related to the
| situation - Moderna stage 2:
|
| "Between 29 May and 8 July 2020, 600 participants were
| randomized, 300 per age cohort. [...]
|
| Conclusions
|
| Vaccination with mRNA-1273 resulted in significant immune
| responses to SARS-CoV-2 in participants 18 years and
| older, with an acceptable safety profile, confirming the
| safety and immunogenicity of 50 and 100 ug mRNA-1273
| given as a 2 dose-regimen. "
|
| >This does absolutely nothing to back up your claim that
| vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the Delta
| variant.
|
| beside obvious statistical arithmetic clearly showing it
| (whihc i guess is pointless to discuss giving your
| statistics statements above), you probably missed the
| part about nasal viral content in vaccinated people being
| similar to that of unvaccinated and hint - this infection
| is airborne. This is why CDC introduced mask mandate for
| everybody.
|
| And you can read this too
| https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-
| pharmaceuticals/...
|
| "The higher the amount of coronavirus in the nose and
| throat, the more likely the patient will infect others.
| In one Wisconsin county, after Delta became predominant,
| researchers analyzed viral loads on nose-and-throat swab
| samples obtained when patients were first diagnosed. They
| found similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated
| patients, with levels often high enough to allow shedding
| of infectious virus. "
| makomk wrote:
| There's actually a really robust-looking study just out
| in the UK sampling the population to find how much less
| likely vaccinated people are to be positive for Covid
| than non-vaccinated people: https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-
| mori/en-uk/latest-react-1-study-...
|
| Apparently the answer is that they're a third as likely
| to have it as the unvaccinated. Which certainly isn't
| nothing, and it's definitely better than the flu vaccine
| managed, but it does suggest that there's probably no way
| we're going to stop the spread of the Delta variant
| through any level of vaccination no matter what the US
| media claims. It also means that any hope of avoiding
| selective pressure for vaccine escape by just vaccinating
| people quickly enough is likely to prove futile. We also
| don't really have any special exemptions or privileges
| for vaccinated people yet outside of laxer requirements
| for international travel, so that wouldn't explain why
| the gap is so small.
|
| (Incidentally, the "quick peak and decline in countries
| with high levels of vaccination" like the UK almost
| certainly isn't simply a result of vaccines working,
| despite the CJR article's attempt to spin it that way.
| All our experts over here seem to be in agreement that
| not only are the vaccines not effective enough to explain
| that, it just doesn't make sense to have such a sudden
| peak and decline as a result of our vaccination program -
| which has actually been slowing down as it runs out of
| willing recipients - or from natural immunity in
| combination with it. They reckon it must be caused in
| part by people's behaviour, and if we return to normal or
| autumn hits cases will go up again.)
| [deleted]
| afavour wrote:
| > And literally anyone who wants a vaccine can get one.
|
| Literally not true. Kids under 12 are not able to be
| vaccinated, which puts a limit on the activities they and
| their families can do. If they're able to know that everyone
| inside a restaurant is vaccinated they'll be more likely to
| visit.
|
| > It might well lead to anger and violence (as similar moves
| have across Europe).
|
| Not really. There were some minor protests and then an untick
| in vaccination rate. As someone living in NYC right now I
| really can't see this being met with violence.
| timr wrote:
| > Literally not true. Kids under 12 are not able to be
| vaccinated, which puts a limit on the activities they and
| their families can do. If they're able to know that
| everyone inside a restaurant is vaccinated they'll be more
| likely to visit.
|
| This policy is also hysterical, and not based in science.
| Kids should not be under any restrictions due to SARS-CoV2.
|
| Please see my comment from yesterday as to why I believe
| this is true:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28041775
|
| (Aside: I generally feel that the FDA is on the right side
| of history by being exceptionally careful with approval of
| the vaccine for children, but arguments _like_ the parent
| 's -- I hear this a lot in different contexts -- do
| sometimes make me wish that they'd just make an extremely
| limited approval so that the most fearful 5% of people can
| force it upon their children and stop holding the rest of
| the world hostage.)
| afavour wrote:
| > the most fearful 5% of people can force it upon their
| children and stop holding the rest of the world hostage
|
| To be clear, as a parent, it's not because I'm fearful,
| it's because a positive COVID test from any child in my
| kid's school means that it shuts down for two weeks,
| completely messing up our lives, jobs etc. I'm not going
| to defend that policy for a second as I don't think it's
| a good idea either, but it's what we're dealing with day
| in, day out. We're not hysterical fearmongers.
| timr wrote:
| > To be clear, as a parent, it's not because I'm fearful,
| it's because a positive COVID test from any child in my
| kid's school means that it shuts down for two weeks,
| completely messing up our lives, jobs etc.
|
| Completely agreed. This is a stupid, hysterical policy,
| and we should all be against it. I include it with my
| previous comment that children should face no
| restrictions from SARS-CoV2. What we've done to kids in
| the last year is so unethical that it makes me furious.
|
| I don't mean to imply that _you_ specifically, are
| hysterical, but this stuff is coming from a group of
| people who are operating based on fear and lack
| knowledge. And unfortunately, a great many of them are in
| positions of power.
| mcguire wrote:
| https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.10.202104
| 92v...
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004e4.htm
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7386533/
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| It's not just kids...
|
| All the young people have given away a year of their
| lives to "save grandma"... and now, the government wants
| them to give up another year, because few grandmas don't
| want to get vaccinated.
|
| Since the vaccines are available to everyone, and enough
| time has passed, that everyone has had the chance to get
| vaccinated, then i have no moral issues if a few people
| die, because they took the risk, and lost the statistics
| game.
| sterlind wrote:
| we're seeing an increase in hospitalizations, which is
| straining capacity and putting doctors under pressure. if
| capacity is exceeded due to unvaccinated covid patients,
| what do you do? bar new covid admissions from the
| hospital and let them die on the street? keep existing
| triage order, where someone sick with heart failure or
| accident trauma might not be admitted because the ward's
| full of sicker, admitted, covid patients?
|
| and before you say "kick the covid patients to the curb,"
| morals aside do you really think that's politically
| feasible?
| hunter2_ wrote:
| What if the triage criteria is to prioritize vaccinated
| people? Then the segment that suffers from lack of
| hospital capacity is the same as the segment responsible
| for unnecessarily burdening the hospital.
|
| This comes full circle on the "show your papers" issue,
| but at least in this scenario showing papers is directly
| aligning cause and effect regarding death.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| There is no easy policy win re kids. Sure, we can be like
| fuck it all, children are mostly safe from covid, but
| then its almost guaranteed parents and everybody else in
| household will get it. I know for 100% we both did get it
| from our son who brought it from kindergarden. We were
| super careful for almost a year and it worked well. We
| got covid while my wife was pregnant. Not a nice
| situation to say at least.
|
| How do you set that restrictions to adults are OK because
| we want to protect them, but for kids aren't? Those
| restrictions then kind of become pointless, don't they?
| Older people also want to see their grandkids
| desperately, I think that's a simple fact of life.
|
| So unless I am reading it wrong, folks are annoyed
| because suddenly they have to take care of their kids for
| 2 weeks. I know I had a rough week+something when I was
| WFH _and_ caring for our son whose kindergarden got
| closed due to covid (and he brought it home as we found
| almost a week later). But fuck, I 've managed and it
| brought me closer to my son, juggling tons of conf calls
| and so can almost everybody else for few weeks. Its just
| a work, on all calls in past year there have been kids
| yelling in the background, sometimes mine too. It is
| actually properly cool to hear how those voices have
| their lives running in the background.
|
| Its true that those who physically have to be present at
| work (like my wife, doctor) had tougher times if
| kindergardens locked down and no solution in sight. But
| the amount of couples where both parents were in same
| situation is properly miniscule, mostly folks that
| complain don't fall there. Its folks who had their
| convenient busy lives suddenly messed up a bit and had to
| fully focus on their closest ones and found out proper
| parenting 24/7 is _hard_.
|
| Society doesn't have an easy coping mechanism for this
| since we don't have robot nannies immune to viruses. That
| sucks, and will suck. Minor obstacle that builds
| character and family bonds I'd say.
| timr wrote:
| > Sure, we can be like fuck it all, children are mostly
| safe from covid
|
| No, children are _almost entirely_ safe from Covid. Don
| 't exaggerate the risk.
|
| > but then its almost guaranteed parents and everybody
| else in household will get it.
|
| ...and they can get vaccinated, and they will face the
| approximate risk profile of a cold or flu.
|
| Look, it's like I said: there are people who are going to
| be at continued risk from this. That's unfortunate, but
| it's no different than any other virus we've lived with
| throughout human civilization. At this point, we're
| proposing _extraordinary_ interventions to head off an
| ordinary level of risk.
| tehjoker wrote:
| Children spread COVID first of all. Second of all, COVID
| attacks blood vessels. The fact that healthy children
| seem safe now, does not mean that as they age, we won't
| see a rising burden of disease due to the long term
| effects of having their blood vessels attacked when they
| were young.
|
| The science behind COVID-19 is evolving, I see new
| information in the news every day that changes how I see
| this disease (usually for the worse, though not always).
| To simply assume children are safe and propose a policy
| of mass infection is extremely short sighted in my
| opinion.
|
| I'm still undecided re: mandates as this is correctly
| viewed as a massive authoritarian extension of government
| power domestically on top of the 9/11 restrictions that
| never went away (it is already completely tyrannical
| abroad). However, for a reasonable society (not ours) I
| believe COVID-19, especially the Delta strain, presents a
| level of population risk that the consideration of such
| measures is warranted.
| omegaworks wrote:
| It's incredibly sad but not at all surprising that so
| many people so quickly write off everyone that has to
| come in contact with unvaccinated children.
|
| This society has little respect for the lives of teachers
| and staff that have to do the job of caring for kids so
| that parents can have time to work. I hoped that people
| would come away from the experience with a little bit of
| growth knowing how difficult it is to do childcare 24/7,
| but of course the entitlement knows no bounds.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| Why not lobby your school board to get rid of such a
| ridiculous policy?
| AndrewBissell wrote:
| These policies more often than not come from the state
| level, and are set by the governor or unelected
| bureaucrats in state departments of health. Washington
| and Oregon are threatening local school boards which try
| to set their own non-hysterical policies with fines, loss
| of teaching licenses, and loss of state & federal
| funding.
| mcguire wrote:
| ...and this is why the US does not and will not have
| universal health care.
| [deleted]
| h_anna_h wrote:
| The usual argument for mandatory vaccination is for the
| protection of others rather than the protection of
| oneself, so the effectiveness of the vaccine in
| preventing death in children should not matter.
| orblivion wrote:
| > If they're able to know that everyone inside a restaurant
| is vaccinated they'll be more likely to visit.
|
| This is why I argue with some fellow libertarians on the
| idea of private company vaccine mandates. There's a place
| for it, such as this. Restaurants could differentiate this
| way. Different people have different needs. A government
| level mandate like this is insane.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Considering that vaccinated people can still carry the
| virus, and very few of those services are mandatory to
| survive, the minority can still stay safe at home, and
| the others can decide by themselves if they're willing to
| risk it.
| sokoloff wrote:
| How could a family under 12 _possibly_ know that everyone
| inside a restaurant is vaccinated unless the restaurant
| only allows a single party to have a member under 12?
| afavour wrote:
| Sure, other kids are a risk, as they always are.
| Everything is a risk evaluation, even with a vaccine
| mandate if the restaurant has two kids at every table
| with little space between them then it might not be a
| good idea to go in. Doesn't invalidate the fact that it
| would be _better_ if all the adults are vaccinated.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Sure, but it seems at least a little unreasonable to me
| to argue that "I want to be able to take unvaccinated
| members in my party into a restaurant confident that the
| other people in the establishment are proven to be
| vaccinated."
|
| (For context, I'm pro-vax, vax'd, and have a kid under 12
| that I can hardly wait until they're eligible. I'm
| against any vax passport that even theoretically allows
| tracking of my location if shown to a party intent on
| tracking me.)
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _We should be reacting rationally to rates of
| hospitalization and deaths -- and right now, those are barely
| changed in NYC, thanks to the very high vaccination rate
| amongst the vulnerable population_
|
| The COVID hospitalization rate in NYC has doubled since the
| beginning of July, and it has a steep positive rate of
| change. On its current trajectory, COVID hospitalizations
| will continue to increase, and sharply.
| JoshTko wrote:
| A high vaccination rate is most beneficial for poor and
| minority populations as they are by far the most exposed to
| the virus via work.
| bobthechef wrote:
| Except they don't want it.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| This seriously needs a cite. First time I've heard this
| claim.
| JoshTko wrote:
| You need a citation to understand which part? That poor
| people most often have service jobs such as retail or
| food service? That service jobs are higher risk for Covid
| transmission than white collar jobs? Or that poor people
| have few resources to address health issues if they get
| Covid?
| throwitaway1235 wrote:
| I'm not a dev, I just like tech stuff. I say this because
| I actually work with lower middle class Black and Brown
| people, though I'm White and lower middle class.
|
| Let me explain something to you guys, we worked through
| each "wave" and didn't really care. We were not "forced"
| to work. It was never a big deal.
|
| The whole "woe is the working class during Covid" was
| just an excuse for neurotic professional class workers to
| WFH.
| mcguire wrote:
| " _We study the spread of COVID-19 infections and deaths
| by county poverty level in the US. In the beginning of
| the pandemic, counties with either very low poverty
| levels or very high poverty levels reported the highest
| numbers of cases. A U-shaped relationship prevails for
| counties with high population density while among
| counties with low population density, only poorer
| counties report high incidence rates of COVID-19. Second,
| we discuss the pattern of infections spreading from
| higher to lower income counties. Third, we show that
| stay-at-home mandates caused significantly higher
| reductions in mobility in high income counties that
| experienced adverse weather shocks than counties that did
| not. These effects are not present in counties with high
| poverty rates. Using weather shocks in combination with
| stay-at-home mandates as an instrument for social
| distancing, we find that measures taken to promote social
| distancing helped curb infections in high income counties
| but not in low income counties. These results have
| important policy implications for containing the spread
| of infectious diseases in the future._ "
| (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7756168/)
| another_sock wrote:
| You're right, and I and you know you're right, but you're
| also banging your head against a brick wall. The only
| real thing for sane people to do at this point is to just
| live our lives and let these people pave the road to hell
| they'll unhappily run down. These are not rational minds
| and they get less rational with every day. Time to
| disconnect from them and live a healthy, happy, positive,
| non neurotic life tbh.
| _red wrote:
| High vaccination rates will only exert selection pressure
| on the virus causing new mutation strains to become
| dominant.
|
| How is this not understood?
|
| Vaccines should only be used for targeted at-risk
| population. Everyone else should strive for natural
| immunity.
| amznthrwaway wrote:
| Your claims are false. You are confident, arrogant,
| ignorant, and wrong.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| A high vaccination rate prevents the spread of the
| disease. Yes, if you have a consistent rate of spread,
| then the more people with the vaccine, the more likely
| mutation is to survive. However, if the virus can't
| spread in the first place, it's chance to mutate is near
| zero.
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| How does a vaccine exert any higher a selective pressure
| than the natural immunity that comes from getting covid?
| Uberphallus wrote:
| > High vaccination rates will only exert selection
| pressure on the virus causing new mutation strains to
| become dominant.
|
| > How is this not understood?
|
| The same way vaccines create selection pressure, so does
| natural immunity. Letting people get infected instead of
| vaccinating them actually makes the dice roll much more,
| as in orders of magnitude more.
|
| Just look how most of the variants of concern, and mainly
| delta, appeared before any significant vaccine rollout,
| and further, delta shows high rates of reinfection vs.
| infection of vaccinated people.
|
| Only vaccinating those at-risk will keep this going and
| going for God knows how long, and regularly overcrowding
| hospitals with very corageous freedom fighters.
|
| Just get your shot instead of playing armchair
| epidemiologist.
| User23 wrote:
| > Only vaccinating those at-risk will keep this going and
| going for God knows how long, and regularly overcrowding
| hospitals with very corageous freedom fighters.
|
| The vaccine doesn't keep people from spreading delta
| because it's not a sterilizing vaccine[1][2]. It's
| strange there was that big concern over asymptotic spread
| and the response was to administer an intervention that
| greatly increases asymptotic cases.
|
| > instead of playing armchair epidemiologist.
|
| You might want to take your own advice here.
|
| [1] https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-
| being/prevention-c...
|
| [2] https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/02/02/1017161/c
| ovid-va...
| tehjoker wrote:
| You don't need a sterilizing vaccine. You only need to
| get R0 below 1. However, Delta is so infectious that mass
| vaccination will still need to be accompanied by social
| distancing and masking....
|
| You can calculate different (average case) scenarios
| yourself with % needed to be vaccinated = (1 - 1/R0) for
| a sterilizing vaccine and add an adjustment factor for
| the vaccine efficacy. It's not pretty...
| _red wrote:
| >Just get your shot instead of playing armchair
| epidemiologist.
|
| I've already had covid in 2020 and recently had another
| antibody test which still showed a strong response...
| [deleted]
| Uberphallus wrote:
| Antibodies are useless if they don't have the ability to
| bind to mutated proteins.
|
| > Some monoclonal antibodies, including bamlanivimab,
| lost their ability to bind to the spike protein and no
| longer neutralized the Delta variant. We also showed that
| the Delta variant is less sensitive to sera from
| naturally immunized individuals.
|
| > In individuals who had not previously been infected
| with SARS-CoV-2, a single dose of either the Pfizer or
| the AstraZeneca vaccine induced a barely detectable level
| of neutralizing antibodies against the Delta variant.
| About 10% of the sera neutralized this variant. However,
| a two-dose regimen generated high sero-neutralization
| levels against the Alpha, Beta and Delta variants in
| individuals sampled at week 8 to week 16 after
| vaccination. [0]
|
| Leave the armchair, get your booster shot.
|
| [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03777-9
| _red wrote:
| Why then do you need the mask and 3rd shot?
| starlust2 wrote:
| The same selection pressure exists for "natural"
| immunity.
| _red wrote:
| Not exactly. Natural immunity is more durable and more
| complete. Vaccines are often "leaky", offering only
| partial protection against very specific markers. Whereas
| NI is more comprehensive and long-lasting.
|
| "Leaky vaccines" result in catastrophic situations like
| Marek's disease.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek's_disease
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Good thing the mRNA vaccines are at least 90% effective
| at preventing infection from happening at all from the
| newer variants.
| _red wrote:
| >newer variants
|
| Against the original Alpha perhaps. However Delta
| effectiveness is nowhere near 90%...this is precisely the
| reason for the push for boosters.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Excuse me, the correct number seems to be 88%[1]
| effective against symptomatic COVID from the delta
| variant after 2 doses vs 95% for the alpha variant.
|
| [1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891
|
| [edit] I'm sure with more data that number might change
| up or down a little, but it seems in line with other
| findings.
| _ph_ wrote:
| No, the current boosters are the same vaccine as the
| original vaccinations. The booster shots are given as the
| antibody count in your blood drops over time and the
| booster shot keeps them at the maximum for another half
| year or so.
|
| We don't have precise data about the required level of
| antibodies to stay healthy yet and in quite a few
| countries the infection rates are currently high enough
| to pose a real risk for vaccinated patients in the
| vulnerable group. The safe play is to give booster shots
| to keep the immune response at its best.
| platz wrote:
| > if you are fully vaccinated, you are at essentially no risk
| of serious illness from SARS-CoV2.
|
| For now...
| timr wrote:
| Well then, by that logic, we can never let up on this. You
| never know what's going to happen in two weeks!
| _-david-_ wrote:
| We should never allow people to go outside. There is just
| too big of a risk of serious illness.
| nindalf wrote:
| > We have never before justified such intrusive government
| policies based on the risks faced by these individuals.
|
| This is factually untrue isn't it? Children are forced to get
| vaccinated if they want to access the public school system in
| at least some parts of the US.
| dougmwne wrote:
| I don't have much problem with a mandate, but I think you are
| missing a reason someone might be against one. A vaccine will
| protect the vast majority of people from bad outcomes if they
| themselves get it. There is strengthening evidence that
| vaccinated people can still be very infectious and a big danger
| to the unvaccinated. Therefore if you believe that governments
| should be parsimonious in their regulation of people's
| activities, mandating a vaccine that doesn't particularly
| protect anyone but the person who gets it might be an example
| of government overreach. We let people smoke after all. If you
| believe that the vaccine will protect others (and I hope it
| does, despite some recent concerning studies) then it is more
| defensible to mandate it.
|
| Basically, I would hope mandates like this are done on the
| science instead of on the hope that if we're all very good
| citizens and get our shots we will somehow be rewarded with
| protection from the big bad virus and an end to the pandemic.
| [deleted]
| dan-robertson wrote:
| I think I basically worry that the policy is not very
| effective. It doesn't really allay anyone's fears about the
| safety of the jab (I've seen people claim that the FDA giving
| it full approval rather than emergency approval would help but
| I don't really believe them.)
|
| But then France recently announced a similar policy and saw a
| few protests and a lot of people getting the vaccine. They like
| to protest more in France than America but I think Americans
| (even in NY) are perhaps more vaccine-hesitant.
|
| I think I would like to see:
|
| - more effort to make vaccines more accessible (wider range of
| times of day; working with community groups to have pop up
| vaccination events that include non-vaccine things so people
| aren't scared off; maybe trying to let people know where they
| can get vaccinated and that it's free; requiring employers to
| give people paid time off work to get vaccinated; etc)
|
| - other incentives for vaccination (I see examples like being
| entered into a lottery or getting free donuts, but I mostly
| prefer just giving people cash to get vaccinated. Say $100 or
| maybe even $1000)
|
| Another thing would maybe making it easier for businesses to
| only admit people who are vaccinated or have some suitable
| exemption but I think the latter is hard for privacy reasons
| and I think the former is just inviting businesses to decrease
| their custom which they are not normally wont to do.
| mbostleman wrote:
| This is one that I think you missed that I have heard a lot:
|
| 4. You view this as the state being paternalistic to protect
| the unvaccinated when, in fact, if in August of 2021 you have
| not yet been vaccinated, you are almost certainly making a
| personal risk management decision and, as such, should be
| prepared for the consequences to not only yourself, but others
| like you (unvaccinated).
|
| This view also seems to be predicated on the idea that the
| vaccinated are largely unaffected by the spread amongst the
| unvaccinated. To what degree this is true, I don't know. It's
| hard to keep up with the evolving data and narratives.
| wdhilliard wrote:
| My problem is that the whole thing is based on old data and a
| false premise that life is safe when vaccinated people are only
| around vaccinated people. We know this is slightly more true
| than among the unvaccinated, but only by about 40%. This is
| real data.
|
| Fears of privacy implications: Tracking data/metadata, How data
| is recorded, How long are records kept. What other data is
| linked to vaccination checks?
|
| Fears of discrimination: How is vaccination proven? Are special
| IDs required? What is the cost of identification? What about
| people who are ineligible to get vaccinated due to age, health
| status, medical conditions. What percentage of minority groups
| are vaccinated in comparison to other groups?
|
| Unintended consequences: Will this make unsafe behavior appear
| safer to vaccinated individuals? What about future variants?
| Are there future plans to extend the list of businesses/places
| this applies to like public transport, medical facilities, etc?
|
| Lastly, If you are vaccinated and feel safe doing these
| activities, why should you care about those who chose not to
| get vaccinated
| bern4444 wrote:
| Vaccination in NY/NYC is easily proven. Picture of your
| vaccine card is sufficent and there's also the excelsior pass
| which is a QR code. Super easy to get from a city/state
| website after entering a few details (think name, when your
| last vaccine was, which vaccine etc).
|
| This can be downloaded as an image, into apple wallet etc.
| For those who chose not to, they can stick to carrying around
| their vaccine card (just as anyone carries around an ID,
| cash, credit card, cell phone, mask, etc) or just keep a
| picture of it on their phone
|
| The vaccine is free for everyone, so there's very little
| discrimination there. In NY there are plenty of sites to go
| to where you can walk in and be out today in under an hour.
| Likely half an hour.
|
| As to the privacy, yes, that's a fair concern but its
| literally no different than having to get a vaccine to travel
| to certain countries. Data exposed is minimal and not that
| much more than what would be gathered showing your ID when
| buying alcohol which contains your name, dob, address, etc.
| Far more personal information then if I'm vaxxed.
|
| Those who are ineligible for the vaccine (due to age mostly
| now) I don't think are subject to this. Most people with
| medical conditions are still able to get vaxxed. If not, they
| especially should not be going out. Those who are vaxxed and
| also immunocompromised have far less protection as well
| compared to their peers who aren't immunocompromised.
|
| Anyone over the minimum age qualifies for the vaccine.
|
| If people at this point are willfully choosing not to get
| vaccinated tough luck. Its absurd and they shouldn't be
| allowed to prevent those of us who care about each other and
| the community from enjoying life again.
| damontal wrote:
| >Vaccination in NY/NYC is easily proven. Picture of your
| vaccine card is sufficent
|
| That's easily faked. To prove vaccination, a picture of a
| card is not sufficient. If that's all that's required as
| proof then this won't accomplish anything meaningful.
| swader999 wrote:
| That's exactly the problem. This will be linked to a
| central authority that then will be able to record all
| you travel and activity. Able to turn it off and geo-
| fence you. Social Credit system for the west.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > Super easy to get from a city/state website after
| entering a few details (think name, when your last vaccine
| was, which vaccine etc).
|
| Only available to those who got vaccinated in New York. And
| given that the NYC border is all of a couple hundred yards
| from New Jersey and 10 miles from Connecticut, there are
| tons of people who either live in the city and got
| vaccinated elsewhere, or else who live elsewhere but are in
| the city on a daily basis.
| bern4444 wrote:
| This is about a restriction NY is imposing on New
| Yorkers. The city and state I'm sure would welcome
| cooperation with other nearby states in developing a tri
| state area valid digital vaccine card.
|
| But this isn't about other cities and states so this
| isn't relevant. States, just like countries, are allowed
| to impose their own laws so long as they don't encroach
| on rights and laws from the federal government.
|
| Comity is a legal standard that neighboring states can
| choose to embrace.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > This is about a restriction NY is imposing on New
| Yorkers.
|
| So you're saying that since I live in Connecticut, I'm
| allowed to eat indoors in NYC without showing proof of
| vaccination? I realize that this is literally what the
| article says, but surely that must be a mistake, no?
| kian wrote:
| In response to 'but its literally no different than having
| to get a vaccine to travel to certain countries', we
| literally (as in have a literal - written word -
| constitution) that explicitly prohibits the prevention of
| movement between the states in the same way that we do
| between countries.
|
| There is a quite literal, and federally-mandated,
| difference.
|
| You literally aren't even allowed to ask for someone's ID
| to cross internal US borders - but you think medical
| records, which contain just as much (if not more)
| personally-identifying information would be okay?
|
| "Show me your papers, please."
| tootie wrote:
| Think of it more like a drivers license. Proof that you
| have passed a written test, driving test and an eye exam.
| Includes your full name, home address, photo and DOB. The
| Excelsior Pass has less info than that. And will only be
| required for entering private property from which people
| can already be barred entry for arbitrary reasons.
| kian wrote:
| Again - you cannot require a driver's license to cross
| state lines. Precisely because you cannot be required to
| present that information in order to move about freely.
| As long as you aren't the person driving ;)
|
| I understand that this is not inter-state travel, but at
| the same time you cannot be required to provide your
| identification by law enforcement or others without cause
| within them. It is not illegal to walk about without
| documentation as to who you are.
|
| You aren't even required to show identification to walk
| into a tobacco or liquor store - only to purchase.
|
| Certain government buildings, bars, clubs, and smoking
| lounges are the only exceptions I know of to this rule.
| There is no compelling reason to expand that list, nor
| the information they are allowed to request.
| analyte123 wrote:
| Getting a vaccine to cross an international border is not
| the same as getting a vaccine to walk to a bar on your own
| street in your own country. Besides, people who have not
| had the Covid vaccine are not directly preventing anyone
| from enjoying life. The people are either choosing to not
| enjoy life themselves, or their government is putting
| restrictions on them (and then they are obeying them) while
| blaming the restrictions on non-vaccinated people.
| bern4444 wrote:
| > Getting a vaccine to cross an international border is
| not the same as getting a vaccine to walk to a bar on
| your own street in your own country.
|
| In NY it's trivial to get this vaccine. Getting it is
| certainly easier than getting any other government id
| (state id, permit, driver's license etc). Certainly ID is
| needed to purchase alcohol, drive a car, etc. Maybe not
| at a bar, but often for purchasing alcohol from a liquor
| or wine store.
|
| > Besides, people who have not had the Covid vaccine are
| not directly preventing anyone from enjoying life.
|
| Of course they are. They're taking up space in hospitals,
| endangering public health, and causing unnecessary harm
| by spreading covid and increasing the risk of a new
| variant.
| analyte123 wrote:
| As long as one is viewing humans solely as harmful
| disease vectors, obese people also take up substantial
| space in hospitals and cause further obesity through
| social contagion. However, we don't mandate that
| restaurants prohibit serving sugary drinks to those with
| BMI over 30. People with various STIs also do everything
| in your list, but that is addressed through awareness of
| safer practices, in some cases voluntary vaccination and
| PrEP, and research into better treatments, not through
| banning extramarital sex or shutting down locations where
| people meet for sexual activity. People who participate
| in injury-prone sports and activities also take up
| disproportionate hospital space, but the US passed the
| ACA in part to require medical coverage for people
| regardless of their lifestyle.
|
| The reasoning for restricting behavior based on people's
| Covid risk (including vaccination status) is exactly the
| same as in the scenarios above.
|
| People vaccinated against Covid can choose today to live
| a normal life, confident in the vaccine's protection
| against their serious illness or hospitalization, without
| scapegoating those not vaccinated for the entirely
| predictable seasonal and variant spread of Covid, or
| forcing struggling small businesses to hire bouncers to
| check the medical papers of every customer.
| AndrewBissell wrote:
| Just gonna repost something I saw on Twitter that
| summarizes this perfectly:
|
| government: take these shots or you'll never get your
| lives back
|
| person who keeps up with the news: how DARE the people
| who won't take their shots hold us hostage like this!
|
| https://twitter.com/gnocchiwizard/status/1419721365276475
| 394
| Daishiman wrote:
| Anywhere where an ICU bed is taken by an unvaxxed COVID
| patient is a bed that was available for anyone else for
| any other reason.
|
| Anwhere where unvaxxed people have to take time out
| because they're sick is time they could have spent
| working, contributing towards their families or
| communities, and someone is going to have to take up the
| work.
|
| So not, at a collective level, unvaccinated people are
| _very much_ preventing others from enjoying themselves.
| goostavos wrote:
| Is that actually a compelling argument? How is an
| individual's choice which led to them occupying an ICU as
| a COVID patient worse than any other of their (presumably
| very dumb) individual choices?
|
| If we get to pick what we get to shame ICU bed occupancy
| for, I've got a LOT of other ideas that people probably
| won't like.
|
| By definition, society is made of up lots of interactions
| which prevent others from enjoying themselves. I struggle
| to understand why the line gets drawn at COVID.
| h_anna_h wrote:
| Don't put unvaxxed and these who were injured/became ill
| due to their own incompetence or recklessness in an ICU
| bed then? (as long as they are full that is)
|
| > and someone is going to have to take up the work.
|
| There is a lot of unemployment. This is also true for the
| paid and unpaid leaves btw, should we illegalise these?
| Daishiman wrote:
| > There is a lot of unemployment. This is also true for
| the paid and unpaid leaves btw, should we illegalise
| these?
|
| If you are consistently taking leave because you puke
| your guts out every week from eating spoiled food, that
| wouldn't be much of an excuse for paid leave.
|
| I find the same is true for those who choose not to
| vaccinate. I do not find that to be a reasonable risk
| profile to accommodate in a consequence-free manner.
| Clubber wrote:
| >Anywhere where an ICU bed is taken by an unvaxxed COVID
| patient is a bed that was available for anyone else for
| any other reason.
|
| They typically don't put COVID patients in the same
| vicinity as other patients for obvious reasons. There's
| usually a dedicated COVID wing.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| New York state has an "Excelsior pass" that currently serves
| no purpose. You can use an app or print out a card with QR
| code to prove vaccination.
| creato wrote:
| > My problem is that the whole thing is based on old data and
| a false premise that life is safe when vaccinated people are
| only around vaccinated people. We know this is slightly more
| true than among the unvaccinated, but only by about 40%. This
| is real data.
|
| This is not "real data", it's not even clear what your number
| refers to. "Life is safe"?
| alecst wrote:
| Great reply, thank you. I don't want to get into a long
| argument, but a lot of what you say hinges on that 40%
| number. I'd like to know what that refers to. My reply to
| that 40% number:
|
| I thought that vaccines made you something like 20x less
| likely to end up in the hospital from coronavirus (widely
| cited as 95% protective.) And that unvaccinated people spread
| at 5x the rate of the vaccinated ones.
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02054-z
|
| Despite having done some research in virology for my MSc I
| definitely don't claim to be an expert. The field is really
| complex, and I'm always open to learning. So feel free to
| reply and educate me as long as we can keep it cordial.
|
| To answer your last question (presumably non-rhetorical) I
| worry about unvaccinated people allowing for mutations via
| community spread, as well as getting sick when they didn't
| have to, hurting themselves while taking up healthcare
| resources in the process. Is that unreasonable?
| coding123 wrote:
| It's hardly capturing anything.
|
| People in HN complained a few months back that after they
| got the vaccine they felt like they suddenly had long
| covid.
|
| The CDC stopped measuring outcomes for vaccinated people in
| May. Isreal's data is showing things that are not published
| in the United States. Policy in the United States is not
| based on Isreal's data.
|
| https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/quick-update-on-the-
| isra...
|
| Basically here's the gist that I'm guessing is happening:
| (This next part is just me and I haven't seen this ANYWHERE
| in the world - just fyi this could be considered mis-
| information but I'm sharing it anyway because I think I'm
| right and why wouldn't I ? lol)
|
| The Covid vaccines are NOT generating memory T-Cells that
| react to the spike protein. Instead the vaccine is simply
| causing a slow IgA reaction, much like you would get when
| you catch a cold. That IgA is protective against Covid -
| that's something we already know. We already know that if
| you recently had a cold or anything really that boosts your
| iga, you're going to have temporary protection against
| covid.
|
| That's what I think the vaccines are doing. We know that
| mrna does cause an iga boost, so one hypothesis I have is
| to just find things that can help boost IGA, and something
| less dangerous than mrna of the spike protein would be a
| much better idea for a iga booster than something that is
| failing as a memory t-cell responder.
| thinkharderdev wrote:
| This could be considered misinformation because it is
| misinformation. We can in fact measure these things and
| the mRNA vaccines have been demonstrated to generated a
| robust immune response including memory B cells:
|
| https://immunology.sciencemag.org/content/6/58/eabi6950
| https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6529/eabf4063
| peteradio wrote:
| That second link seems to be about natural immunity not
| vaccines.
| coding123 wrote:
| Thank you for sharing, that is effectively what I had
| been looking for! Please ignore my misinformation.
| keneda7 wrote:
| Not the original poster but
|
| The article you link says the delta is unknown. Delta is
| rapidly becoming the most common variant in the US.
| (https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210720/delta-variant-
| now-a...)
|
| I believe the 40% is coming from the data out of Israel.
| (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/delta-variant-pfizer-
| covid-v...)
|
| Also data from the CDC on the latest outbreak they studies
| shows that 74% of the positives were vaccinated. At the
| time the vaccination rate was about 69% for the state. I
| can't find anything on the actual town.
| (https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/this-900-person-
| delt...)
|
| The CDC also has said vaccinated do in fact have high viral
| loads of the virus and can spread it
| (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-
| updates/2021/0...)
|
| Do you happen to have any actual studies showing
| unvaccinated people are causing mutations? I have seen it
| repeated but never seen the study behind it. I do know
| leaky vaccines cause outbreaks to spread faster. This can
| be seen in the past.
| (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tthis-chicken-
| vaccine-m...)
|
| As for your last part. Lets look at it another way. Heart
| disease is the leading killer in the US. One of the best
| way to prevent heart disease is being physically fit and
| active. By your logic we should be mandating exercise for
| everyone to prevent it right? Shouldn't we also be forcing
| people to quite drinking and smoking as well?
|
| Overall its just a slippery slop when you give the
| government this right. What happens if conservatives get in
| power and decided abortion should be banned outright as
| they consider a fetus a person? By the same logic you are
| using, they would be perfectly reasonable to do that.
| hellisothers wrote:
| While it's possible to be infected and vaccinated the
| possibility is lower right, even "only" 40% is a huge
| number! If only vaccinated people are in a space it
| dramatically decreases the likelihood I'll become
| infected by more than 40% because every one of those
| people is also personally 40% less likely to be infected,
| so this is compounding. Please correct me if I'm wrong on
| that assessment.
|
| As to the hear disease comment those comparisons are
| disingenuous because you can choose to exercise or not
| and your choice doesn't impact others. My 7yo son cannot
| be vaccinated, he has no choose but to rely on others
| doing their part
| keneda7 wrote:
| I am not sure about the compounding 40%. I don't know
| enough about infectious disease transfer. The previous
| poster had asked about the 40% so I was giving him the
| source. Personally I agree with you 40% is still better
| than 0%.
|
| As far as heart disease, in my opinion it does
| drastically impact other people. Heart disease patients
| take up hospital beds, they take up medical supplies,
| they take up doctors time. The CDC says ~1 in 4 deaths is
| due to heart disease.
| (https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm) It is a
| massive drain on our medical system (perhaps the
| greatest).
| thinkharderdev wrote:
| Whether it is proper for the government to mandate
| vaccines in certain situation is a complicated question
| but I think some of your priors are incorrect.
|
| 1. The data out of Israel on vaccine efficacy with Delta
| is out of line with other studies on the matter and is
| generally considered to suffer from some methodological
| flaws. See
| https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891 for a
| study out of Britain showing an efficacy of 88% against
| symptomatic infection. There is much more data that
| corroborates only slightly reduced efficacy and the
| Israel study is the outlier so anchoring to that number
| is probably a mistake.
|
| 2. The Pronvicetown study (where 74% of infected were
| vaccinated) doesn't tell you anything about vaccine
| efficacy. The vaccine rate for the town or state are
| irrelevant since the event in question included a large
| number of tourists. The town itself only has ~3000 people
| but there were 60k people there from all over the country
| at the week-long event.
|
| 3. Here is a study showing higher mutational variance in
| unvaccinated patients: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10
| .1101/2021.07.01.21259833v.... This is exactly what we
| should expect. Vaccines drastically reduce the rate of
| transmission so we should have a strong prior that they
| would also reduce the rate of mutation.
| keneda7 wrote:
| 1. The Israel study was the only one I have seen so far.
| Thank you for linking to the other one. It seem these two
| studies pretty much contradict each other. Do you happen
| to have links or can point me in the direction of the
| other data you referenced? Edit: I did some more research
| on the UK study. It appears to be outdated and does not
| use the June and July stats when Delta actually took off.
| If you use the last two (18 and 19) UK governments
| technically briefings (https://www.gov.uk/government/publ
| ications/investigation-of-...) you can calculate the
| efficiency rating. From my understanding you do this by
| calculating the infection rates in the vaccinated and
| unvaccinated, then divide the infection rate in the
| vaccinated vs the infection rate by the unvaccinated. You
| then subtract this answer from 1 to get the efficiency.
| It varies with the age groups but for 50+ I got an
| effectiveness of about 17%. I could wrong in how I am
| going about this though. Please let me know if I am
|
| 2. I have to disagree here. The CDC report is dealing
| with Massachusetts residents infected (https://www.cdc.go
| v/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm...). It did
| not include out of state infections. So I would say
| comparing the state vaccination rate to how many
| vaccinated state residents got covid is a valid
| comparison. In fact from what I have seen this study is
| being used to justify the CDC recommending masks for all
| again.
|
| 3. Thank you very much for this link. I keep seeing a
| study referenced but was not able to find it. However it
| has not been peer reviewed yet so we don't really know if
| its accurate. Any chance you have a study pre-COVID that
| show this?
| maxk42 wrote:
| Your excellent reply makes an outstanding argument for
| not legislating vaccination: The science is far from
| settled.
|
| Until we have answers that are absolutely certain and the
| long-term risks are known, we are merely experimenting on
| the whole of the populace, which could lead to disastrous
| long-term outcomes.
|
| Policy should be based on facts, not guesses.
| rcpt wrote:
| Funny that this is almost word-for-word what climate
| denialists say.
| thinkharderdev wrote:
| As I said, actually legislating vaccination is a
| complicated question and it depends on the details of the
| legislation in question on whether I would personally
| support it.
|
| However, I think your other points are incorrect. Policy
| making is always about making decisions under uncertainty
| so we have to make the best decisions we can given the
| data we have. And the data we have I believe is
| overwhelmingly clear that any risks associated with
| vaccination are dramatically smaller than the risks of
| COVID itself. To date I am unaware of any substantiated
| risks of vaccination which aren't also risks of COVID
| infection and where the risk is much higher from
| infection than from vaccination. It can be tricky at
| times because mass vaccination will generally affect more
| people than infection so you have to weigh the relative
| risks appropriately. However, in the current case where
| we have a highly infectious respiratory virus we seem
| destined to end up with an endemic disease which only
| happens when ~100% of the population has already been
| either vaccinated or infected. So to first approximation
| your only two choices are to get the vaccine or
| (eventually) get infected with COVID. Given that and the
| very clear data we have now about the relatively
| insignificant risks of the vaccine relative to infection,
| getting vaccinated should be the obvious best option.
| After all, getting infected with a novel virus that is
| (now) easily preventable is ALSO experimenting with your
| health.
| whateveracct wrote:
| > Overall its just a slippery slop when you give the
| government this right. What happens if conservatives get
| in power and decided abortion should be banned outright
| as they consider a fetus a person? By the same logic you
| are using, they would be perfectly reasonable to do that.
|
| This is a ridiculous argument and I'd say mostly FUD.
| Abortion is pretty well litigated. Conservatives have
| been in power in state and national govts for years and
| they've barely managed to get anywhere close to this.
| tzs wrote:
| There was some CDC data published recently on breakthrough
| infections in the US (I don't have a better site--saw it
| somewhere on Apple New+). It worked out to 4 COVID
| hospitalizations or deaths per 100k.
|
| For comparison, that's about twice the US death rate due to
| flu in 2019, and about 1/40th the US death rate due to
| COVID before vaccinations were available (and before the
| delta variant was in the US). That's about 10x better than
| death rate pre-vaccination in the state that had the lowest
| death rate (Hawaii).
| kadoban wrote:
| Aren't you comparing Delta numbers for vaccine and pre-
| Delta numbers for no-vaccine then? So really you'd expect
| the difference to be even greater than that.
| YooLi wrote:
| _" To answer your last question (presumably non-rhetorical)
| I worry about unvaccinated people allowing for mutations
| via community spread..."_
|
| Then you also should worry about Antibody-Dependent
| Enhancement (ADE).
|
| _"...as well as getting sick when they didn 't have to,
| hurting themselves while taking up healthcare resources in
| the process."_
|
| Like obese people?
| dougmwne wrote:
| Yes, I am concerned about the "security theater" aspect of
| this. I want evidence that this is a valid approach, not
| moralizing. Otherwise we might as well start tossing virgins
| into Mount Etna for all the good it'll do.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Here is my take: anyone who wants the vaccine can get it. If
| there are adults who can't, perhaps we need a law to grant paid
| time off for anyone who doesn't have it, specifically to allow
| them time to get the vaccine. There doesn't seem to be evidence
| that children are at a high risk of health issues due to the
| virus.
|
| So in America after 8 months, most people who want the vaccine
| have it. Those who have it are incredibly safe, though not
| completely.
|
| My question is this: when do we admit that in the US, we can go
| back to normal? At this point, i _do_ see it like the flu or
| any other moderate respiratory illness. There is a risk, and we
| mitigated it.
|
| If someone wants to wear a mask, okay. If a business or
| hospital wants to mandate masks, fine. But at this point, the
| unvaccinated in this country have chosen to ride without a
| helmet. So long as the health system doesn't collapse, that is
| on them, as it has always been.
| dotcommand wrote:
| > Pretty dismal discussion in here at the time of writing.
| Largely complaints about tyranny.
|
| Because it's highly tyrannical? Odd how cavalier you are about
| this.
|
| Nevermind that you have a right to privacy when it comes to
| health matters, this also forces you to carry "ID" pretty much
| everywhere.
|
| Also, all tyrannies a born to "protect you".
|
| > Makes me sad that we can't have a calm discussion about the
| merits of the policy.
|
| I don't think that's what you are interested in. You wouldn't
| have started off your comment that way if you did.
| jhgb wrote:
| > Because it's highly tyrannical?
|
| I hope that one day you'll experience an _actual_ tyranny for
| comparison. Something like Belarus or North Korea.
|
| > this also forces you to carry "ID" pretty much everywhere
|
| Yes, because US car drivers don't already do that? And pretty
| much anyone in developed countries in the world.
| readflaggedcomm wrote:
| Not everybody drives. Identification for voting is onerous
| enough, not to mention for groceries.
| jhgb wrote:
| > Identification for voting is onerous enough
|
| This makes absolutely no sense for anyone not living in
| the US. You could as well be speaking Klingon.
|
| > not to mention for groceries
|
| This makes even _less_ sense.
| jcadam wrote:
| > I hope that one day you'll experience an actual tyranny
| for comparison. Something like Belarus or North Korea.
|
| Cool. We should submit to any and all amounts of government
| overreach and abuse of power until our rulers decide to go
| full Pol-Pot. Then we can say "Hey, wait a minute."
|
| The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
| jhgb wrote:
| Don't choke on that strawman.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Residents of the US have self-selected into two cohorts:
|
| 1) People that will get resistance via vaccines
|
| 2) People that will get resistance via infection
|
| Some 30-40% of the US population decided on #2. Roughly 0.7% of
| them will die because of that decision, but this is exactly
| _what they are asking for_! If you are in cohort #1, you really
| don 't have a lot to worry about from the virus. Why are you
| denying people the consequences of their decisions?
|
| Yes, the medical system will be briefly overrun, and it would
| be a terrible time to need hospitalization. That's a good
| argument for getting it over as quickly as possible! The delta
| variant is estimated to have an R0 of 8-10. Let it rip and the
| surge will be over in weeks.
|
| What about the children? Serious negative effects on kids seem
| to be extraordinarily rare. The kids will be fine.
|
| I am only half joking here. "We live in a society" cuts both
| ways - we have to respect the general health of everyone, but
| we also have to respect the explicit wishes of a _huge_ portion
| of the population - almost a third. The good news is that
| almost exclusively, they 're going to be the ones dying. I can
| live with that.
| vkou wrote:
| If the group of people in 2) were not a petri dish for viral
| mutations, and if my insurance didn't have to pay tens and
| hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat them when they get
| hospitalized, due to an unwillingness to get a free
| vaccination, I would have no issue with any of them.
|
| After a year and a half of this nightmare, I'm not really
| interested in lifting a finger to help people who are both
| too stupid to help themselves, and who are putting the rest
| of us in danger by doing so. If you actively refuse to grab
| at a life preserver that we're tossing you, it's not on the
| rest of us to jump in the water to help you.
|
| Full FDA approval is coming next month, but I'm sure by the
| time that happens, the goalposts will once again be moved,
| and there will be a new crop of excuses for why people aren't
| getting vaccinated. This has stopped being an argument about
| facts a very long time ago - it's now an argument about
| political identity.
| Daishiman wrote:
| I am in cohort #1. I don't want to continue to increase the
| chances of breakthrough mutations and I do not want others to
| do so.
|
| I do not want a substantial number of people getting sick and
| having to use collective resources to heal them at the
| expense of others because of a collectively bad choice. I do
| not want to substitute, work overtime, or have reduced
| productivity due to this.
|
| While vaccinated people are fairly safe, even with us all
| being vaccinated we are adding to the background risk of
| hospitalization the equivalent of several hard flu seasons.
| I've had a really bad flu where I felt I was dying, twice in
| my life. I do not look forward to having my body bearing that
| brunt every couple of years for the rest of my life.
| handrous wrote:
| > I am in cohort #1. I don't want to continue to increase
| the chances of breakthrough mutations and I do not want
| others to do so.
|
| I'm very much with you, but I think that ship sailed
| between the lack of international coordination, the lack of
| vaccination mandates or other measures to improve rates
| even in the well-supplied-with-vaccine US, and the rush to
| remove other measures like closures and mask mandates _way_
| before it made any sense to.
|
| Instead, we're running an active program to train COVID to
| overcome the "miracle" vaccine we're so proud of. Should
| be... interesting.
| Miner49er wrote:
| > I am in cohort #1. I don't want to continue to increase
| the chances of breakthrough mutations and I do not want
| others to do so.
|
| Mutations can happen anywhere in the world. To reduce the
| odds of mutations, we need to vaccinate as many people as
| we can globally. Our efforts would be much better spent
| getting vaccines in the hands of people in other countries
| that are _very_ willing to take it.
| rajin444 wrote:
| > I do not want a substantial number of people getting sick
| and having to use collective resources to heal them at the
| expense of others because of a collectively bad choice
|
| Why are you ok with using this argument for covid, but not
| smoking / obesity / football / etc.? The principle is
| sound, but the selective application is not.
| bart_spoon wrote:
| Who says they aren't? I think there are some very good
| arguments to be made about how society could collectively
| benefit by not subsidizing activities like these through
| insured healthcare.
| Daishiman wrote:
| I do not find it unreasonable that people who partake in
| high-risk activities or have high-risk lifestyles also
| contribute different amounts.
|
| I am very much in favor of taxing cigarretes and
| unhealthy foods so that consumers pay for the
| externalities of their actions.
| stickfigure wrote:
| > every couple of years for the rest of my life.
|
| That ship has sailed? Covid is not going away, ever. It's
| politically impossible to mandate 100% vaccination, and
| even if you could, there's still animal reserves. The best
| case scenario is that covid becomes like the common cold,
| and you can mostly avoid it with occasional booster shots.
|
| I wish everyone would get vaccinated too, but let's be
| realistic. How many years do you think you can keep up
| rules like "must show vaccination card to enter"? At what
| point does everyone, including vaccinated people, start
| ignoring them? Personally I think it's going to fail out of
| the gate, and I'm on team vax.
| summerlight wrote:
| > The good news is that almost exclusively, they're going to
| be the ones dying.
|
| Oh, this is not even remotely true. Our medical
| infrastructure is a limited, contended resources. When the
| medical system got overrun for several month, the risk is not
| only passed to those anti-vaxxers but also to those who with
| serious other medical conditions.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| Just under 50% of the country has no vaccine despite it being
| free and widely available for months.
|
| Only 57% have up to one dose.
|
| If it was a vote the vaccine would have lost.
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
| stefan_ wrote:
| The result will be 3) everyone will be infected with a vastly
| more contagious, possibly more deadly variant that is
| resistant to vaccine. Your scenario isn't an option. It's not
| "over" because it has run its course in a single wave.
| esyir wrote:
| Looking at the history of disease, that's pretty unlikely.
| Traditionally, the optimal virus is going to get more
| contagious, but far less deadly; a disease that kills its
| host rapidly generally burns itself out.
|
| Now, the consequences of getting to that more optimal virus
| I'm a lot more hazy about.
| vkou wrote:
| > Traditionally, the optimal virus is going to get more
| contagious, but far less deadly; a disease that kills its
| host rapidly generally burns itself out
|
| The Spanish flu mutated into a more deadly variant, half-
| way through that pandemic. It went on to kill more people
| than World War I.
| NonContro wrote:
| You're ignoring that a significant portion of #2 have
| _already_ got resistance via infection. There is no point
| whatsoever for those people to get vaccinated, apart from
| padding out the pockets of Big Pharma.
|
| With the scale of vaccinations that we already have, COVID is
| firmly in the realm of influenza in terms of potential future
| deathtoll. In fact, for much of this year the UK had higher
| influenza deaths than COVID deaths:
|
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/22/flu-pneumonia-
| de...
|
| Why don't we pressure people to get influenza vaccines
| yearly?
| paraph1n wrote:
| > Why don't we pressure people to get influenza vaccines
| yearly?
|
| At least here in the US, we absolutely do.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| >There is no point whatsoever for those people to get
| vaccinated
|
| False, the vaccine is more effective than antibodies from a
| previous infection. It's not a huge difference, but it is
| absolutely statistically significant.
| [deleted]
| giantg2 wrote:
| For #2, if you have a medical condition that prevents you from
| receiving the vaccine it would require either falsified vaccine
| cards to show you as complying with the mandate, or disclosure
| of a/the medical condition that prevents you from getting it.
| Effectively, this small minority is finding themselves in a
| position that pits their medical privacy of their underlying
| medical conditions against the requirement to prove vaccination
| status.
|
| On a related note, I wonder why antibody levels aren't used. I
| mean, we should want to measure outcomes, not output. If you
| have comparable levels of antibodies from natural infection vs
| the vaccine, then you should be well protected. Conversely, if
| you recieved the vaccine but your immune system does not
| produce a sufficient level of antibodies, then they shouldn't
| be considered "safe", right? This question was mostly based on
| an article I saw about a nurse who was fired because she didn't
| get the vaccine eventhough she had antibodies. It made me think
| it was mostly a move by some corporate lawyer limit liability.
|
| "you can "take your chances" with the vaccine which,
| statistically and biologically, is safer than getting
| coronavirus."
|
| Can you elaborate on what you mean by biologically safer? Also,
| I'm looking forward to the data Pfizer will be releasing soon
| for their regular market approval, because I haven't been able
| to find good statistics about covid v vaccine serious side
| effects by risk factor(s).
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > For #2, if you have a medical condition that prevents you
| from receiving the vaccine it would require either falsified
| vaccine cards to show you as complying with the mandate.
|
| IMO, people with legitimate medical conditions should just be
| granted excelsior passes, the same as those who are
| vaccinated. There's few enough people with these conditions
| that it shouldn't be a health issue.
|
| Religious exemptions are the tricky one, since NYC especially
| has e.g. orthodox jews clustered together in their own
| communities. IMO, they should not got passes. If they don't
| want a vaccine, fine--they just won't be able to go to the
| movies.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Yeah, issuing the pass that doesn't differentiate between
| vaccinated and excluded would prevent almost all of the
| concern. Some people do have concerns about disclosuring
| health info to the government. Although the government
| could just buy the "anonymous" medical records and figure
| them out if they really wanted to.
|
| Yeah, religious exclusions get tricky. Really the whole
| thing can be tricky because it comes down to philosophical
| beliefs of what should be mandated and for whom.
|
| Edit: Why so many downvotes without reply?
| compsciphd wrote:
| In Israel antibody levels are a way to get the "green
| passport". My parents get vaccinated in the US, and since
| israel doesn't recognize foreign vaccinations, when they
| visited Israel they had to get an antibody test to be let out
| quarantine early. As it should them having antibodies, they
| were let out. As Israel doesn't have data that says they were
| vaccinated, they were let out as "recovered" (even though as
| far as we know, neither ever caught covid, and my father was
| in in and of the hospital over the past year so was regularly
| tested).
|
| As my mother is an Israeli citizen, she was given the "green
| passport", as my father was only in Israel on a "tourist
| visa", he was not. this is just an artifact of the current
| Israeli system where they aren't giving "green passports" to
| tourists, but demonstrating that one can give them to people
| that show sufficient antibodies.
| makomk wrote:
| The US seems to have a weird ideological opposition to the
| idea that recovered people have immunity from Covid, even
| though all the science indicates that they do. There's even
| weird articles in the press from time to time boggling at
| the fact that people don't care about getting vaccinated
| despite having caught Covid before, as though that somehow
| gave them more reason to think they needed a vaccine rather
| than less.
| tomp wrote:
| 4) You oppose tyranny. People should be free to make their own
| choices. By going out unvaccinated, I'm not putting anyone in
| danger, except those who _choose_ to be endangered (not
| isolating / sheltering at home, unmasked, unvaccinated).
|
| 5) You oppose discrimination. I'm immune but not vaccinated.
| Where's my immunity certificate?
| __m wrote:
| I want to drive a car without the tyranny of speed limits,
| I'm not putting anyone in danger except those who choose to
| be endangered (driving a car, walking a street). I oppose
| discrimination. I know how to drive a car, where is my
| driver's license?
| textgel wrote:
| I want to be able to date without the risk of HIV, seems we
| have to abolish gay bars and make homsexuality itself a
| crime.
| TomVDB wrote:
| In many states, it's a crime to have unprotected sex
| while knowingly having HIV and not informing your
| partner. That covers things right there.
|
| Do you have any other examples to demonstrate your
| ability to make absurd analogies?
| underseacables wrote:
| Not anymore... California repealed its law, and Illinois
| is in the process of doing the same. You can knowingly
| transmit HIV to someone in California without telling
| them anything, and its not a crime.
| uuipplo wrote:
| No it doesn't; you are not having fundamental rights such
| as free movement abolished. Now have another go at
| comprehending the analogy now that its basic mechanics
| have been explained to you in simple terms and consider
| that your inability to grasp the analogy demonstrates a
| moral or intellectual (or both) failing on your part that
| you seriously need to address. You are demanding the
| abolition of the right to free movement, god only knows
| what you'll want next.
| TomVDB wrote:
| > By going out unvaccinated, I'm not putting anyone in danger
|
| Yes, you are.
|
| * while a vaccinated person can spread the virus as well,
| current understanding is that it does so less than for an
| unvaccinated person.
|
| * vaccinated people can get sick, even if there's a much
| lower chance
|
| * vaccinated people can still have children who are not
| vaccinated
|
| None of this is absolute. It's a matter of percentages,
| chances and what not.
|
| Your claim is an absolute, and it's absolutely wrong.
| h_anna_h wrote:
| > * vaccinated people can still have children who are not
| vaccinated
|
| They should just vaccinate them then. I don't see why it is
| fine for the children to be unvaccinated but not for tomp.
| TomVDB wrote:
| I see that you're suffering from the common affliction of
| having a strong opinion about something you have no clue
| about: vaccines have not been approved for those younger
| than 12.
|
| Now that your knowledge level has increased, will you
| please stop endangering others and take the vaccine?
|
| Thanks!
| bart_spoon wrote:
| It's not that it's "fine" for children to not be
| vaccinated, it's that it is literally not possible to
| vaccinate anyone under 12 in the US right now legally.
| bart_spoon wrote:
| People are still free to make their own choices. The
| government isn't holding you down and jabbing your in the
| arm. What's happening here is that you are not being allowed
| to engage in particular aspects of society based on your
| choices, the same way you are prohibited from smoking in
| certain areas, from entering a bar if you are under 18, or
| driving your car on the wrong side of the road. Human
| societies are a trade off in which you forfeit certain
| individual rights in exchange for collectivist benefits you
| wouldn't have otherwise. You aren't "opposing tyranny", you
| are simply angry you aren't being allowed to leech off of
| society.
| swader999 wrote:
| The fact that your movements will be stored centrally and a
| profile developed has far more reaching implications and
| concerns that bad actors (future elected officials and
| their minions) will use this power to the detriment of
| society.
|
| I agree that limits to freedoms are necessary but this is
| too extreme.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > You have fears about getting a vaccine, moreso than for
| coronavirus. If this is you, do you prefer a mask mandate?
|
| As someone who is vaccinated, I'm frankly tired of wearing
| masks, and I don't feel I should have to wear one to protect
| _someone else_ who is refusing a vaccine.
| orangecat wrote:
| Totally agreed. And the silly thing is that it's not the
| unvaccinated people demanding mask mandates, it's only (some
| of) the vaccinated people, for whom it would produce at best
| a tiny decrease in risk.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Consider the people for whom the vaccine won't work for, or
| will be less effective for, like anyone on immune system
| suppressants because of transplants, or some cancer
| patients/survivors, or those taking immunosuppressants and
| biologics for things like Crohn's, UC, multiple sclerosis,
| arthritis, etc.
| rajup wrote:
| So these people should be wearing masks then? Sounds
| reasonable to me, not sure how imposing masks on vaccinated
| people helps.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| It's been a year of this, and you should know by now that
| masks are meant to prevent people from unknowingly
| spreading the virus to other people.
|
| From the FDA[1]:
|
| > _Q: Do face masks provide protection from coronavirus?_
|
| > _A: Masks may help prevent people who have COVID-19
| from spreading the virus to others. The CDC has guidance
| for wearing masks. Wearing a face mask may limit exposure
| to respiratory droplets and large particles and may help
| prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the
| virus._
|
| [1] https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-
| covid-19-and...
| dataflow wrote:
| The part that irks me about a vaccine mandate is it being
| imposed before FDA approval. The FDA isn't confident enough to
| approve the vaccine yet, yet other parts of the government are
| (effectively) saying they know better than the FDA? Is it
| really surprising that people hesitate when they see this?
| Isn't it kind of alarming to hear a government say, hey, our
| own scientists haven't approved this, but we want to inject it
| into your body anyway?
| ibejoeb wrote:
| The problem is also that there is political pressure to
| approve it. That sucks. Whatever time it takes to go through
| the process is the time it takes. Pushing it through is only
| going to do two things: 1) show that the process is political
| and that FDA approval is fungible and 2) make us wonder what
| the purpose of it is and why we should ever do it at all
| after this, if it can just be bypassed when politically
| convenient. Is it just fat to be trimmed?
|
| FDA approval does not confer safety and efficacy. It it there
| to report empirical safety and efficacy.
|
| FDA regularly revokes approval. That should count for
| something.
| dataflow wrote:
| Yeah, it's a tough situation for sure. I've been wondering
| if there's a more creative solution that could be
| implemented here. Like someone from the FDA coming and
| saying, hey, we obviously won't know long term effects with
| 100% certainty until a few years pass, but all the signs
| we're seeing indicate the vaccines are just as safe as any
| other vaccines up to this point, we've gotten it ourselves,
| and it's our belief that you should feel safe getting it
| too. Or the FDA inventing a new type of temporary approval
| for epidemics or something like that that basically means
| "we feel this is safe enough to mandate amid outbreaks, but
| not otherwise". (An EUA seems almost similar, but to me it
| means "this is safe enough to _use_ in an emergency ", not
| _mandate_.)
| schmichael wrote:
| The FDA did approve the vaccines under an emergency use
| authorization. Hundreds of millions of people have been
| vaccinated without significant deviation from expected
| outcomes. What do you expect final FDA approval to
| accomplish?
| dataflow wrote:
| Are you saying FDA approval is a meaningless thing? If so
| then why not get rid of that step and cut some red tape? If
| not then there's your answer.
| brown9-2 wrote:
| > Isn't it kind of alarming to hear a government say, hey,
| our own scientists haven't approved this, but we want to
| inject it into your body anyway?
|
| This isn't what is happening - the scientists are encouraging
| you to get the vaccine too.
|
| Full approval requires a lengthy amount of time because
| usually things are being tested outside of a crisis.
|
| I think a lot of comments are missing that this is a public
| health crisis which has killed nearly 700,000 Americans. A
| crisis calls for rapid action.
| dataflow wrote:
| >> Isn't it kind of alarming to hear a government say, hey,
| our own scientists haven't approved this, but we want to
| inject it into your body anyway?
|
| > This isn't what is happening - the scientists are
| encouraging you to get the vaccine too.
|
| That is _literally_ what is happening. Their own scientists
| at the FDA have not approved the vaccine and yet they 're
| trying to mandate people to get vaccinated anyway.
|
| > I think a lot of comments are missing that this is a
| public health crisis which has killed nearly 700,000
| Americans. A crisis calls for rapid action.
|
| I wasn't blaming anybody for rapid action. I'm just saying
| it's not hard to see why not everyone's interpretation is
| generous.
| caeril wrote:
| > you might be opposed to this policy if: { 1...2...3 }
|
| You listed three reasons that people might be opposed to the
| _vaccine itself_ , not merely the policy. None of these are
| applicable to my particular group, of which there are many:
|
| 4. You are pro-vaccine and anti-covid, but strictly opposed to
| insane and tyrannical government overreach by the very same
| people who literally murdered tens of thousands of elderly
| nursing home patients in 2020 by _intentionally_ exposing them
| to COVID patients.
|
| It's strange you didn't even consider this option, as if meek,
| bootlicking obedience to authority - specifically, authority
| that has already demonstrated that they don't care at all about
| preventing COVID deaths - is to you as water is to a fish.
|
| > take your chances with coronavirus, which you will get sooner
| or later, and spread it.
|
| This is patently ridiculous. I am fully vaccinated, but the
| research is clear - I can carry an infection just as
| effectively in my nasal cavity as my antivax cousin. Showing my
| card at the door does PRECISELY NOTHING to prevent spread. The
| Times, no friend to the antivax crew, grudgingly admitted this
| a few days ago:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/29/health/cdc-masks-vaccinat...
|
| It's quite obvious at this point, that vaccination protects ME,
| and ME alone. Pretending that vaccination status confers
| magical sainthood and capital-P Purity amongst its devotees is
| old hat.
|
| And enacting actual unconstitutional policy predicated on old
| science is even worse.
|
| I'm still waiting, after a year and a half, for any
| governments, anywhere, to mandate the ONLY thing that the
| science is VERY CLEAR will ACTUALLY dramatically reduce COVID
| fatalities among everyone under 70: mandatory weight loss for
| the obese.
|
| But something tells me you won't advocate for THAT particular
| policy position, will you?
| notJim wrote:
| This emotionally charged language isn't helpful to a rational
| discussion. I think your comment would be stronger without
| it.
|
| > I am fully vaccinated, but the research is clear - I can
| carry an infection just as effectively in my nasal cavity as
| my antivax cousin. Showing my card at the door does PRECISELY
| NOTHING to prevent spread.
|
| I'm pretty sure this is untrue, but not positive. The
| communication has been very confusing. As I understand it,
| you can get a high viral load, but it declines much more
| rapidly in vaccinated people.
|
| > mandatory weight loss for the obese.
|
| This would obviously be far far more invasive than getting
| two shots. Why support this form of government tyranny, in
| your words, rather than another?
| caeril wrote:
| > This would obviously be far far more invasive than
| getting two shots.
|
| This is not prima facie evident, at all. For _many_ people,
| being rationed to 1500kcal per day would be much less
| invasive than a foreign substance being forcibly injected
| into your body. Annoying and restrictive, yes, but
| definitely not _invasive_.
|
| Further, if we accept the premise (I don't) that
| governments can mandate any and all measures to ensure
| public health, why not measures that we know for a fact
| WILL result in improvements? The effects of COVID on the
| obese are absolutely DEVASTATING compared to normal weight
| people. Calorie rationing would have definitely saved
| lives, just assuredly as if the silly mask mandates around
| the country specified _actually effective_ masking with
| N95-P100 filtration instead of accepting virtually useless
| cloth as good enough.
|
| But that's not what we do, is it? We have the worst of both
| worlds: we have (1) governments violating our rights in the
| name of public health with mandates that (2) are pure,
| useless, ineffective theater.
|
| We shouldn't be mandating anything at the cost of freedom,
| but if we DO, we should at least make it count with
| mandates that WORK.
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| I have strong opposition on this policy.
|
| 1. No particular vaccine concern, have mine.
|
| 2. Yes. I am not telling my name and birth day for random
| person in public but now this is required for many public
| venue. No more being anonymous in public.
|
| 3. I have lowered concern, most people with vaccine have lesser
| time of it even with breakthrough infection. Or maybe better to
| say I am past caring.
|
| 4. All prior vaccine requirement (school, other places) have
| exemption for religios reason, personal objection, or both
| (varies by state). Compelling medical procedures is not a good
| thing ever. Saying that we have no compulsion is disingenuous
| if vaccine are required for restaurant, job, etc.
|
| I am having objections not to vaccine but to compulsion to show
| government document before any entry to certain places. Public
| school fine, government worker fine, but government forcing
| proof before entry to private restaurant very bad from
| perspective of civil liberties and privacy. Also I have worries
| over changing requirement: already there are discussion that
| maybe a booster shot is required. I am fine with taking this
| booster shot but do not like constant moving goalposts. Maybe
| later government adds some other requirements for what somebody
| must do before allowed entry somewhere, the infrastructure for
| lineing up for getting scanned already will be in place.
| joshstrange wrote:
| > I am fine with taking this booster shot but do not like
| constant moving goalposts.
|
| The virus is changing (variants) and we have to adapt to the
| changes. Your options are rolling with the punches or
| standing firm on a stance that is no longer based in reality.
| I can understand the pushback/concern to having to identify
| yourself constantly but potentially needing a booster isn't
| moving the goalposts, it's reacting to new information.
| thinkharderdev wrote:
| Out of curiosity do you refuse to show an ID to the bouncer
| at a bar to prove that you're over 21? Or when you buy
| alcohol/tobacco in a grocery store?
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| I do not buy these things but do not like ideas of having
| to show ID. No person I know have had difficulty with their
| obtainment from these requirement.
| srcreigh wrote:
| What's the harm in letting unvaccinated people spread covid
| amongst themselves? Vaccinated people aren't at risk.
| Unvaccinated people know the risks and they've had plenty of
| time to be vaccinated.
|
| It's not illegal to decide to do $XYZ_DANGEROUS_ACTIVITY, why
| should it be illegal to be exposed to covid?
|
| The only concern in theory is that a vaccine-immune covid
| variant could develop amongst unvaccinated populations. Is
| there any evidence for that though?
|
| EDIT: see responses below, there is some good info, thanks
| folks.
| tootie wrote:
| I see this opinion a lot and I think we can title LTFD or Let
| Them F** Die. Aside from the practical concerns about
| hospital crowding and the spread of potential breakthrough
| cases, I think it's also shamefully sadistic and punitive. I
| strongly disagree with anyone who is hesitant about getting
| vaccinated, but I still feel obligated to protect them as
| human beings and not just abandon their safety even if they
| don't want to protect themselves.
| atomashpolskiy wrote:
| > I strongly disagree with anyone who is hesitant about
| getting vaccinated, but I still feel obligated to protect
| them as human beings and not just abandon their safety even
| if they don't want to protect themselves.
|
| Dear god...
|
| > I still feel obligated to protect them
|
| Like, who the fuck are you to begin with? Get yourself a
| fucking pet to care about.
| omegaworks wrote:
| > What's the harm in letting unvaccinated people spread covid
| amongst themselves?
|
| Uncontrolled spread in the unvaccinated puts others that can
| not produce an immune response at risk.
|
| >Vaccinated people aren't at risk.
|
| This is false, fully vaccinated people in my network have
| been hospitalized.
|
| >Is there any evidence for that though?
|
| Reproduction and mutation in the infected is the primary
| mechanism by which variants develop.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| > The only concern in theory is that a vaccine-immune covid
| variant could develop amongst unvaccinated populations. Is
| there any evidence for that though?
|
| Considering that also vacinated people get covid, this
| doesn't help at all, and since they're mostly asymptomatic,
| they can even spread it more.
|
| Otherwise, I agree... vaccines are available for everyone, if
| you want to risk it, it's your risk to take.
| bombela wrote:
| If you are immunocompromised. Even though vaccinated. You
| could still catch the virus and be seriously impacted by it
| for example. The vaccine is not a guaranteed 100% protection
| for a healthy young person. And the weaker you are, the worse
| are the odds.
|
| And then you have the possiblity of mutations. The longueur
| the virus is on circulation. The more likely it is to mutate
| with worse outcome.
| Miner49er wrote:
| > And then you have the possiblity of mutations. The
| longueur the virus is on circulation. The more likely it is
| to mutate with worse outcome.
|
| Yeah, but mutations are most likely gonna come from the
| billions that are unvaccinated outside the US. If this is
| the main concern, we should be doing all we can to make
| sure people in other countries (many of whom are _very_
| willing to take the vaccine) are getting the vaccine.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| But if you're immunocompromised, you're fscked anyways, and
| should stay at home, because a lot of vaccinated people
| (~30+% with astrazeneca) can still get it, and even stay
| asymptomatic (so they spread it, but don't even know it,
| and noone tests them, because they're vaccinated).
| belltaco wrote:
| If the hospitals and emergency centers are full with covid
| patients, and you have a non-covid emergency, you're fucked.
|
| Imagine trying to get to the hospital and facing lines like
| this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kbNGR7XjrY
|
| The government or the insurance providers are paying for
| covid care, so it's coming out of your tax money or
| increasing health insurance premiums for everyone.
|
| You're taking doctors and nurses for granted. Health care
| providers are burning out faster due to long shifts caused by
| an overload of covid patients and are quitting. This
| increases health care costs for everyone and reduces
| availability.
|
| People having long term health issues decreases productivity,
| a lot more people might be disabled and file for disability
| benefits which come out of taxes.
|
| People's quality of life is reduced when their friends and
| family die.
|
| Lowering population reduces economic opportunity for
| everyone.
| mrtksn wrote:
| > What's the harm in letting unvaccinated people spread covid
| amongst themselves? Vaccinated people aren't at risk.
|
| Plenty of risks.
|
| 1) You are giving a chance for spreading a vaccine resistant
| strain. Every time a vaccinated person is exposed to the
| virus, most likely the immune system would take care of it
| however there's a risk that it would contain a vaccine
| resistant mutation and will spread among vaccinated, creating
| a vaccine resistant strain.
|
| 2) Vaccine protection is not %100, which means people are
| still at risk, therefore cannot ease measures
|
| 3) R0 would be lower in vaccinated groups, meaning a slower
| spread or complete end of the spread. In mixed groups R0
| would be higher which means prolonged or never ending spread.
| srcreigh wrote:
| Re 1) and 2), is there evidence that there are less covid
| mutations amongst vaccinated populations? I'm no
| epidemiologist, but maybe covid would achieve vaccine
| resistance better in a vaccinated population right?
|
| Regarding 3), Bill Gates wrote that ~70% immunity is all
| that's needed to eliminate covid. I'm curious for better
| info regarding that number too. It would imply that as many
| as 30% of people can remain unvaccinated and covid will
| still die out.
| mrtksn wrote:
| It's not about more or less mutations but about how
| evolution works. Indeed, vaccinated people are creating a
| selection pressure, therefore vaccine resistant strain
| would most likely come from vaccinated people being
| exposed to a virus that has the right mutation to evade
| the vaccinated immune system.
|
| The herd immunity percentage would depend on the
| characteristics of the strain. It can be higher or lower,
| the idea is that you need to have enough immune people so
| that the spread flames out. I read that for the delta
| variant the calculations show higher numbers because it's
| more capable of spreading than the original one.
|
| Ideally, we will reach that point before a strain
| undermines our vaccination efforts however that is not
| guaranteed. We can take measures to increase our chances.
| cyberpsybin wrote:
| Mutations. More dangerous variants. Delta variant came from
| India where disease ran rampant few months ago.
| Miner49er wrote:
| Yeah, and mutations are most likely going to continue
| coming from the billions outside the US that are
| unvaccinated. We'd be much better off spending time getting
| people outside the US that want to be vaccinated vaccinated
| then worrying about the holdouts here.
| rcpt wrote:
| A mix of vaccinated and unvaccinated people together is
| the perfect environment for a vaccine resistant strain to
| evolve.
| Miner49er wrote:
| I hadn't thought of that. Is there evidence for this or
| is it just a guess? It does make sense, but I wonder if
| it is backed up by data.
| softwaredoug wrote:
| 1. Many people aren't or can't get vaccinated, including kids
| under 12 or the immuno-compromised.
|
| 2. Constant infection causes more mutation of the virus and
| possible escape vaccine capture.
|
| 3. Infections overwhelm public health systems causing issues
| for people with non Covid health emergencies
|
| 4. While it's very unlikely, you still increase the number of
| vaccinated people hospitalized for Covid
| gopalv wrote:
| > What's the harm in letting unvaccinated people spread covid
| amongst themselves? Vaccinated people aren't at risk.
|
| _Yet_
|
| > The only concern in theory is that a vaccine-immune covid
| variant could develop amongst unvaccinated populations. Is
| there any evidence for that though?
|
| Every human with covid is a variant factory. Even the
| vaccinated are.
|
| And every variant is a new fire which could burst out again -
| there was a comment that "Everytime we open up, there's a new
| variant", as if the variant spike was somehow unrelated to
| the opening up.
|
| This isn't theory.
|
| We should somewhat be thankful that vaccines work with Delta,
| because if the variant on the uptick was the Gamma variant,
| the acquired immunity wasn't as effective at preventing a
| severe disease [1].
|
| If the virus isn't eradicated, then it will keep making
| comebacks as newly infected people provide more opportunities
| for more "successful" variants.
|
| Also kids, don't forget kids. Some of them are babies.
|
| [1] - https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/10/21-1427_article
| SergeAx wrote:
| Anecdotal case: I got covid this January, quite symptomatic,
| full anosmia, high fever and about 20% of lungs damaged. Since
| then I contacted freshly infected people at least twice. Both
| of them became sick 1-2 days after contact, one with proved
| Delta variant. In both cases I self-quarantined and get mild
| symptoms for 2-3 days: light fever, partial anosmia. Both time
| I got significant increase of IgG antibodies. So I consider my
| immunity is first class. At the same time, both persons I
| contracted virus from were fully vaccinated with two doses
| couple of months ago, one of them had a pretty bad case, missed
| hospital just one day away.
|
| The point is: if someone is ready to take a risk and contract
| covid - society should allow it because those people will
| either die on they own knowledge, or get a better immunity than
| any vaccine can offer. We know now that vaccination status and
| even natural immunity is not stopping people from virus
| transmission, so this argument is off the table.
| paraph1n wrote:
| > or get a better immunity than any vaccine can offer.
|
| Better immunity? Almost no one who is fully vaccinated has
| ever died from COVID-19. It's hard to imagine better immunity
| than that.
|
| > society should allow it because those people will either
| die on they own knowledge, or get a better immunity than any
| vaccine can offer.
|
| Or they will serve as a mutation vector for the next, more
| transmissible, deadlier variant.
|
| I guess it comes down to whether you favor a rational society
| based on the rule of law and some degree of fairness, or a
| free-for-all anarchy where the only rule is natural
| selection.
|
| The latter is what we had before society was invented some
| thousands of years ago.
| SergeAx wrote:
| Yes, almost no one who is fully vaccinated ever died from
| COVID. But those who underwent a real COVID rarely ever
| reinfected again, set aside suffering even mild symptoms.
| There are literally lower thousands reinfection cases in
| the world (0.5% by PCR research in Denmark), while
| infection cases among fully vaccinated are ordinary,
| especially with Delta variant.
|
| > Or they will serve as a mutation vector for the next,
| more transmissible, deadlier variant.
|
| Unfortunately, hosts with partial immunity (natural
| asymptomatic cases or half-vaccinated) are more suitable
| environment for virus mutation. In tabula rasa host virus
| just takes over the system by storm, all mutations are in
| equal conditions. Weak immunity means new mutations are
| having an advantage and natural selection completes the
| case.
|
| And now we know that even fully vaccinated people are
| relatively easily contracting Delta variant. You may draw
| the conclusion.
| rgarrett88 wrote:
| _We know now that vaccination status and even natural
| immunity is not stopping people from virus transmission, so
| this argument is off the table._
|
| We've always known that some percent of those vaccinated will
| transmit the virus. The vaccine's effectiveness is not 100%.
| The point, among other reasons, is it reduces transmission.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| Meta: What do you think about the timestamps on the children
| comments here? So many/much responses in <1min from the parent
| comment? GPT-3 manipulation?
| _Microft wrote:
| That's because it was not submitted when you think it was.
| The submission came here via the second-chance pool. That
| means that it was submitted recently, in this case yesterday.
| It might have gotten a few points and comments at best but
| did not really catch on. It was deemed interesting enough and
| moved to the second-chance pool to be automatically put on
| the frontpage a few hours later again. The process rewrites
| timestamps as far as I know. You can see it in the list at
| time of writing this:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/pool
|
| (You can also access the second-chance pool via the link
| labelled "Lists" in the footer of the front page if you do
| not want to remember it.)
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| I see that, however I was referring to children comments of
| the initial comment in this thread, and not the submission
| itself.
| _Microft wrote:
| I see a number of subthreads that were all posted 40-41
| minutes ago, some with longer comments in them which
| might be the ones you have noticed. I would bet that
| these comments were posted before the submission was
| lifted to the frontpage for a second time. Consequently
| their timestamps were fudged so that they do not appear
| to have been posted before the submission time.
|
| If you really care, you might want to ask dang (email
| hn@ycombinator.com) but I am confident that my
| explanation is not that far off.
| [deleted]
| alecst wrote:
| Mine is one of those suspicious comments.
|
| I replied to this article when it was first published
| yesterday. It looks like the whole thread got copied over
| when it was posted a second time.
|
| Unless, of course, you think I am GPT-3. Can't rule it out.
| tonightstoast wrote:
| Thank you for bringing this up. There are multiple _long_
| child comments that were sent under a minute after the post
| was published. Wild. I would guess it is someone with some
| sort of an agenda. Although I'm not sure about GPT-3.
|
| EDIT: please see @_Microft's comment above for an explanation
| of how HN will "pool" threads before coming to a conclusion
| :)
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| Yeah, even though it's against the rules to bring this up,
| which seems to be doing a favor for blatant manipulation
| (gpt bot or not) like this.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| I care more about the health of small business than I do about
| the health of people who contract covid and will continue to
| view all sociopolitical activity through that unchanging lens.
| nicoffeine wrote:
| I agree to some extent, but if the virus mutates among the
| unvaccinated and breaks through all current vaccines, small
| businesses profitability will be a small part of a much
| larger catastrophe.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| It's also worth pointing out that this isn't exactly a new
| policy. Most forms of education from kindergarten through
| college requires proof of various vaccines. I remember having
| to get a whole slew of boosters at 18 because we couldn't find
| the old records in order to go to college.
|
| You'd think that after a pandemic has killed 600,000 of our
| fellow citizens we'd be able to come together and simply repeat
| as adults what we do for most children, but alas we live in a
| deeply unserious time.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| I don't have proof of any vaccine I have ever received. I
| didn't need to submit any kind of vaccination proof to go to
| college. Yes, I got my MMR and Tetanus shots in Kindergarten,
| but no one has cared since. And even then you can get
| exceptions. Medical fascism is not normal or acceptable in
| everyday life. We dealt with far worse diseases including
| smallpox, polio and many others without this
| authoritarianism.
| rcpt wrote:
| How about let's not repeat smallpox and polio.
|
| We need to stop this current virus as fast as possible so
| it doesn't become any worse.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Let's not repeat fascism. It killed tens of millions of
| people. Millions more died for liberty, don't take it in
| vain.
|
| We've already returned to pre-2020 levels of excess
| deaths in the U.S. [1] We have been there for months.
| Unless Covid mutates into something completely different,
| it's likely that 2020 was the worst year we'll ever see
| for it, because it was novel and no one had immunity at
| the beginning of 2020.
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.
| htm
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Which college did you go to?
| chrisco255 wrote:
| University of Florida
| purple_ferret wrote:
| Awesome. Will be nice to finally enjoy a dinner out without
| having to worry about anti-vaxxers coviding up my meal.
| throwitaway1235 wrote:
| Nice going New York City, banning 60% of Black residents from
| participating in life.
| sprafa wrote:
| By not getting vaccinated you are pushing the onus of
| responsibility to society.
|
| When you occupy a bed in a hospital for a preventable disease
| (like covid post-vaccine) you are a detriment to society. You are
| occupying precious resources because you were dumb. Just dumb. No
| ifs or buts - we need to start calling out stupidity again.
|
| We already handle people occupying hospital resources with self
| inflicted diseases, like lung cancer or liver trouble, by taxing
| the shit out of cigarettes and liquor (in countries where
| universal healthcare is a thing). We can't put a covid tax on
| people I guess, so we might as well mandate vaccinations for
| everything we can.
|
| People who believe vaccines aren't at least reducing mortality by
| 10x to 100x can just maintain their stupidity and become pariahs
| to society. I idgaf anymore. These people are dumb and I won't
| waste another breath defending them. It is immediately proven
| from vaccination campaigns globally that the impact vaccines have
| is at least 10x reduction in mortality. Vaccines would be worth
| it even if they killed 1/2 of the numbers of covid, bout they
| don't. They are a HUGE reduction.
| 15155 wrote:
| "Precious resources" - the narrative was that the resources
| _were_ precious and we needed "two weeks to slow the spread."
|
| Why are these resources somehow "precious" two years later?
| Where was the ventilator production? Staffing?
|
| If this were such a serious issue, what have we been doing?
| sprafa wrote:
| Ignoring the meat of the argument to say some straw man
| nonsense. Gday troll
| throwaway842384 wrote:
| Now let's do obesity. From the CDC [1]:
|
| > From 1999-2000 through 2017 -2018, US obesity prevalence
| increased from 30.5% to 42.4%. During the same time, the
| prevalence of severe obesity increased from 4.7% to 9.2%.
|
| > Obesity-related conditions include heart disease, stroke,
| type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer. These are among
| the leading causes of preventable, premature death.
|
| > The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the United
| States was $147 billion in 2008. Medical costs for people who
| had obesity was $1,429 higher than medical costs for people
| with healthy weight.
|
| Also, if the government really cared about the health of the
| population, why aren't they mandating exercise or dietary
| health?
|
| [1] https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
| sprafa wrote:
| They are doing that very same thing with sugar taxes in other
| countries. The USA is not the world and my argument really is
| focused on countries with free healthcare.
| muttantt wrote:
| Very true. Sad that you had to open a throwaway account just
| to speak this truth.
| sprafa wrote:
| This is just a fallacious argument but you know this. Saying
| "if x is true then why not y also" is just a false dillemma.
| Not sure who you are but potentially just a russian bot troll
| of some kind.
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| > Also, if the government really cared about the health of
| the population, why aren't they mandating exercise or dietary
| health?
|
| This is an grossly exaggerated and absurd comparison.
|
| Exercise nor diet are as easy to do well as getting the
| vaccine.
|
| Give me a break.
| quaffapint wrote:
| I feel for the people that had covid and now they are being
| lumped in with the unvaccinated if they choose not to get the
| shot on top of that.
| afavour wrote:
| I've seen this objection a few times and I'm really not sure
| why anyone that had COVID would be all that fussed about
| getting the shot. We don't know how long antibodies from having
| already contracted it last for, so why not get the vaccine?
| trident5000 wrote:
| "we dont know how long antibodies from having already
| contracted it lasts for"
|
| 1) You could say the same for the vaccine. We dont know.
|
| 2) Almost certainly no shorter than getting the vaccine. Both
| trigger roughly the same immune response and building of
| antibodies.
| thehappypm wrote:
| If you've had COVID you are more likely to have an adverse
| reaction to the vaccine, it's just how the immune system
| reactions. If I knew I'd have 2 bad sick days to take 2 doses
| of a vaccine that I have already beaten.. meh.
| barbazoo wrote:
| > If you've had COVID you are more likely to have an
| adverse reaction to the vaccine, it's just how the immune
| system reactions
|
| Can you point to anything that backs up that claim?
| mirekrusin wrote:
| Do you have to have vacinne if you had covid?
| biztos wrote:
| I don't know the answer in this context, but in Europe the
| "immunity certificate" treats vaccination and recovery as
| equal.
| drak0n1c wrote:
| Louis Rossmann, owner of Rossmann Repair Group, released a video
| attacking this new policy - and he is pro-vaccination and
| encourages his family and employees to get it.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3roD8cKdJlY
| cletus wrote:
| In 2000, WHO declared measles "eradicated" in the United States
| [1]. Of course, that's no longer the case thanks to those who
| have decided their feelings and watching an unverified Youtube
| video trumps science.
|
| Requiring vaccination is not new. As a matter of law in the US
| the issue was settled by the Supreme Court in Jacobson v.
| Massachussetts in 1905 [2]. Mandatory vaccination has been used
| to effectively eliminate smallpox and polio, in particular.
|
| We've now administered billions of doses of Covid-19 vaccines.
| The idea that we're somehow missing side effects is quite frankly
| ridiculous at this point.
|
| That idea also shows a basic misunderstanding of what's going on
| here. Immune system responses to something like a vaccine are
| actually extremely quick. This is not the same as, say, other
| drugs or compounds that live in the body for a long time. The
| body's response is known very quickly, which is why the very
| slight possibility of a clotting issue with AstraZeneca, for
| example, was identified extremely quickly.
|
| Vaccines just aren't a personal choice. If it was, nobody would
| care what individuals did. The idea that someone's baseless
| opinions should trump public good as a matter of principle is
| sad, false as a matter of law and baseless as a matter of
| principle.
|
| Contrary to the opinion of many (sadly) absolute selfishness
| isn't a virtue, it's just selfishness. And it's the latest
| iteration of the underlying anti-intellectualisms in the US.
|
| What's especially disappointing, even worrying, is just how much
| traction these baseless ideas get from those who allegedly have a
| science education.
|
| With NYC's mandate (which I support), it still doesn't mean you
| have to get vaccinated. It just means there are consequences if
| you don't. We already have this with schools. While we're at it,
| it's time to stop this nonsense of vaccines being against one's
| "personal beliefs" to get an exemption.
|
| If you want to live in a society that benefits from mass
| vaccination you should be prepared to do your part, particularly
| when that part just means getting an extremely safe needle. If
| you want to opt out of that, you also opt out of the benefits of
| that.
|
| [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_resurgence_in_the_Unit...
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| > The idea that we're somehow missing side effects is quite
| frankly ridiculous at this point.
|
| I personally went to the ER with heart attack like symptoms
| (chest pain) and it was Pericarditis . No one warned me of this
| risk. Now I'm footing the $15k bill for the good of the public.
| Additionally no doctor suggested reporting it to VAERS. Why? i
| suspect because it's become taboo to speak ill of the vaccine
| in any way. (watch to see if this comment gets downvoted to
| oblivion, proving the point)
|
| "Free" turned out to be not so free for me.
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/my...
| a_conservative wrote:
| Why people are so quick to blame to blame anti-vaxxers? The
| United States has millions of immigrants and visitors from
| other countries. Some go through official channels which
| require vaccinations, many do not.
|
| According to the CDC, Measles is brought into the US by
| international travel: Measles cases in the U.S.
| originate from international travel. Make sure you and your
| loved ones are protected against measles before international
| travel. [0]
|
| [0] https://www.cdc.gov/measles/plan-for-travel.html
| barbazoo wrote:
| > We've now administered billions of doses of Covid-19
| vaccines. The idea that we're somehow missing side effects is
| quite frankly ridiculous at this point.
|
| I truly hope that we're right on this one.
| wtfzse wrote:
| 5th amendment - read it, learn it, love it
|
| this entire "mandate" is a complete farce
|
| Anyone that asks for it - take it the courts as it will be struck
| down hard.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| Where does the requirement for the individual to change their
| behavior to reduce the risk of misfortune for the collective
| stop?
|
| I demand other people to stop driving because increases my chance
| of being hit as a pedestrian.
|
| I demand that other people stop having sex because it increases
| the spread of HIV which increases my risk with every new sexual
| partner.
|
| I demand that others be allowed to be held down by police and
| have a blood test forcefully performed on them, for DWIs, because
| it will reduce my risk of being in an accident with a drunk
| driver.
|
| Merely existing and interacting with the world increases the risk
| of accidents to others so I demand everyone cease to exist!
| CabSauce wrote:
| I'm pretty tired of all this. If folks want don't want to get the
| vaccine, under the argument of personal responsibility, let them
| do what they want. However, if they willingly or negligently
| transmit covid, they should be civilly and maybe criminally
| liable. If they end up needing medical care, make them pay for it
| out of their pocket. Make them financially responsible for their
| decisions.
| j3th9n wrote:
| People who smoke or live an unhealthy lifestyle should pay
| medical care out of their own pockets too then.
| cwkoss wrote:
| > they should be civilly and maybe criminally liable
|
| They should. But, how could this be enforced without even-more-
| draconian measures?
| mariodiana wrote:
| Anyone who thinks that government and Big Tech are going to setup
| a platform just for this one disease and just for the duration of
| the pandemic are simply not fit to vote in a free country. This
| is the beginnings of a social credit system, a la China/Gattaca.
| muaytimbo wrote:
| I saw the same connection, moral judgment passed on a citizen's
| personal, perfectly legal choices, by the government that leads
| to the restriction of that person's right to engage in society.
| This is to say nothing of the Orwellian tracking by the (soon
| to be I'm sure) required NYC or State pass on your phone.
| Ajay-p wrote:
| How would this be enforced? What if a business just does not ask
| you for proof? Will they take your word for it or is it required
| to show actual proof?
|
| It could be a good advertising campaign: Come on in, we trust
| you.
| mrfusion wrote:
| A bit off topic but you know what's really jarring for me?
|
| For the past ten years I've agreed with the majority on hacker
| news on almost every issue. Software patents, voting rights, who
| knows what else. Everyone seemed to just find the right answer
| and it made sense.
|
| Then all of a sudden I'm in tiny minority because I believe
| people should be able to choose what they put in their own
| bodies. It really feels like a twilight zone episode.
| tehwebguy wrote:
| > I believe people should be able to choose what they put in
| their own bodies
|
| You still can, with limited exceptions:
|
| * Kids need to be vaccinated against ~9 ailments before they
| attend school (seems mandatory but homeschool is an option in
| every state)
|
| * Adults need to be vaccinated against one before they
| patronize indoor restaurants, entertainment venues and gyms
| (completely optional activities and only in the densest city in
| the US, probably some others will follow)
|
| There are also things you are banned from putting in your body,
| some by age (tobacco & alcohol) and some entirely (e.g. DEA
| scheduled drugs) and some controlled to the point that are
| effectively illegal to consume (e.g. meats that aren't allowed
| to be harvested or imported)
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _Adults need to be vaccinated against one before they
| patronize indoor restaurants, entertainment venues and gyms
| (completely optional activities and only in the densest city
| in the US, probably some others will follow)_
|
| Also, adults that want to attend college classes on campus
| need to provide schools with proof of vaccination for about a
| half-dozen diseases. This was the case 20+ years ago, and
| it's still the case today.
| crazygringo wrote:
| What are you talking about? The vast majority of comments here
| seem to be against this policy.
|
| So how does that make you a tiny minority on HN?
| mrfusion wrote:
| Sorry I think it was leaning the other way when I wrote the
| comment. At least the top section I read through. Good news.
| I'll leave my comment up.
| grllierg wrote:
| This is real.
|
| There has been a total invasion of commies to HN over the past
| decade. I don't know if it's the schools to blame or what but
| something has definitely flipped.
|
| Hackers, as a demographic used to be hard-core libertarian (not
| necessarily a party member).
| bwship wrote:
| This is a really interesting point. And I felt the same exact
| way, but over the past few weeks, there seems to be more and
| more people on HN that are against all this government
| overreach. So, I personally, am starting to feel better that
| there are many more that feel like I do than I thought.
| ragingrobot wrote:
| Without getting into the whole vaccine thing...
|
| People need to start protesting with their wallets. People need
| to talk less and act more.
|
| I work in NYC, in an "essential" service. In the beginning myself
| and other workers were threatened with discipline if we did not
| show up for work. We were told to go straight home, and stay
| inside, and do as little as necessary otherwise.
|
| Now, this is easy for me, as I am single with no family, but I
| continue that policy to this day. I buy the essentials and no
| more.
|
| You want to threaten me? If I don't do this, I can't travel?
| Fine, I'll keep my money. I can't go to a restaurant? Fine, I'll
| keep my money, and cook myself. I can't go to the beach? Well
| fine, I'll keep my money. I'll find something else to do (some of
| the parks are empty this time of year as everyone's at the
| beach!). Can't hurt me by telling me I _can 't_ spend.
|
| I do the same when gas prices jump. I travel less. Not because
| I'm hurt more financially, but as a middle finger to the
| corporations behind the price increase.
|
| Yeah, it doesn't make a dent in the grand scheme, but at least I
| don't feel the fool.
|
| Honestly with all of this spending less and the way even
| essentials are jumping in cost, I haven't been able to save much
| more, and that's a shame.
|
| There are so many ways Americans could make this work, to send a
| message, if they didn't spend as the corporate overloads told
| them they have to do.
| nostromo wrote:
| As a former New Yorker... people should vote with their wallets
| _and their feet_.
|
| New York has become a pretty miserable place to live. And for
| the privilege of living in a miserable place you pay an
| exorbitant amount.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| One idea i've been musing for a while is that much American
| grief (high prices, archaic governments etc) seems to stem
| from a lack of new cities. Say austin is the new hotness,
| settled in 1800s. What about building a 2000s friendly city
| in the middle of nowhere and not limiting ourselves to the
| decisions made in 1800s like where's the water and
| walking/horse is the only mode of transport?
| kook_throwaway wrote:
| It's not just you. I stopped using amazon and other big corps
| completely when they locked us down.
| muaytimbo wrote:
| I had the opposite reaction, I used amazon MORE because I
| didn't want to wear masks everywhere.
| [deleted]
| throemdiwo wrote:
| Bless you! I have reached the same conclusion. If the economy
| is all that matters then only an economical protest will do.
|
| Any restriction that prevents me from spending I will gladly
| follow.
| saxman001 wrote:
| I don't think that the city should be able to impose this arduous
| constraint on private businesses. These businesses have already
| suffered greatly under the capacity restrictions of closures. Now
| they're being asked to turn away potential customers and enforce
| unpopular rules without compensation, under threat of substantial
| penalties.
|
| If the city wants to impose this rule, then at the very least
| they should handle the enforcement. Outsourcing the mandate
| without compensation is absurd.
| mostertoaster wrote:
| Surviving is not the same thing as living just as noise is not
| the same thing as music.
|
| People have lost their minds over covid and act in ways that they
| would have said were insane probably five years ago.
|
| A bunch of younger people at very little risk of getting horribly
| sick, are demanding that everyone get vaccinated wear masks and
| want life to be miserable even though it is older people who are
| saying I'd rather just live my life and if I die I die.
|
| I might get one dose of the vaccine, just so I can not be part of
| either side of this crazy debate.
| potiuper wrote:
| Kids cannot get the vaccine. So, are they all banned?
| afavour wrote:
| No, the article states they are not.
| potiuper wrote:
| The article states, "De Blasio said City Hall is finalizing
| the regulations, including if children younger than 12 years
| old with vaccinated parents will be allowed to dine indoors."
| if does not mean that they are not banned; it also does not
| provide an expectation from city hall as to their direction
| on the issue of children.
| j3th9n wrote:
| I can see an Alcohol Prohibition-like black market emerging.
| Exciting times!
| grllierg wrote:
| Fuck everyone on this thread that supports this. You all should
| kill yourselves now.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
|
| FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES. FUCK YOUR VACCINES.
| wompwomp2 wrote:
| Since this was flagged I'll post it here:
|
| https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kevin-cramer-bill-vaccine-p...
|
| Fucking losers.
| janitor61 wrote:
| pragmatically, the mandatory vaccinations seem to be predicated
| on the following assumptions:
|
| 1. Asymptomatic transmission is the primary vector and just as
| dangerous as being in proximity to a sick individual - has this
| been confirmed or refuted? Obviously-sick people aren't going to
| be in restaurants and bars so they can be taken out of the
| equation entirely. The virus has a normal lifecycle like all
| others: incubation, infestation and recovery, and during the 2nd
| phase people should be showing symptoms that our human instincts
| would urge us to isolate from and ostracize against.
|
| 2. The human body cannot become immune to a strain of this virus
| by recovering from it naturally - most people have had the virus
| by now, and if the virus is omnipresent, the non-vaccinated
| should keep becoming re-infected and in a perpetual state of
| illness - greatly multiplying their chances of death. I don't see
| the fatality data supporting this hypothesis, so natural recovery
| immunity is probably serving some protective function.
| cwkoss wrote:
| > Obviously-sick people aren't going to be in restaurants and
| bars so they can be taken out of the equation entirely.
|
| I think this is neither obvious nor true. There are an
| unfortunate number of people in this country who choose to go
| out and socialize when they have active symptoms.
| drngdds wrote:
| Vaccine mandates are good in concept* and will probably spur a
| lot of the "I'll get it if it's required" or "I'm going to wait
| and see" people to go ahead and get it.
|
| But they're kind of weak as implemented here. Considering that a
| photo of a vaccine card is considered valid proof (and the guy
| checking cards at the bar or whatever is only going to spend two
| seconds looking at it), some enterprising scumbag could probably
| whip up a site that automatically creates fake vaccine pass
| photos over a weekend or two.
|
| *Even with delta, the vaccines are pretty damn effective at
| preventing infections. A lot of media coverage on this is
| misleading and is based on not understanding base rates - when a
| high proportion of people at risk of hospitalization are
| vaccinated, you're going to see vaccination rates among
| hospitalized people that are higher than the actual efficacy rate
| would suggest.
| lolc wrote:
| Regarding security: You can get fined over using fake
| certificates. So most people won't use fakes as long as the
| incentives are right. There's no need for airtight security
| here.
| adamrezich wrote:
| fines for not having Your Papers to go out and about in
| public! imagine presenting this idea to people 10 years ago
| 15155 wrote:
| Incentive to drink under 21 (procuring a fake ID) is somehow
| greater than the incentive to participate in everyday life?
|
| These cards have zero security features.
| unknownOrigin wrote:
| I don't think many people care what NYC does. That city is a
| joke. And a dump. (A few videos from Louis Rossmann and I never
| want to visit, let alone live there.)
| bwship wrote:
| Glad I left LA last September. I can't believe NYC is going even
| more extreme than there, but they are. The good news, is my home
| purchase down here in Charleston is up 10% in only 3 months. This
| ridiculousness in CCP NYC will only help ensure my home price
| goes through the roof. So, yes, if you want to live in a place
| that respects your right to choose what you do with your body and
| your life, come on down south. Just don't bring your bad policies
| down here with you is all the locals ask :)
| asdff wrote:
| > if you want to live in a place that respects your right to
| choose what you do with your body and your life, come on down
| south
|
| Unless you are a pregnant woman you mean!
| bwship wrote:
| 100 out of 100 unaborted babies, when polled, were happy they
| weren't killed while living in the womb.
|
| [Edit] - sorry /s
| jensensbutton wrote:
| 100 out of 100 vaccinated people were happy they didn't die
| from covid.
|
| See how your argument sounds?
| bwship wrote:
| What is the death rate of covid? like .01%. If you don't
| get the vax, your likelihood of dying is just so low, so
| why all the fearmongering?
|
| Edit - .054% chance of dying. 4.25M deaths worldwide out
| of 7.8 billion people.
| [deleted]
| mrfusion wrote:
| Covid will be long gone in 100 years. But you know what might not
| be gone: the precedents we're creating today. Introducing a show-
| your-papers culture where we once had a free and open society.
| ok123456 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts This
| was 116 years ago.
| grllierg wrote:
| Keep in mind that Fauci murdered thousands of gay men with his
| "vaccine" for HIV.
| dnissley wrote:
| I have many issues with this policy, and I'm both vaccinated and
| pro-vaccination.
|
| 1. As others have mentioned, this is being done before the
| vaccine being available to children under 12 and before the
| vaccine has been officially approved by the FDA.
|
| 2. This policy isn't simply being announced as a way to
| temporarily bring down cases, it's being instituted indefinitely,
| with no pre-determined expiration date.
|
| 3. There has been no attempt to justify the policy. And the
| burden of proof should be on those instituting the policy.
|
| 4. This announcement is nearly triumphant rather than displaying
| any kind of humility. They barely conceal their glee at having
| the political capital to spend on this policy.
| dotcommand wrote:
| Everyone has to be vaccinated and we must all prove it to exist
| in society ( even people who had covid )? So, it isn't about herd
| immunity anymore? It isn't about stopping covid, but getting
| everyone the vaccine and forcing them to carry identification
| everywhere?
|
| "It's time for people to see vaccination as necessary to living a
| good and full and healthy life," de Blasio said during his daily
| press briefing."
|
| That's what people were saying was going to happen more than a
| year ago and they were attacked for being conspiracy theorists...
|
| Whatever happened to needing 60 or 70% of the people vaccinated
| to gain herd immunity and stop this pandemic?
|
| So 100% vaccination, even for those who had covid and you must
| carry documentation/id at all times? Why now? Why for this
| disease? Especially considering the mortality rate is far lower
| than what was originally projected.
|
| When the projections were 5%+, I can understand erring on the
| side of caution, but the mortality rate is lower than 1% last I
| checked. So odd.
| psychometry wrote:
| Delta variant necessitates a higher level of herd immunity
| because it's so much more transmissible.
|
| > Everyone has to be vaccinated and we must all prove it to
| exist in society ( even people who had covid )? So, it isn't
| about herd immunity anymore? It isn't about stopping covid, but
| getting everyone the vaccine and forcing them to carry
| identification everywhere?
|
| No, it's very obviously about stopping covid. Don't be obtuse.
| dotcommand wrote:
| > Delta variant necessitates a higher level of herd immunity
| because it's so much more transmissible.
|
| How much higher? 100%?
|
| > No, it's very obviously about stopping covid.
|
| Then why are those who already got covid told to get the
| vaccines? Doesn't make much sense does it?
|
| > Don't be obtuse.
|
| Are you part of the team downvoting anyone who is simple
| asking basic questions? The covid brigading is rather obvious
| and hilarious.
| thsbg wrote:
| It is well past time for a few brave Italian-Americans to go full
| Khashoggi on DeBlasio, Cuomo and their nazi sympathizers.
| msie wrote:
| Words coming from an spoiled child who knows nothing about real
| tyranny. Take a look at other countries where people are truly
| oppressed.
| chasd00 wrote:
| I'm glad I don't live in NYC. Impfung macht frei
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Your body NYCs choice.
| recursive4 wrote:
| An alternative, market-powered fix: lift the regulatory statues
| that prevent insurance companies from raising the cost of
| coverage of their unvaccinated customers.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| 400 people died of Covid...out of 350 million yesterday.
|
| How much do you think the actuaries would increase insurance
| cost for numbers like that?
|
| Doesn't seem like that's a huge risk increase.
|
| And 90% of those are in the above 75 years old age group with
| the highest maximum risk calculated in already.
|
| I bet there's not a single actuary that is worried about Covid.
| thehappypm wrote:
| COVID is still currently a major cause of death, so there's
| that.
| throwitaway1235 wrote:
| Does anyone believe this will be expanded to grocery stores,
| pharmacies and other basic services come fall? My job is already
| close to pushing mandatory vaccination and I'm trying to decide
| whether I should pack up my things and leave?
|
| 30 year resident and heartbroken.
| desine wrote:
| Getting ready to leave my blue state home. Born and raised in
| California, but the autoritarian writing is on the wall, and
| I'm making my preparations.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Sounds like you're going to vote accordingly when you do, I
| hope.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| Probably inevitable, although this fall seems a bit too early.
| Also probably unenforceable in many areas of the city.
| throwitaway1235 wrote:
| It's a serious question. Why downvote? Because you think it's
| coming but don't want to warn people?
| mandmandam wrote:
| Privacy watchdogs, data protection groups, and human rights
| councils have largely condemned these "vaccine passports".
|
| To date, I haven't seen their concerns mentioned - _mentioned_ -
| in _any_ of these pronouncements.
|
| I get that there are enough people willing to go along with this
| that they'll likely stick around for a bit - but another thing I
| haven't seen is an end game.
|
| Corona is in the deer, it's in pets. Are they all going to get
| vaccinated too? Are people going to willingly get shot up with
| Pfizer and Moderna every six months for the rest of their lives;
| living in a three-tier society?
| devit wrote:
| I don't really see what the problem would be with vaccinating
| every six months in case it turns out to be necessary to keep
| up immunity; in fact even vaccinating every month would be fine
| to avoid the risk of severe COVID.
|
| Indications though seems to be for only needing 2 or 3 doses or
| needing boosters multiple years apart.
| tboyd47 wrote:
| It seems that the endgame is to keep on pushing tighter and
| tighter restrictions on certain communities of people, strongly
| discouraging open debate, leaving dissenters no other option
| but to physically remove themselves, until only the most
| compliant remain, forming a tight-knit, ideologically
| homogenous group.
| guntars wrote:
| > certain communities of people
|
| What communities are being targeted? Everyone who leaves
| their house is affected.
|
| > strongly discouraging open debate
|
| We're debating it here just fine.
|
| > dissenters [..] physically remove themselves
|
| Voluntarily unvaccinated walking COVID vectors? Yes, that's
| exactly the point.
| [deleted]
| Daishiman wrote:
| That would be the point if it weren't for the fact that the
| "debate", from the point of view of those who have actually
| kept up with the medical, epidemiomological, and ethical
| literature has been settled.
|
| Yeah, I'm all for pushing willfully ignorant discussion out
| of the public eye.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Obviously the end game isn't seen. We're nowhere close to the
| end game. We don't know about lasting immunity or about
| variants that don't even exist yet.
|
| Maybe we can eradicate it, maybe not. Literally no one knows
| what the future holds here.
| analyte123 wrote:
| Eradication is not happening. You might as well be talking
| about eradicating the flu, which is another contagious
| respiratory virus that rapidly mutates and is not completely
| controlled by vaccines. This was obvious even a month ago,
| when over 10% of a naval ship tested positive for Covid
| despite every single person being fully vaccinated [1]. I
| only hope that the "end game" is not permanent restrictions
| on travel, movement, and trade.
|
| [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/14/covid-
| outbreak-a...
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| You're 100% right. This isn't Ebola or SARS where everyone
| who gets sick has obvious symptoms and becomes gravely ill.
| Asymptomatic carriers and transference to other animals
| like birds and cattle will ensure that it will persist in
| our population permanently.
|
| The good news is that viruses tend to get less dangerous
| over time. Death of the host provides selective pressure
| against those variants. Syphilis used to be extremely
| dangerous and rapidly fatal, but it has been around for so
| long that it has changed. But that process takes years
| typically.
| AndrewBissell wrote:
| > _The good news is that viruses tend to get less
| dangerous over time._
|
| One notable exception was Marek's disease in chickens,
| where the widespread administration of leaky vaccines
| (which suppressed symptoms and complications but not
| transmission) led to the breeding of hotter and hotter
| strains in the vaccinated flocks, which became more
| lethal to unvaccinated chickens.
| timr wrote:
| That's a particularly fearful take on this article, which
| did _not_ show that vaccines "led to the breeding of
| hotter and hotter strains":
|
| https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/
| jou...
|
| What it showed is that when you take a group of chickens,
| infect them with multiple strains of different virulence
| _at the same time_ , and partially protect all of them
| with a vaccine, the ones with the most severe infection
| _live longer_ , which allows them to spread more of the
| most severe virus than they would otherwise.
|
| Said differently: if you don't let the "bad" virus kill
| the hosts, it can spread more.
|
| Well, _sure_.
| AndrewBissell wrote:
| "In recent years, experts have wondered if leaky vaccines
| were to blame for the emergence of these hot strains. The
| 1970s introduction of the Marek's disease immunizations
| for baby chicks kept the poultry industry from collapse,
| but people soon learned that vaccinated birds were
| catching 'the bug' without subsequently dying. Then, over
| the last half century, symptoms for Marek's worsened.
| Paralysis was more permanent; brains more quickly turned
| to mush.
|
| 'People suspected the vaccine, but the problem was that
| it was never shown before experimentally,' said
| virologist Klaus Osterrieder of the Free University of
| Berlin, who wasn't involved in the study. 'The field has
| talked about these types of experiments for a very long
| time, and I'm really glad to see the work finally done.'
| "
|
| https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/tthis-chicken-
| vaccine-m...
|
| Not trying to raise alarm here or say that this
| necessarily will happen with SARS-CoV-2, there are tons
| of big differences. In general, we should _expect_ it to
| become less lethal over time, but the vaccines may have
| introduced a confounding factor to the usual selection
| for milder disease.
| timr wrote:
| > Then, over the last half century, symptoms for Marek's
| worsened. Paralysis was more permanent; brains more
| quickly turned to mush.
|
| Sigh. Could the author choose more inflammatory language?
|
| This is half of the problem with Covid-related reporting
| today: hack journalists who simply _cannot resist_ using
| horror-movie language to describe illness.
|
| > Not trying to raise alarm here or say that this
| necessarily will happen with SARS-CoV-2, there are tons
| of big differences. In general, we should expect it to
| become less lethal over time, but the vaccines may have
| introduced a confounding factor to the usual selection
| for milder disease.
|
| As I said, I think that's an over-statement, having read
| the original paper. But sure, _theoretically_ , if you
| have a vaccine that only partially protects against some
| really severe strain, that strain could escape and go on
| to become more severe over time.
|
| I'm not sure what we're supposed to do with this
| information. Not vaccinate? Stay inside forever and suck
| our thumbs?
|
| In _chickens_ , we probably don't care enough to invest a
| ton of money into in creating a new vaccine every year.
| In humans, that's not a problem. If a more virulent form
| of SARS comes along that escapes the vaccines, we'll make
| a new vaccine. We're getting pretty good at it now!
|
| (I realize you're not on this side of the argument. I'm
| just reacting generally.)
| gr1zzlybe4r wrote:
| This is the point where we have to stop making trade offs of
| choice and liberty in the name of "security". Give the public
| open data about the effectiveness of the vaccine and then let
| people make their own decisions about what to do. The
| moralization and judgement about the vaccine has become
| ludicrous.
|
| If you're scared to do things around others even if you're
| vaccinated, then that's fine. We cannot accept a societal change
| towards mandating choices for people. It will be very, very hard
| for us to walk that back.
| karmelapple wrote:
| > We cannot accept a societal change towards mandating choices
| for people. It will be very, very hard for us to walk that
| back.
|
| We mandate many choices for people already, including,
| specifically, about taking vaccines.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| > If you're scared to do things around others even if you're
| vaccinated, then that's fine.
|
| This has been a societal change in the making for quite some
| time. It used to be that if one were uncomfortable they were
| free to not participate, one's requirements were not an onus on
| others. Now people feel free to create onus on others.
|
| Today people feel free to demand that others comply to their
| requirements to feel safe rather than relying on/increasing
| their own self protection and isolation standard.
| Daishiman wrote:
| I'm sorry but the whole "let people make their own decisions"
| is BS.
|
| Making epidemiological decisions isn't something that most
| people are qualified to do. I have seen the takes from random
| people and 99% of them are abject garbage.
| gr1zzlybe4r wrote:
| The science around covid has been fluid this entire time. We
| aren't even sure if these vaccines will work against other
| covid variants in the future.
|
| What makes anyone qualified to make decisions over someone
| else's choice of what they should put in their body? If the
| vaccines are effective, then you can make the choice if you
| feel comfortable getting them and then being around other
| people.
|
| I don't even think people realize what they're saying when
| they say "most people aren't qualified to make decisions". I
| mean, seriously?
|
| The death rate of covid for healthy individuals is still very
| low. Even lower if you're vaccinated. We should _not_
| sacrifice personal choice in the name of public safety.
|
| Give people the data and let them make their own choices.
| Daishiman wrote:
| > The science around covid has been fluid this entire time.
| We aren't even sure if these vaccines will work against
| other covid variants in the future.
|
| Science _is_ fluid by its very nature because it's a
| process, not an outcome.
|
| But processes can be well-executed or not. Scientists, with
| all their human and institutional flaws, are still just so,
| _so_ much more qualified than the lay public to make
| informed opinions that it 's not even funny.
|
| It's the same as with doctors: a medical second opinions is
| obtained from another doctor, not by yourself, because
| ultimately expert opinions may be challenged by others who
| have at least a similar amount of training and expertise.
|
| Lay opinions have gigantic, brutal knowledge gaps. The gaps
| are so huge as to make lay opinions essentially useless.
|
| I have spent an hour a day, every day, since the beginning
| of the pandemic, reading up on the scientific literature of
| COVID. I am overeducated geek with a computer science
| degree. Do you know how many reasonable assertions I can
| make about the pandemic? About as much as validating that
| the calculations behind the p-values of studies are
| correct, and nothing more. I can, at most, summarize and
| explain the high-level reasoning behind most
| epidemiologists' and governments's decisions, with the pros
| and cons that they themselves have suggested.
|
| We are talking about over 600 hours of research as an
| educated layman and still no novel conclusions. To think
| that people who have spent at most a fraction of that time,
| with no university-level knowledge of statistics or basics
| of germ theory, can make reasonable assumptions, has no
| relation to reality.
| sobellian wrote:
| I'm not scared for myself, I'm scared for people on anti-
| rejection medicine (for example) who have taken vaccines but
| still can't produce the necessary antibodies. These people have
| to contend with their fellow man deciding against all rational
| thought to become a potential walking plague vessel.
|
| It is as if some subset of humanity decided to start driving
| their cars blindfolded and the internet commentariat
| proclaimed, "their car, their choice! Spare us your ludicrous
| moralization and judgement!"
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > Give the public open data about the effectiveness of the
| vaccine and then let people make their own decisions about what
| to do.
|
| Exactly. Governments need to figure out why people aren't
| getting vaccinated and fix those issues.
| brummm wrote:
| Sadly there is no fix for stupidity.
| ghthor wrote:
| I'm not getting it because I had covid before it was even
| cool(Jan 2020). I also have zero trust in the FDA(See Docu
| Bleeding Edge) have experienced AE and SAE personally from
| flu, tdap and hep vaccines and I've watched my step daughter
| go from speaking and developing normally to pissing herself
| while rocking and screaming, to be told by medical staff that
| "it's impossible this was caused by the vaccine, take some
| ibuprofen".
|
| So yeah, multiple levels, very little trust in the "system"
| to take care of me and my family.
| drngdds wrote:
| The biggest reason is disinformation coming from social media
| and conservative media outlets. That can't be fixed while
| respecting the first amendment.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| So? Get conservative doctors to endorse it. Or show
| outcomes and make sure risks are mitigated/taken care of.
| [deleted]
| muhfreedomz wrote:
| > in the name of "security"
|
| It's in the name of not spreading a deadly virus, not security
| with scare quotes.
| gr1zzlybe4r wrote:
| The mortality rate for younger individuals is very low, and
| was low prior to a vaccine being available. We are almost 20
| months into this pandemic. The virus is definitely more
| lethal for at risk groups but the lethality for the general
| population is overblown.
| bringoutyerdead wrote:
| Right, a deadly virus. We're sacrificing the choice to go
| eat at Denny's unvaccinated to prevent spreading a deadly
| virus. Not for "sEcUrItY."
| RaketenStadt wrote:
| > Give the public open data about the effectiveness of the
| vaccine
|
| and done: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-
| tracker/#datatracker-home
|
| > then let people make their own decisions about what to do
|
| As we see, they go to crowded places, unvaccinated, and spread
| the virus. I think that's irresponsible. Is that "ludicrous
| moralization and judgement?"
| gatgeagent wrote:
| To be fair, vaccinated people also spread the virus.
| ibejoeb wrote:
| What is the plan for undocumented workers? Especially in
| restaurants. Even if they managed to get vaccinated by providing
| valid "proof of age" documentation[1], they will not appear in
| the registries. And if anyone was skeptical and thought that the
| state might be lying about not tracking identity and immigration
| status, surely that identity information would likely be false.
| This is a significant, and likely a majority, of back-of-house
| restaurant workers, but it also cuts across industries.
|
| When enforcement comes knocking, are we going to give them a
| pass? How does one reconcile requiring it for clients who spend
| and an hour or two, but not for workers spending 15 hours on
| premises?
|
| 1. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-vaccine-
| eligibi...
| biztos wrote:
| In California you can get your shots without showing any ID,
| and in fact for my first shot nobody checked mine.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Apparently the virus has never been even isolated in a lab. Here
| is an interview with a guy that challenged his $1k fine, and won
| in court, because the Canadian government failed to prove that
| the virus exists.
|
| https://rumble.com/vkorz0-freedom-fighter-court-victory-ends...
|
| The alternative is that they have a sample, just won't provide it
| because there's something about the virus they don't want us to
| know.
|
| Alberta has lifted restrictions.
| bobthechef wrote:
| "The program is modeled after the vaccine passport programs
| rolled out in France and other European countries, officials
| said."
|
| Because that's working out well (also in Australia). I suppose de
| Blasio doesn't mind swarms of people protesting in front of
| Gracie Mansion, none of which will be wearing masks, mind you.
| And then you'll hear the same spiel about how the unvaxxed are to
| blame again for the Zeta variant as the local pride parade
| marches by in the background.
|
| "Additionally, the mayor said the city is examining expanding the
| vaccine proof requirement to other indoor activities, such as
| shopping."
|
| Of course they are. This is the thin end of the wedge. It always
| is.
|
| ""If we do not take a strong stand and say 'you have the right to
| your body, of course; but you do not have to kill other people.""
|
| Will they give it a rest? You have no right to force someone to
| take an experimental vaccine large segments of the population
| don't even need. And those living in glass houses shouldn't throw
| stones. Even IF I grant you that you can become a transmitter of
| the disease to someone vulnerable (a possibility that is always
| with us for any disease), it is not intentional whereas what he
| has in mind (abortion) is.
|
| ""We've got to shake people at this point and say, 'Come on now.'
| We tried voluntary. We could not have been more kind and
| compassionate. Free testing, everywhere you turn, incentives,
| friendly, warm embrace. The voluntary phase is over," de Blasio
| said on MSNBC last week."
|
| What an absurd statement. That's like saying "I've tried consent,
| but since you didn't agree to my request, I'm going to eschew
| consent and coerce you." Then it wasn't consensual to begin with!
|
| ""Given everything we're learning, all options are on the table,"
| he said Friday. "I keep saying we're climbing the ladder in terms
| of more and more mandates."
|
| "And on Monday, the mayor hinted at the Big Apple moving toward a
| "reality" in which those who do not get vaccinated are barred
| from certain settings.
|
| ""More and more, there's going to be a reality where, if you're
| vaccinated, a world of opportunity opens up to you. If you're not
| vaccinated, there's going to be more and more things you can't
| do," de Blasio said during his virtual press briefing, when he
| announced that the city will only hire vaccinated workers and
| advised all New Yorkers to wear masks in indoor, public settings.
|
| ""I say that to say, go get vaccinated, so you can fully
| participate in the life of this city, because that's where things
| are going."
|
| How gracious of him. Again, thin end of the wedge. Why are some
| people being so credulous?
|
| It's all quite simple:
|
| 1. The vaccine is not FDA approved.
|
| 2. It is an experimental vaccine.
|
| 3. COVID is not dangerous for the vast majority of the
| population, especially those under the age of 30.
|
| 4. There is mixed evidence about the safety and efficacy of he
| vaccine as well as its relation to new variants.
|
| 5. The suppression of expert debate is, at the least, suspicious
| as all hell.
|
| Taking all factors into consideration, there is NO REASON to
| force anyone to take it. None. Especially not those in the
| cohorts that aren't affected. If you're at risk (e.g., the
| obese), then it is up to you to make the calculation for
| yourself.
|
| (Also, since this mandate will disproportionately affect black
| and Latino New Yorkers, wouldn't this make it systemically racist
| according to the standards of today? Wouldn't you be punishing
| them for refusing to be vaccinated? Yes, reason has long exited
| the scene.)
| psychlops wrote:
| >(Also, since this mandate will disproportionately affect black
| and Latino New Yorkers, wouldn't this make it systemically
| racist according to the standards of today? Wouldn't you be
| punishing them for refusing to be vaccinated? Yes, reason has
| long exited the scene.)
|
| Yes, 88% of blacks would be excluded from restaurants by this
| policy while 80% of whites will walk right in.
|
| https://covid19vaccine.health.ny.gov/vaccine-demographic-dat...
|
| I'm curious how this hasn't made the news...
| endisneigh wrote:
| I'm vaccinated and don't agree with this. Out of curiosity is
| there precedent for something like this for non governmental
| organizations (schools are governmental).
| [deleted]
| jcadam wrote:
| Ok here's one poll on vaccine mandates:
|
| https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/news/nat-issues-vaccines-0...
|
| If we believe these results, vaccine mandates are about as
| unpopular as TARP was back in 2008 (opposition to which was
| largely responsible for the "Tea Party" movement). You can expect
| even stronger opposition to vaccine mandates - because this issue
| is far more _personal._
|
| Bring on the downvotes.
| SirensOfTitan wrote:
| To preface: I got the vaccine months ago (as soon as I had
| access), I'm a big believer in vaccines.
|
| With that being said, this policy doesn't sit well with me. None
| of the currently available vaccines in the US are FDA approved.
| Of course, a lot of people have received those vaccines, but I
| also don't necessarily fault individuals for feeling hesitant
| (the nuance here is that I think people ought to get the
| vaccine). mRNA is a new, unknown technology, and the vaccine was
| rushed faster to public access than any other vaccine before. We
| have absolutely no idea if there are any long term side effects
| of these vaccines.
|
| Both candidates Biden and Harris expressed the need for full
| trials and transparency in regard to the vaccine _before_ they
| were in office, then changed their tune after (see:
| https://twitter.com/pbhushan1/status/1416969060890210305). Biden
| says:
|
| > When we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, Who's going to
| take the shot? Who's going to take the shot? You going to be the
| first one to say, "Put me -- sign me up, they now say it's OK"?
|
| If the vaccine is as effective as it seems, then this decision
| feels positively nanny state to me. It takes away an individual's
| agency to inform themselves of the risks on both sides and make
| an informed decision.
| ysavir wrote:
| >If the vaccine is as effective as it seems, then this decision
| feels positively nanny state to me. It takes away an
| individual's agency to inform themselves of the risks on both
| sides and make an informed decision
|
| If this were mandating that every resident of NYC must be
| vaccinated, I would agree. But it's not doing that. It's only
| saying that anyone wanting to dine (or possibly shop, too)
| indoors, that is, in spaces we know to have higher
| contamination and spread rate, they need to be vaccinated.
| People that are hesitant can still go unvaccinated and that's
| fine, but they have to keep to areas where contamination and
| spread are less prevalent.
|
| And I think that's fair.
| bingohbangoh wrote:
| "I will not require you to get vaccinated because that is
| illegal. Instead, I will make it impossible for you to not
| get vaccinated. That is allowed."
| ashtonkem wrote:
| It's a bit like cars. Own whatever you want, but the state
| has a say in what is and is not allowed on the roads they
| built and maintain.
| ysavir wrote:
| That's a great example! Thanks, I'm going to use this.
| SirensOfTitan wrote:
| From Alec Karakatsanis's excellent Usual Cruelty on plea
| bargains:
|
| > "the Constitution requires that every guilty plea waiving
| the constitutional right to trial by a jury of one's peers be
| knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.69 But no one who works
| in the criminal system thinks that contemporary plea
| bargaining produces voluntary agreements. The vast majority
| of plea bargains are accepted by people who are told that
| they will be imprisoned for longer if they do not give up
| their right to a jury trial. Many of these people are in jail
| and are told that pleading guilty is the only immediate way
| out of jail. In no other cultural context would the word
| "voluntary" describe this arrangement. Should my coworker ask
| a person out on a dinner date but tell the person that, if he
| does not accept, he will be placed in a cage, no one would
| view the person's agreement to dine with my coworker as
| voluntary. That's not how we understand "voluntary" actions."
|
| Plea bargains are a totally different world, I'm not trying
| to compare this decision with plea bargains. What I would
| like to illustrate, through the author's example, is the
| process by which modern governments reduce the individual's
| agency in a de-facto manner, while de-jure asserting that
| individual's rights are upheld. People have been stuck inside
| for so, so long, keeping them out of restaurants if they
| don't get vaccinated is surely just manipulating their
| decision making toward getting a vaccine they may be
| uncomfortable getting.
|
| I suppose I don't really get _what_ good this does. If a
| person decides to not get vaccinated and then decides to dine
| indoors, who are they harming, other than potentially
| themselves, by making that decision? I wish they would get
| the vaccine, but I also do respect their rights to judge the
| information available for themselves without severely
| restricting their ability to live their lives.
| alonmower wrote:
| Who are they harming? Literally everyone else in the space
| that is now more likely to be exposed to someone with the
| virus (and who has taken fewer precautions to avoid being
| contagious)
|
| People's rights to swing their fists around wildly end at
| my face
| ysavir wrote:
| > I also do respect their rights to judge the information
| available for themselves without severely restricting their
| ability to live their lives.
|
| Can you expand on how being required to dine outside
| instead of dining inside is a severe restriction on
| someone's ability to live their life?
| busymom0 wrote:
| Minority communities have the lowest vaccination rates.
| They were also discriminated against in the past. Your
| argument is same as justifying segregation by saying "how
| being required to dine separately from another race is a
| severe restriction on someone's ability to live their
| life?"
| hunter2_ wrote:
| > Minority communities have the lowest vaccination rates.
|
| Do we know if this has more to do with unethical bosses
| not allowing paid time off to get vaccinated, or more to
| do with echo chambers about vaccine safety, or something
| else?
|
| There's definitely overlap between these, of course (an
| anti-vax boss might create both of these problems in
| their workplace).
| [deleted]
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| It's putting a scarlet letter on these people and shaming
| them for making their own choice about their own bodies.
|
| I think we've determined from other issues that "separate but
| equal" isn't actually equal. That absolutely applies here.
| ok123456 wrote:
| The Supreme Court said it didn't apply about 116 years ago:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
| ysavir wrote:
| > It's putting a scarlet letter on these people and shaming
| them for making their own choice about their own bodies.
|
| Yes, that's how de Blasio phrases it, but I think there's
| more to it than how he's talked about it.
|
| The way I see these mandates is an effort to have people
| maintain a person R-naught of less than 1. _How_ each
| person achieve that is up to them. They can wear masks,
| they can get vaccinated, they can avoid places with high
| transmission rates (such as indoor dining /shopping), or a
| combination of all these things. And ideally we find more
| options for people to take so that that everyone can help
| achieve a personal R-naught in a way that best fits their
| needs.
|
| Ultimately, the goal is to create a win-win scenario where
| on a personal level individuals can choose what degree of
| transmission prevention they want to pursue, and on a
| social level we're organized so that everyone is
| (hopefully) not infecting others, or doing so so sparsely
| that the infection rate is going down.
|
| The goal now is to find a comfortable equilibrium in which
| society can continue to do its thing without explosive
| outbreaks of Covid. These sort of mandates help get us
| there. This is all still very new and we need to find more
| methods in which we can reach that equilibrium, and we
| should continue to look for them, but we can't let Covid-19
| run rampant until we feel we've all the options we like.
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| > we can't let Covid-19 run rampant until we feel we've
| all the options we like.
|
| What makes you say this? There is literally no other city
| in our country doing a lockdown like this. Many places
| are still opened up and not experiencing a surge. Even in
| Missouri, cases have dropped in many regions in the last
| few days without such lockdowns, and hospitals have not
| been overloaded.
| KittenInABox wrote:
| > hospitals have not been overloaded
|
| As of 3 weeks ago Missouri had to expand their hospital
| system explicitly for delta variants?
| https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-
| micha...
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| Expansion of covid wards is not overload. Mortality rates
| aren't skyrocketing, and people aren't dying in the
| streets like we saw in Italy and China in the first
| weeks.
|
| Don't get me wrong, there has been an increase in cases
| and the R0 needs to be lowered. But draconian measures
| aren't necessarily required, as Greene County MO's recent
| infection rates have shown[1]. The R0 sits at below 0
| now, and hospital case loads have stabilized.
|
| [1] https://www.covidactnow.org/us/missouri-
| mo/county/greene_cou...
| mrfusion wrote:
| It's not a small stretch to imagine expanding it to all
| grocery stores. Then if you want to eat you have no choice
| but to get it. What about denying healthcare for
| unvaccinated? Another easy step.
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| That's what was originally announced for the health pass in
| France before public outcry made them soften the
| restrictions.
| ysavir wrote:
| > It's not a small stretch to imagine expanding it to all
| grocery stores.
|
| When Covid first broke _everything_ shut down. That is,
| everything _except_ grocery stores, which were open to all.
| So yes, I think it 's a big stretch to imagine it expanding
| to grocery stores.
| orblivion wrote:
| If you look at De Blasio's announcement of this "Key To NYC"
| program, the stated purpose sounds pretty clearly like trying
| to pressure people to get vaccinated. He gave the example of
| how successful it was with mandating city workers get
| vaccinated. Making it clear that this is to show New Yorkers
| that the way to participate in normal life is to be
| vaccinated. Sort of a "enough is enough, it's time to get
| vaccinated" attitude.
|
| Maybe you think his real purpose is what you described rather
| than his stated purpose, but if he were hiding the ball I'd
| expect it in the other direction. It's rather jarring,
| really. But I suppose authoritarianism and paternalism are
| becoming more normalized these days.
| ysavir wrote:
| > Maybe you think his real purpose is what you described
| rather than his stated purpose, but if he were hiding the
| ball I'd expect it in the other direction. It's rather
| jarring, really. But I suppose authoritarianism and
| paternalism are becoming more normalized these days.
|
| I don't think de Blasio has a real purpose. I think he's
| doing what his advisors and experts are recommending he do
| and he's trying to make it sound purposeful because the
| political like sounding purposeful.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| > mRNA is a new, unknown technology
|
| This is untrue, researchers have been testing various mRNA
| therapies on people for 30 years, with it being first done in
| vitro in 1990 then in vivo in 1992 [1]. Lipid nano particles
| were first used around the same time.
|
| > the vaccine was rushed faster to public access than any other
| vaccine before
|
| This is only true if you ignore the development of the mRNA
| vaccine platform for flu, rabies, and zika that predated the
| pandemic by years. The novel development here was swapping in
| new protein encoding. If you look at this as a continuation of
| that process, then it's only a little faster than normal, and a
| lot of that was due to the FDA switching sequential steps in
| the process to be parallel.
|
| > We have absolutely no idea if there are any long term side
| effects of these vaccines.
|
| This isn't a meaningful claim for 2 key reasons. There has
| never been a vaccine that had serious side effects that did
| show up shortly after vaccination[2]. The history of mRNA
| treatments began as an experiment in gene therapy, but has
| largely ben abandoned because the effects never lasted long
| enough. As of 2020 this is an ongoing area of research[3]. No
| one has figure out how to stabilize mRNA so that it has long
| lasting effects.
|
| > Both candidates Biden and Harris
|
| They're both craven, ignorant politicians, who cares what they
| said when the other guy was in power.
|
| [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243
|
| [2] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-
| history....
|
| [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7076378/
|
| [edit] All that said, I am no pro mandate but seriously you
| should all voluntarily go get vaccinated IMHO.
| reader_mode wrote:
| >This isn't a meaningful claim for 2 key reasons. There has
| never been a vaccine that had serious side effects that did
| show up shortly after vaccination[2]. The history of mRNA
| treatments began as an experiment in gene therapy, but has
| largely ben abandoned because the effects never lasted long
| enough. As of 2020 this is an ongoing area of research[3]. No
| one has figure out how to stabilize mRNA so that it has long
| lasting effects.
|
| This isn't really what I'm worried about. Right now people
| are talking long COVID, subtle long term brain damage and it
| seems like mechanisms are still unknown. So who's to say that
| immune system reaction triggered by vaccination isn't causing
| same kind of hard to detect damage. I'd be much more
| comfortable with the vaccine if the long COVID studies
| included groups :
|
| - no vaccination/hospitalised
|
| - no vaccination/asymptomatic
|
| - vaccination/not infected
|
| - vaccination/infected
|
| I'm not a risk group and have no problems with social
| distancing so I'm waiting for stuff like this to come out.
| threatofrain wrote:
| > If the vaccine is as effective as it seems, then this
| decision feels positively nanny state to me. It takes away an
| individual's agency to inform themselves of the risks on both
| sides and make an informed decision.
|
| Do people feel the same way about schools requiring vaccines,
| or children getting the MMR, Hep B, or Polio vaccines?
| SirensOfTitan wrote:
| As I clearly mentioned, this vaccine is not FDA approved. We
| have no idea of the long term effects. I find it fairly
| reasonable to not want to be a test subject.
| threatofrain wrote:
| Do vaccines being approved by government make the
| government not a nanny state? Isn't that still a matter of
| government knowing what's good for you, as a parent would?
| Covzire wrote:
| With full FDA approval at least there would be
| documentation that tech platforms might not ban someone
| for discussing.
| bingidingi wrote:
| So if the FDA approved it you'd be ok with it?
| standardUser wrote:
| "We have no idea of the long term effects"
|
| Perhaps you have no idea, but the people closest to this
| science, including the countless government agencies around
| the world that have given authorization, have a pretty good
| idea. The design and length of clinical trials is not
| arbitrary, but your personal idea of "long term" is
| arbitrary.
| textgel wrote:
| Just as they had a good idea that vaccinating would
| effectively make the virus transmissible, just as they
| had a good idea about masks working and not working, just
| as they...
| standardUser wrote:
| Not sure what point you are making, but vaccines work and
| are neutralizing the pandemic in places with sufficient
| coverage. The Delta variant does spread more aggressively
| to recovered or vaccinated people, but very, very rarely
| sends them to the hospital.
| rajin444 wrote:
| Do we have data on 5, 10 years after usage? I'm fairly
| certain that there won't be anything either (based on
| what experts have said), but we should withhold making
| assertions without data to back it up, right?
| standardUser wrote:
| Why do you think 5 or 10 years are important metrics? Why
| not 40 or 60 years?
| rajin444 wrote:
| I'm all for more data! 40 or 60 years sounds great.
|
| Most vaccines take 10-15 years to develop, so that should
| probably be my target, but I'm willing to take on some
| extra risk.
| desine wrote:
| You start climbing ladders at the bottom rung. Do you
| have 40 to 60 year data? Or are you just avoiding the
| 5-10 year scale by redirecting?
| standardUser wrote:
| Well, mRNA vaccines have been in human clinical trials
| for over 10 years now, so if 10 years is your metric you
| may want to look in to that. My greater point is that to
| you and I - people who do not research the human immune
| system - 5 or 20 or 40 years may all seem like reasonable
| metrics. The people closest to the science disagree with
| us, at least in part because they cannot identify any
| mechanism for these vaccines to possess stealth side
| effects that only emerge decades later.
| [deleted]
| busymom0 wrote:
| To be fair, vast majority of those scientists also
| claimed the lab leak theory was impossible and a
| conspiracy theory and 1.5 year later flip flopped. If it
| was so easy to silence scientists on such an obvious
| issue, what else were the dissenting scientists silenced
| on?
| mrfusion wrote:
| Have we seen a vaccinated person conceive and have a
| healthy birth?
|
| I'm not at all saying that's a risk but just that it's an
| example of something we haven't had time to test.
| standardUser wrote:
| Right, I am only arguing that we are not flying totally
| blind here. Is the risk 0%? No, never. But the people who
| know the science best think the risk of something
| occurring beyond the timeframe we have good data for is
| very, very low. And the idea that there is a certain
| amount of years or decades, or a certain life event that
| changes the expectations of how this impacts human
| health, is something that we are only guessing about.
| Whereas the people with the knowledge and background to
| make educated guesses generally have little to no
| concern.
| chitowneats wrote:
| Higher or lower than the chance of hospitalization for
| women of childbearing age for covid-19? Many people
| suspect that the answer to this question is "we don't
| really know". But public health agencies are trying to
| boost vaccination rates, period. So they say "just get
| the vax". It's getting exhausting trying to parse out the
| truth from the various "noble lies".
|
| This leads many people who already mistrust "the system"
| to tune out future guidance and legitimate information.
| Black Americans, and Republicans, for example.
| standardUser wrote:
| I upvoted this. I strongly agree that public health
| communication has been awful at times and has absolutely
| diminished trust. Especially the recent f*ck up at the
| CDC where they spread disinformation about vaccinated
| people and their ability to spread the Delta variant.
| chitowneats wrote:
| Thank you. I have appreciated your engagement.
|
| Referring to unsettled science as "disinformation" seems
| premature. Is it not the case that we have some
| preliminary evidence that this _may_ be the case? I 've
| seen lots of criticism of the study that led to their
| updated guidance about this. Confounding variables, etc.
| But these are experts giving us their expert opinion.
| Surely it should at least be considered a possibility
| worthy of more study? Does referring to it as
| "disinformation" create a chilling effect around truth
| seeking?
|
| Are there other studies, or a "preponderance of
| evidence", so to speak, that refutes their position? I'm
| not aware of any. Most often I hear people make "common
| sense" or "just so" arguments about vaccines in general
| and how they work. Nothing specific about the covid
| vaccines. The majority of which, at least in USA, utilize
| novel tech.
| vekker wrote:
| That's an appeal to authority and we know there's a big
| problem with censorship right now. (Medical) doctors and
| professors who ask questions about the effectiveness of
| vaccination policy have a high chance of getting fired.
| In my country a researcher got fired a few months ago
| after publicly saying there's no guarantee that getting
| vaccinated means you will no longer spread the virus. By
| now he's been proven right of course, but meanwhile he
| did lose his job, his income, his reputation, and his
| voice in the media.
|
| So how is it possible to have an honest, open discussion
| (not to mention conduct proper science) in such a highly
| censored environment?
|
| (For the record, I'm not antivax and not against these
| new vaccines, and I think it's also worrying in and of
| itself that many people like me feel this needs to be
| said every time in these discussions in order to minimize
| the chance of name-calling and personal attacks.)
| notJim wrote:
| The frustrating thing about weaselly antivax nonsense
| like this is that if you just google your question, there
| is a clear answer:
|
| > Over 20 women enrolled in the initial adult
| Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial became pregnant during the
| study period, and none suffered pregnancy loss or
| perinatal complications.
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/ninashapiro/2021/03/17/vacci
| nat...
|
| I understand that some people are not as plugged into the
| internet, or have various difficulties understanding
| information, but I doubt that describes you as a hacker
| news commenter. There is really no excuse for you to be
| ignorant about things that you can find an answer to in
| mere seconds.
| bart_spoon wrote:
| FDA approval for Pfizer is expected in a matter of weeks.
| busymom0 wrote:
| Israel is reporting the vaccine efficacy goes down by 50
| percent in 3 months and down to 16 percent in 6 months.
| Now they are talking about a 3rd shot. If despite all
| this, the FDA somehow approves this, I doubt it will
| convince people. This is especially relevant for millions
| of people who have already gotten immunity via infection
| itself.
| mrfusion wrote:
| For one thing those are policies that were carefully
| developed over decades not in a few weeks in the middle of a
| mass panic.
|
| Also those policies usually have religious and medical
| exemptions.
| ok123456 wrote:
| We didn't get this vaccine out of nothing in 9 months.
| Every time there was a corona virus scare in the past
| (i.e., SARS and MERS) there was research into vaccines.
| After the panic dies down, these got shelved, but they
| served as a starting point. We've been developing this
| vaccine on-and-off-again for the past 20 years.
| threatofrain wrote:
| Does cautious science make the state less of a nanny? Isn't
| the critique of nanny state about whether the state is
| acting like a parent, knowing what's good for you?
| mrfusion wrote:
| Good point for sure.
| busymom0 wrote:
| People who have already gotten covid infection are
| extremely unlikely to get it again and some reports are
| saying that they have stronger immunity than vaccinated
| ones. This is not the case for things like polio. Plus
| based on Israel, the vaccine is also losing efficacy
| after 3-6 months so they are giving a 3rd shot now.
| That's not the case with polio vaccines.
| TomVDB wrote:
| > None of the currently available vaccines in the US are FDA
| approved.
|
| On one hand, I can't wait for the Pfizer vaccine to be fully
| FDA approved in September. On the other, everybody who uses
| that argument today will simply forget about it and move
| goalposts.
| FreakyT wrote:
| Exactly this -- people have just seized on the the "not FDA
| approved" line because it sounds reasonable if you don't
| really understand how FDA approval works or what it really
| means. As soon as it's approved, the goalposts will
| absolutely move to "well, I don't trust the FDA".
|
| For those "waiting for FDA approval", have you ever taken a
| vitamin supplement? Guess what, you're putting not-FDA-
| approved chemicals into your body.
| ttobbaybbob wrote:
| I don't understand calling it a nanny state. The government
| punishes you for not wearing a seat belt, children are excluded
| from school if they aren't vaccinated, drunk driving is
| illegal. Other than fda approval is the covid vaccine any
| different? if you're worried about the long term side effects
| and thus choose not to get vaccinated shouldn't you expect to
| not participate fully/freely in society (a la children's
| vaccines or repeat drunk-driving offenders)?
| yupper32 wrote:
| You lose all credibility when you bring up the Biden/Harris
| comments.
|
| At the time we were at the point where it was a real
| possibility that Trump would push out the vaccine regardless of
| the status of trials, etc. Trump kept saying dates and
| deadlines for all sorts of things throughout the pandemic that
| had no basis in reality, to the point that pushing out the
| vaccine early was a real possibility, just to make him look
| better.
|
| THAT is what the Biden/Harris comments are referencing.
|
| Could they have been more clear? Absolutely. But I'm confident
| that you personally know the difference and that you're just
| deciding to peddle that bullshit to further whatever right wing
| agenda you have.
| ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote:
| If the vaccine had been rushed under trump it would have been
| malicious, but if the vaccine is rushed under Biden it's
| kosher? This is partisan logic and pointing it out doesn't
| make someone right-wing.
| [deleted]
| yupper32 wrote:
| It _wasn 't_ rushed under Biden, at least in the sense that
| it didn't skip any steps or ignore trial data (the whole
| vaccine process was as quick as possible under both
| Presidents, of course).
|
| There was a real worry that it would be maliciously rushed
| under Trump.
|
| Imagine this: Trump guts the FDA leadership and installs
| fringe scientists. Those scientists then skip steps, ignore
| trial data, and push out the vaccine.
|
| If you think that was a far out possibility, then you're
| likely right-wing. The Scott Atlas situation alone should
| convince you that this was possible, let alone everything
| else about Trump.
| karmelapple wrote:
| > We have absolutely no idea if there are any long term side
| effects of these vaccines.
|
| By that logic, we have absolutely no idea if there are any long
| term side effects of COVID-19, and how they might compare to
| the unknown of the long term side effects of vaccines.
|
| We do know that many COVID-19 patients have had very bad
| effects over many months (I'm thinking of long COVID here), not
| to mention the possibility of death. We don't know what it'll
| be like 5 years from first getting COVID-19, but we know long
| term problems happen from the virus.
|
| Compare that to what's known about the vaccine: we haven't seen
| any indication that the vaccine is causing very bad effects
| over many months in any significantly large percentage of the
| population.
| clukic wrote:
| Vaccine requirements have been in place for decades. For pre-K in
| NYC kids need shots for PCV and Hib.
|
| For kindergarten they need more shots: Hep B, Polio, Chickenpox,
| and Measles, Mumps and Rubella.
|
| Going to middle school? Then you'll need more shots, the TDAP and
| meningococcal conjugate.
|
| These are all vaccine requirements. Is it an invasion or privacy
| to demand children's records? Is it the nanny state? We could go
| down that road, but who wants to live in a world where we lose
| herd immunity to all of those diseases because 30-40% of people
| choose to opt their children out?
| busymom0 wrote:
| No, you are bringing up extreme examples. Other vaccines:
|
| > It is not known how long people who received IPV will be
| immune to poliovirus, but they are most likely protected for
| many years after a complete series of IPV.
|
| >Measles vaccines became available in 1963. If you got the
| standard two doses of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR)
| vaccine after 1967, you should be protected against the measles
| for life.
|
| >Several studies have shown that people vaccinated against
| varicella (chickenpox) had antibodies for at least 10 to 20
| years after vaccination.
|
| Covid vaccine in Israel is showing to lose efficacy down to
| just 16 percent in just 6 months.
|
| People who have already gotten covid infection are extremely
| unlikely to get it again and some reports are saying that they
| have stronger immunity than vaccinated ones. This is not the
| case for things like polio, chicken pox, measles etc. Plus
| based on Israel, the vaccine is also losing efficacy after 3-6
| months so they are giving a 3rd shot now. That's not the case
| with polio and other vaccines which provide a lifetime
| protection.
|
| Also comparing going to restaurant with going to school is
| absurd.
| clukic wrote:
| You can't catch polio twice. And chicken pox is pretty
| similar to covid actually. It has a similar R value, and
| adults who catch it can be hospitalized, but for children
| it's usually not as serious. And once you've had chicken pox
| you have strong immunity, although you can still get some of
| the symptoms if exposed.
|
| As for comparing restaurant and school. Schools are publicly
| funded and mandated by the state. No one has to go to a
| restaurant.
| [deleted]
| Overton-Window wrote:
| Blatant false equivalence. All of those are FDA approved.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Honestly, I think a lot of people here without kids have
| absolutely no idea that you need to prove immunization in order
| to attend school.
|
| What's funnier still to me is men (it always seems to be men)
| outraged that they might need to prove vaccination in order to
| send their kids back to school, publicly admitting that they've
| been fobbing that work off on their spouse.
| bingohbangoh wrote:
| People know. They know, if anything, because you need to be
| vaccinated to attend colleges.
|
| The issue is that this vaccine is not FDA approved. A vaccine
| that provides for only a year is hardly the same as a booster
| shot which is good for 10 iirc.
| karmelapple wrote:
| Reading this, I wondered what might be keeping it from
| being fully FDA approved. I found this article explains it
| well:
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/leahrosenbaum/2021/07/30/why-
| ha...
|
| A few quotes I thought were noteworthy:
|
| > For emergency authorization, the FDA required two months
| of safety data versus six months for full approval, he
| explains.
|
| > Pfizer submitted its application on May 7 and was granted
| special priority review status on July 16. In a press
| release, the company said the decision whether to fully
| approve the vaccine should come by January 2022. Other
| reports suggest Pfizer's approval will likely be sooner,
| possibly as early as the start of the school year.
|
| > As you might expect, clinical trial data is scrutinized,
| but the process involves more than just experts reading
| data. The FDA also inspects manufacturing facilities and
| meets many times with company executives.
|
| > "I think a lot of us are baffled why the FDA is taking so
| long." - Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of
| Public Health
|
| > To that end, the agency has reportedly expedited the
| process, even deprioritizing other projects in order to
| accelerate the timeline.
|
| That last sentence struck me strangely, seeming to imply
| reprioritizing other projects was a big deal. We're still
| in a global pandemic, people are still dying here in the
| USA, and the economic realities still actively happening...
| yeah, I think deprioritizing other things is about the
| least surprising thing imaginable.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Is it required or can you just sign a waiver and get out of
| it for religious/personal/health without a doctor reasons? Or
| is the documentation required easily forgeable?
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Depends on the state. My college's policies were set by
| state law. A doctor has to sign a record for a religious
| exemption, which probably reduced the number of people
| taking it significantly.
|
| Faking it never crossed my mind, because duh.
| [deleted]
| neolog wrote:
| Even most childcare-occupied parents don't know what
| regulations are governing their doctors' recommendations.
| Unfortunately many clinics don't have free slots on the
| weekends, so it can be especially hard for working parents to
| find time to meet with the doctor. I wouldn't mock them for
| it.
| Animats wrote:
| OK, but we need to make the vaccine passport thing work better,
| and fast.
|
| California has
|
| https://myvaccinerecord.cdph.ca.gov/
|
| and I can't get that to recognize that I've been vaccinated. I
| was vaccinated at Stanford, and their health record system, which
| I can access online, shows that. But the data didn't make it to
| the state system. Stanford customer support blames the state.
| State customer support says "contact your health care provider".
| calltrak wrote:
| You people can argue all you want. I voted with my feet and I not
| only left New York City, I left the U.S.S.A . Even a blind man
| could see whats coming next!
| donretag wrote:
| Countries such as Italy and France have instituted this policy
| as a national level.
|
| Many countries have/had lockdown policies far more strict than
| the strictest locale in the US.
|
| I do not like the government placing the burden of enforcement
| on businesses. It will lead to a backlash from the anti-vax
| crowd, waste of employee resources, and lax oversight will give
| a false sense of security.
| grllierg wrote:
| As much as the US is going down the toilet with these commies
| both Canada and Australia are draconian as shit right now with
| their covid "response".
| efficax wrote:
| imagine i'm metaphorically blind. what's coming next?
| symlinkk wrote:
| Where'd you go?
| trident5000 wrote:
| I have the vaccine and still think this is absurd and a slippery
| slope. If you havent noticed, society tends to run with things
| they can get away with to the most extreme direction.
| [deleted]
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| "Everyone is going to get Corona. Whether you're vaccinated or
| not, whether you're old or young, whether you're tested or not,
| whether we lock down or not. This is a fact of life now.
|
| The vaccines will protect against severe symptoms only for a
| time, and Corona is always changing. Slowing the spread will
| prove counter-productive particularly to those who have sought
| the protection of vaccines.
|
| Your best hope of continued immunity is infection while your
| vaccine still protects against severe symptoms. The best hope
| that children have of mild infection in adulthood, is low-risk
| infection now, while they are at no risk. There is no more point
| in slowing the spread.
|
| That will only make us immunologically naive to this virus for a
| longer period of time. Many, many viruses infect and reinfect
| billions of humans throughout their lives, with barely any
| notice. It is time we made Corona one of these viruses." End.
|
| [0] https://twitter.com/eugyppius1/status/1422789917873262595
|
| If you doubt this: consider that Israel is nearly fully
| vaccinated, yet they are, right now, making plans for lockdown in
| September.
| benmmurphy wrote:
| Surely this is a violation of civil rights law. The law is going
| to have a disparate impact on minority groups since there is a
| difference in vaccination rates between different racial groups.
| The law doesn't seem narrowly scoped to achieve a specific
| compelling government interest. People from the government seem
| to be claiming this is being used to incentivise vaccine uptake.
| If the government made the claim that the vaccine was necessary
| in an indoor setting in order to reduce the spread then the law
| might be ok but because they have been caught making these other
| claims then it could burn them in court.
| dcow wrote:
| Then close the gaps.
| cududa wrote:
| Wrong.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
| benmmurphy wrote:
| this is not enforcing vaccination it is denying services
| based on vaccination status. i think there is a distinction.
| like what if a state decided to make the franchise dependent
| on whether your were vaccinated or not in order to
| 'encourage' people to vaccinate similar to how they are
| trying to deny people access to indoor dining in order to
| 'encourage' people to vaccinate. i'm sure that would be
| challenged under the civil rights act. the key thing here is
| that if they wanted to increase vaccination rates it could be
| done in a more direct and narrow way like enforcing people to
| get vaccinated rather than doing it indirectly.
|
| also, this case was not about the whether it was a breach of
| the civil rights act which is what i contend this law
| violates. in fact, the civil rights act was established after
| this case so it couldn't possibly have factored into the
| decision.
| ok123456 wrote:
| The New York rules are less restrictive than Jacobson v.
| Massachusetts. Jacobson v. Massachusetts actually forced
| people to get a smallpox vaccine, this is about getting
| into Fudruckers and Planet Fitness.
|
| The Supreme Court found, 7-2, that it was not a 14th
| Amendment civil rights violation to have compulsory
| vaccination and that police powers extended to protecting
| public health.
| grammarprofess wrote:
| Wow that's interesting, sadly immigrants have to cheat the
| system, cant play by the rules like this, I'm sure he learned
| his lesson, bullshit till you make it
| kook_throwaway wrote:
| >there is a difference in vaccination rates between different
| racial groups
|
| Considering that people of color have been the targets of
| medical experimentation under the guise of public health by
| both our government and the same drug makers peddling the
| vaccines (usually in other countries), this shouldn't be a
| surprise to anyone.
| freewizard wrote:
| Appreciate NYC finding ways to push up vax% but not sure what to
| say about the app they are promoting.
|
| Just checked this "NYC COVID Safe" app[1] which is claimed to be
| "Key to NYC". All it does is taking and storing a photo on the
| phone. It obviously meant to be CDC paper card, but there seems
| no validation, client side or server side. ( _update_ it does
| phone home for some apparently analytics event like onboard,
| added card, etc)
|
| In contrast the NYS Excelsior Pass app [2] at least did some
| check on server side on personal information like name/DOB and
| place/date of vax before generate a QR code. Also there's another
| app for business side to verify the consumers' generated QR. It
| may not be 100% perfect but at least did some diligence.
|
| [1] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/nyc-covid-safe/id1565213506
|
| [2] https://covid19vaccine.health.ny.gov/excelsior-pass
| mrfusion wrote:
| Imagine showing this article to people pre-pandemic, it'd be near
| universally reviled. We collectively lost our minds in March
| 2020.
| jjgreen wrote:
| > The program is modeled after the vaccine passport programs
| rolled out in France
|
| ... which resulted in riots
|
| https://www.france24.com/en/france/20210731-france-sees-thir...
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| I wish Americans had more of a revolutionary tendency like the
| French do. Instead of rioting and pissing off the government at
| its doorstep, we head for the hills, hoard guns, and dare the
| government come get us out there.
| jobigoud wrote:
| Protests, not riots. And there are protests all the time
| whenever a controversial decision is made, it's our national
| sport. Another confounding factor is the very aggressive
| calendar set up, where due to the span between the doses not
| everyone has a way to be fully vaccinated before the measure is
| active.
| jjgreen wrote:
| _And there are protests all the time whenever a controversial
| decision is made, it 's our national sport_
|
| It is an endearing habit; but to be fair, some of those
| protests can look a bit "riotey", what with the smoke bombs,
| water cannon, paramilitary cops with batons etc ...
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfxVY8ltyso
|
| ... to us in _la perfide Albion_ at least, to Americans this
| probably all looks a bit tame.
| krapp wrote:
| >to Americans this probably all looks a bit tame.
|
| Americans talk a good game when it comes to riots but if
| they took their rhetoric about "watering the tree of
| liberty with the blood of tyrants" seriously every election
| would wind up with the Capitol looking like it did on
| January 6th.
| AndrewBissell wrote:
| Fond memories of the days this was the sole domain of paranoid
| conspiracy theorists. Now, at the exact same moment that we are
| getting evidence of the mRNA vaccines' rapidly waning efficacy[1]
| and ineffectiveness at reducing transmission of the Delta
| variant, the screws are being tightened and the unvaccinated are
| being scapegoated. Never mind that this variant arose in India
| where there was never any possibility of the entire population
| being vaccinated all at once.
|
| If the vaccines work, why are we talking about vaccine passports
| and domestic travel bans? If the vaccines don't work, _why are we
| talking about vaccine passports and domestic travel bans?_
|
| Also worth noting, this is _de facto_ racial segregation, because
| blacks and Hispanics are by far the highest population of
| unvaccinated in NYC. Funny how a lifetime of having your health
| and well-being actively ignored and sabotaged by public officials
| raises doubts when they suddenly show up with shiny new
| injections and start pushing them with lotteries, free ice cream
| and donuts, and all the rest.
|
| [1] https://swprs.org/covid-vaccines-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/
| some_hacker33 wrote:
| Got a better source? This website contains misinformation.
|
| https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
|
| > E) The facemask aerosol issue
|
| > In the following video, Dr. Theodore Noel explains the
| facemask aerosol issue.
|
| https://factcheck.afp.com/doctor-expired-license-falsely-cla...
|
| https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/08/facebook-p...
|
| the fact that we have accounts on here with large amounts of
| reputation reposting facebook-based misinformation does not
| give me faith that leaving these choices up to allegedly
| informed individuals is a good idea. as others have pointed
| out, 99.99% of people are in no way qualified to make such
| determinations.
| analyte123 wrote:
| The "aerosol issue" actually was a problem all along,
| according to the US CDC [1]. The majority of that
| "misinformation" page is simply a summary of masking studies
| published elsewhere, many of which are peer-reviewed. It also
| reviews studies that support masking in section F.
|
| [1]
| https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-
| br...
| grammarprofess wrote:
| Those are very good points. Totally agree, the vast majority of
| people are gonna be careful and display caution staying at home
| etc.. I think covid vaccines should be compelling by their
| efficacity and safety. This is all so stringent for something
| so rightly divisive
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-04 23:00 UTC)