Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think people in high risk groups should get it, i.e., the elderly and people with weak immune systems or other health issues. Those who are strong health wise ok, they stand a good chance.

That said, I am totally against this blanket insistence on passports. There may be some situations which warrant vaccinations where the subject has no acquired immunity, health workers, etc. But being denied access to govt services because you lack the papers is not a good thing.

Edit: asking for a mask is okay. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. It’s when they require proof of vaccination that I have problem (mind you, I’m vaccinated).



> But being denied access to govt services because you lack the papers is not a good thing.

What gov services are people being denied? legit question - I hear this, but unsure what is being referred to.

How about "vaccine proof or wear a mask" to get/access govt services/buildings/etc?


Not really a govt service but here in Italy my friends can't enter college (the structure itself) without a green pass, and exams have to be taken in person.


Public funded education is a government service.


That works for me. This is a compromise I agree with.


In ny country, the library for example. Also some public baths. But my main concern is the restrictions on freedom of movement.


Wearing a mask is a mild annoyance. With vaccine, you might suffer side effects, but even that is short term.

It's basically no-brainer, since getting infected with the virus is more likely to kill you than getting the vaccine.

The only reason people are not getting the vaccine is for various reasons they don't trust that the vaccine is going to help them. Everything else is justification.


Did you miss the part of the fda statement this week where they said they have no long term data available?


Do you also realize the disease has only been around for maybe around 2 years at most? So we really have no long term data on effects from getting COVID naturally either. Considering we have plenty of data on other vaccines being quite safe in the long term. I would rather play that game than the "I am relatively healthy so I'll risk getting a deadly disease" I am aware I could still get COVID while vaccinated, but I also know that the chances of getting serious illness while vaccinated are much much lower than if I wasn't.


We have no encouraging long term data from any mRNA therapy. this is brand new. The animal tests were concerning to put it mildly.

Your chances of serious illness are lower for now. ADE shows dose dependent acceleration, so by the 4th or 5th booster it may be a different story.


What animal tests? Are there even any hypothesized mechanisms by which an mRNA therapy, as a general method, would produce long term consequences? It's fragile and decomposes in the body over the course of a couple weeks, leaving no trace except whatever proteins the sequence describes. That's not to say the specific proteins produced couldn't engender longer-term consequences, but I'm missing how that can be generalized to human-devised mRNA in total.


This says that there was a viral Facebook post making claims about animal tests, which are very much wrong: https://fullfact.org/online/covid-vaccine-animal-testing/

Also, this says that the covid vaccines specifically passed animal trials: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-vaccine-anim...



2.5 billion people have had at least one vaccine.


> 2.5 billion people have had at least one vaccine.

Does that mean Lisa Shaw did not die? Or that we would still have known about the cause of her death if she were not well known?

Or, is the number of people who are vaccinated enough of a reason to ignore the concerns of people who got Covid19 and recovered?

How much of "long Covid19" due to horrendous treatment at hospitals of Covid19 patients with unnecessary intubations, severe isolation from friends and family, and the general medial establishment panic?

In the U.S., 95% of deaths with Covid19 are in people over 50. Covid19 accounts for 0.7% of deaths among people under 18.[1]

I am sure, the case surveillance data[2] has more interesting nuggets. So, given low risk to an otherwise well person who has not been living in complete isolation since March 2020 (there are a lot of them in the world), given the trend of increasing breakthrough infections and deaths, it is not obvious that averages are very meaningful to individual decision making.

[1]: https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex...

[2]: https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/COVID-19-Case-Surveil...


> The clots are considered extremely rare - there have been 417 reported cases and 72 deaths - after 24.8 million first doses and 23.9 million second doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK.

That's 72 deaths among millions. You're trying to describe COVID as "given low risk to an otherwise well person", but you're still off by many orders of magnitude. Using this site[1] we see that he current 0-59 death rate is 0.2%. That would be nearly 100,000 dead to get a comparable rate.


> we see that he current 0-59 death rate is 0.2%

I made a statement about the percentage of deaths among people over 50 (not death rate).

Computing an IFR (infection fatality rate) is difficult because so many infections are unrecorded. For example, consider this paper[1]:

> We found that these antibodies were present in 42.4% of the individuals tested and that the majority of these infections, which were generally mild, had not been previously detected.

It seems to me a ton of infections occur and go away without anyone recording them. We only see information about infections which result in worse outcomes.

Given the desire to avoid any negative information about vaccine efficacy and safety, it is also reasonable to assume that we are only seeing a smaller number of people who died after the injection.

Especially games played by agencies in how they count the vaccinated (if you die/get sick between your first shot and two weeks after the second shot, you are not counted among the vaccinated) do not instill confidence. The arbitrary insistence in certain areas of the U.S. that even people who've had Covid19 must get vaccinated before they can be allowed to live life breeds suspicion.

PS: Since the beginning, people all over the world suffered and are continuing to suffer under delusional policies implemented to support the fiction that "zero Covid19" is possible if you just "do as I say!" Now, the repeat is coming in the form of "90 - 100% vaccination" where fully vaccinated status seems like it is going to be a moving target. See https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1430186661556727808.html

[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-021-00007-1


In order for those numbers to align to such a point where vaccines are more deadly we'd need to either have 1000x more vaccine related deaths or 1000x more infections undetected. Which do you think it would be?


From the perspective of the person who's been OK since the beginning, those numbers don't really matter. What matters is that they are fine now, they've been fine for a while, and now they are being coerced into taking an action which they don't think will benefit them and might hurt them worse than whatever their experience has been.

Do not expect resistance to coercion to melt away when you dial up coercion.

Add to that the fact that very incompletely counted known deaths from Covid19 among those fully vaccinated against Covid19 just jumped 11% since Monday[1], one might ask why one is being coerced to take a discreet step to assume a new risk.

[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/bre...

[2]: https://archive.is/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hea...


So the death rate is now less than 0.0006% / shot? This is why I started this thread off by specifying "rational individual".


Nobody's being coerced to do anything. They have the completely free choice to take the shot, or not. Either way, they must accept the consequences of their choice. This is not coercion; nobody's holding any guns to anyone's heads or holding people down and forcing the shot on them. What's being dialed up is the severity of consequences of not taking the shot.


Let's say that an American municipality instituted a rule that people who profess Muslim beliefs are to be excluded from gathering in public establishments. No one would be physically forced to abandon their faith, and they would have the completely free choice to remain Islamic and accept the consequences.

Would you not perceive any coercion here?


Correct. It's not coercion. The fact that it's wrong to discriminate against someone due to their religious faith and to violate peoples' right to free assembly is orthogonal to the question of whether it's coercive or not. In other words, this is a false equivalence.


It means that, statistically, for purposes of determining the safety of the vaccine, her death counts for such a tiny amount that it's effectively zero evidence against the vaccine.


In Europe you can show a recent test or your Vax passport anywhere (e.g. you need one or the other to travel or go to the gym) and I really don't see the issue.

I'm glad there's a way to ensure only low risk people are in the places I go to and the privacy risks are comparable or smaller than for things with lesser benefits.


At least places like Isreal issue you a green pass for naturally acquired immunity. In the US, people with natural antibodies who are refusing the vaccine are being fired. Basically measuring output rather than outcomes (for all you PMs out there).


That would seem to be a logical choice. I would welcome this decision in the US.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: