Hacker News Reader

> No-one is seriously calling for forced vaccination for corona

There will be de facto mandatory vaccination, to a degree. This is a Canadian news source but read about the companies involved with creating this program (by the way—-it’s not Ticketmaster). It is definitely coming to America and already underway.

No coronavirus vaccine, no entry? Experts say it’s possible in pandemic’s next stage

https://globalnews.ca/news/7457999/ticketmaster-covid19-vacc...

In Europe, mandatory vaccinations do exist in some countries, for both children and adults. Also, in Croatia (which is part of the European Union), if you refuse to have your child vaccinated, it is legally considered to be child abuse. In Croatia, they have school doctors that literally come to the schools with nurses that not only ensure the health of all of the kids, but also have them vaccinated there. Homeschooling is also illegal in Croatia.

>3. No-one is seriously calling for forced vaccination for corona

That is not true:

https://nysba.org/new-york-state-bar-association-calls-upon-...

>>The New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) is recommending that the state consider mandating a COVID-19 vaccine once a scientific consensus emerges that it is safe, effective and necessary.

It is also not definitive that the 532 cases of Guillan-Barré were actually caused by the vaccine. In any large scale vaccination effort people die/get sick just because that is what happens in any large population.

> No-one is seriously calling for forced vaccination for corona

Define forced. I'm not in favor of pinning people down and forcibly injecting them with something, but I am all for some kind of vaccination "passport", where if you don't have proof of vaccination you stop enjoying the benefits of society. No public schools or services, right for businesses to refuse service, etc. Or at the very least, a heavy tax fine or something a long those lines.

If people choose to not get a vaccine, that's fine. But its time we align incentives to eliminate these externalities being born from societal free-loaders who believe in quack-science.

In response to 3, many rational people are. And I agree with them. We have mandatory vaccinations for MMR and for dTAP. Have you ever heard of anyone catching diphtheria? A reasonable risk profile puts COVID-19 at higher risk than whooping cough, as the chances of getting it are so much higher, even if the fatality rate is lower.

"Mandatory" vaccination for children in the USA usually aren't: all states allow exemption for true medical reason, and [edit: --some--] almost all allow exemption on religious grounds. Sixteen allow exemption for parental objection.

> We have mandatory vaccinations for MMR and for dTAP. Have you ever heard of anyone catching diphtheria?

Not specifically, but DTaP vaccinates against pertussis which has seen epidemic-level outbreaks in the past decade in multiple states.

I'd expect any SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations to be targeted at adults for the foreseeable future, but who knows.

If there's a law you have to get it, and the burden of proof is that the law doesn't apply to you, it's mandatory.

>Have you ever heard of anyone catching diphtheria?

Nope, I wonder why.

> I did find a a source of 532 developing Guillan-Barré

You should have mentioned that the 532 cases of Guillan-Barré were found within the 48 million people receiving the swine flu vaccine.

Accordig to Wikipedia, the incidence of Guillam-Barré is about 2 per 100,000 people per year.

Statistically speaking, your example suggests that taking the swine flu vaccine is linked with a lower incidence of Guillam-Barre syndrome, nearly lowering it to about 60% of the baseline.

If we're allowed to play fast and loose with back-of-the-napkin statistics, your example contradicts your original claims, and indeed makes a strong case in favour of vaccination.

Physicians recommend many drugs that end up proving to have dangerous side effects. The anti-inflamatory Vioxx is just one that comes to mind without doing any research.

That's like saying that there have been unsafe cars in history without understand which cars and why and why they're unsafe.

There's a lot of unsafe stuff, but this example is so absurdly generalized that it seems either malicious or just so ignorant that it's not even a worthy position to take.

>since I will argue the only reason why you'd reject a vaccine that is recommended by a physician is an irrational belief not grounded in evidence

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy

https://ijme.in/articles/deaths-in-a-trial-of-the-hpv-vaccin...

https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30352154

Vaccine manufacturers have a poor track record of releasing dangerous barely tested vaccines onto populations, causing deaths and avoiding lawsuits.

Personally, I am skeptical about this vaccine, or any other rushed out for a disease with a 97% survival rate.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=home...

I've had lots of vaccines in my life, the thing is, all those were for diseases that had a high risk of crippling or killing me.

Why would I want a vaccine that is actually less effective than my chances of surviving?

If I get the vaccine, there's a 95% chance it'll work, if I get covid, there's a 97% chance i'll live.

All I know is, if you told someone they had a 97% chance of winning at a casino, they'd be down there in a flash.

Why would I choose to have some barely tested vaccine with not fully studied long term side effects made by companies who have extremely poor track records with medication in general?

Pfizer is bascially responsible for the oxycontin epidemic. Their reps bribe doctors into pushing their drugs.

Moderna's some secretive biotech company that just appeared out of nowhere with this whole covid thing.

What reason do I have to trust any of these companies over the 97% survival rate I can expect from getting covid?

It's the other way around - for any given chance of you getting COVID, there's a (to use your number) 3% mortality rate - if you take the vaccine - that outcome changes because you now have much smaller risk of infection, to 0.15% chance.

Your choice is between 3% and 0.15% - not 95% and 97%.

I don't think this individualistic way of looking at things is sound, though. First 3% mortality sounds way high - even given health system collapse (basically turning every ventilator survivor into a dead patient).

And on the other hand, mostly the old and those with pre-conditions will die - we alltake the vaccine to protect everyone. That way we might avoid a population wide 0.5% (or thereabouts) mortality rate.

That would still 1 in 200 - most people would likely know a handful of people dying from the disease if there's no mitigation.

> Your choice is between 3% and 0.15% - not 95% and 97%.

I would put it differently: if we become covid carriers, we become spreaders. Those 3% are, thus, applied to a large population comprised of everyone we interact ina daily basis.

Thus even if at most the likelihood that we die of covid is only 3% tops, the likelihood that at least one person that catches covid from us does is proportional to the number of people we infect.

With a 3% fatality rate, the likelihood that at least one person we infect will die can reach 80% if we spread it to over 50 people.

If we infect someone over 60, the likelihood that they will die from covid grows from that 3% to about 20%.

So unless you are infected while living in a bubble, the real risk is far higher.

> Why would I want a vaccine that is actually less effective than my chances of surviving?

Well, the vaccine hopefully doesn't kill you if it's ineffective, so the numbers aren't exactly comparable.

The reasoning in this comment is wild. Let's take it back to the math a moment:

Let's take your 3% chance of death (actually the population survival rate is significantly higher IIRC, but OTOH there's long haul COVID to consider too). If the vaccine is 95% effective, all else being equal you have a 3% chance of death without the vaccine, and a 0.15% chance of death with the vaccine. So the question becomes: is there a greater than 2.85% chance of the vaccine killing you or doing you crippling injury? If not, you're probably better off taking the vaccine.

Numbers depend on the age. Bulk of deaths are concentrated in older populations. CDC recently updated estimated infection fatality rates for COVID. Here are the updated survival rates by age group:

0-19: 99.997% 20-49: 99.98% 50-69: 99.5% 70+: 94.6%

Edit - typo.

The CDC updated their pandemic planning scenarios[0] based on earlier studies in Europe plus some educated guesswork using data collected from the US through August 8. The numbers which you represent as the CDC’s sole official estimate of true IFR are only one of three possible sets of parameters that they provide for scenario modelling. Furthermore, the footnote on these estimates states “The estimates for persons ≥70 years old presented here do not include persons ≥80 years old”, since the underlying study they base the model on assumed that CFR = IFR for people ≥80 years old. Why they label this 70+ instead of 70–79 is beyond me, and I have no idea how sound the methodology is that they used to derive these estimates.

I would also mention that there are studies in peer review on patient populations in the United States which suggest IFRs closer to CDC planning scenario 4/5 than 3—for example, this one from Connecticut[1]:

  18-29 0.01 (0.01–NE)
  30-44 0.11 (0.06–1.74)
  45-54 0.18 (0.11–0.63)
  55-64 1.30 (0.68–16.94)
  ≥65 16.46 (6.58–NE)

We all hope for the best—that the lower bounds are true—but I think we should also be prepared for the reality that the upper bounds might be the correct ones, and act conservatively.

Also, you know, all IFR estimates assume that patients will actually be able to access care. Without hospitals, IFR approaches IHR, and the hospitalisation rates from the Connecticut study are grim: 0.8%, 2.68%, 3.09%, 12.43%, and 79.89%.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...

[1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.30.20223461v...

" if you told someone they had a 97% chance of winning at a casino, they'd be down there in a flash" this is a bad analogy, what if you also told them that if they lost they were taken out back and shot? I bet a lot fewer people would show up. In this particular case, winning just means not dying, if I could increase my odds of not dying I would probably do so.

Also there is no proof that getting covid grants lifetime immunity, so lets assume immunity lasts a year, every year you now have a 3% chance of dying from covid using your numbers. 3% is not that low, there is a ~3% chance of rolling double sixes with 2 dice, and that happens all the time.

> Pfizer is bascially responsible for the oxycontin epidemic. Their reps bribe doctors into pushing their drugs.

That was Purdue Pharma, not Pfizer.

Your IJME link does not support in any way your assertion about the "danger" of the HPV vaccine. From the link, 30,000 were vaccinated. Three girls died for reasons that are never stated. The article provides that "there is no conclusive evidence of a causal link between the vaccine and the deaths."

I take the general gist of some of your points, but it might be worth reframing some of your logic. To take just one point, let's go to the casino: you have a 97% chance of winning...pretty great! The downside is that if you lose, we take you out back and shoot you. Do you still want to go?