Hacker News Reader

Comment by J-dawg | Hacker News Reader

Conversely, I am finding the reaction to anti-vaccine sentiment from some politicians to be pretty creepy. Already there is talk of compulsory vaccination or "vaccine passports". Labour (the UK opposition party) were even calling for spreading "misinformation" online to be illegal.

I find this ridiculous considering the massive challenge we have ahead of us just to get the vaccine to the millions of people who desperately want it.

Sure, if we get to the point where everyone who wants the vaccine has had it, and there are still people dying from COVID, then we can discuss illiberal measures to increase vaccine take-up. (I'd still be opposed to them).

Getting worked up about this stuff when not a single person (outside of the trial groups) has been vaccinated yet just demonstrates our politicians' (on all sides) tendency towards authoritarianism.

View on HN

I'm not sure I agree. The maths says that we need about 70% of the population to take the vaccine in order for it to no longer be a threat. We also have polling that says about 53% will refuse to take the vaccine. So we're already at the point where something else must be done such as adding incentives, a passport system or better advertising etc. OR continued lockdown measures and enforcement of mask wearing. It's not a theoretical problem we're already there.

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-11-10/covid-vaccine-will-enoug...

> The maths says that we need about 70% of the population to take the vaccine in order for it to no longer be a threat

...to no longer be a threat to an unvaccinated person.

This isn't like the childhood vaccines, where we need herd immunity to protect the children who are too young to be vaccinated.

Provided that everyone who wants the vaccine can get it, I don't see the problem with letting everyone else make their own decision.

The current priority list of people is nowhere near 70% of the population anyway. Most people under 50 won't have the opportunity to be vaccinated for months. So this absolutely is a theoretical problem, at least for now.

Given that Covid is such a mild disease for most young people, I predict that by the time the elderly and vulnerable have been vaccinated, this will be a non-issue anyway.

Yeah, the only reason I'm holding to the guidelines is for elderly and immunocompromised. I don't care about catching covid and nor anybody I know not in one of those categories.

This whole thing becomes moot once the vulnerable are vaccinated, no need for creepy immunity passports.

I used to agree but a few of my 20-29 year old friends have had much worse experiences than expected. One had some neurological side effects, which is rare but happens, that affected his eye movement and made it impossible for him to read or work comfortably.

It wasn't healing and it turned out he had an undetected issue processing folic acid I believe, which has an effect on how your body heals from neurological damage. He's recovering now after 3 months but has to take folic acid and other supplements 5 times a day.

Other friends have had persistent diminished lung capacity for months on end; these are folks who had no co-morbidities and in their 20s.

There are much more dangerous things to worry about in life. I'm happy to take chances with Covid, the only thing I won't do is risk hurting others.

Yea I'm not totally concerned about catching it but if I do, I increase my likelihood of hurting others. That's been the logic of most of my peers (early 30s, late twenties).

However, through my partner I am friends with many classical singers. They are absolutely worried about damaging their instrument.

>This isn't like the childhood vaccines, where we need herd immunity to protect the children who are too young to be vaccinated.

It's not only too young children who might not be legitimately unvaccinated...some people who are immunocompromised or otherwise medically unable to take certain vaccines must also rely on herd immunity for protection.

Where I live, two-month-olds are scheduled for a comprehensive vaccination.

https://immunizebc.ca/sites/default/files/graphics/vaccine-s...

That isn't comprehensive. Some vaccines don't work until the kids are older.

> ...I don't see the problem with letting everyone else make their own decision.

Pandemics have, since time immemorial, been an exception to the "I can do what I want" rule.

Much like allowing parents to fall into conspiracy theory traps and refuse to allow their children to be vaccinated against measles, resulting in that disease suddenly becoming a threat again, if we're going to get back to normalcy we can't let half the population ignore the vaccine.

But, since we are going to let half the population ignore the vaccine, prepare for a long, drawn-out period of time during which the disease will flare up, lockdowns will be imposed, more people will needlessly die, and conspiracy theories will continue to make a mockery of civilization.

If there is an effective vaccine which is readily available to anyone, there is no need for lockdowns.

People who don’t use the vaccine and get sick still have an impact on healthcare systems.

People who do take the vaccine are likely still able to spread the virus.

The pandemic is not going to go quietly any time soon.

It's still unknown whether vaccines convey sterilizing immunity. Even if they don't, there will be no political will to institute lockdowns if the people who are getting sick could have been vaccinated. If unvaccinated people getting Covid-19 creates undue strain on the healthcare system, the calls will be for mandatory vaccination, not for lockdowns.

Restricting social interaction and business is a crushing approach to solving the problem, with severe consequences to health and economics. It's brute force, like securing a computer using an air gap. The only reason lockdowns have been used in 2020 is because we have no other options available, but a free and readily-available vaccine changes the calculus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com