Hacker News Reader

Comment by nezygis | Hacker News Reader

In 3 lines you've managed to write 3 conflicting views.

1. Some health workers might have different views, including very wrong ones on any kind of treatment. What does that change?

2. It does not. Whistle blowers always existed and in this case they are just wrong. You cannot control the mind of the whole medical industry.

3. I would also disagree with this one even if I don't agree with the staff that rejected the vaccines. They have their right to having their own opinion and that's good. I am free to disagree and I will.

View on HN

A health care worker with covid when they should not have it because of access to vaccines is a potential super spreader vector to others that are not yet vaccinated or for whatever reason can't be. So to me that goes against the hippocratic oath. At a minimum they should have to disclose they are not vaccinated so patients can choose not to be around them. Though as others have said it sends a bad message to others that need it more. E.g. if I am a 25 year old that doesn't want to risk the side effects, 70 year olds with a heart condition and asthma that also decide against it with a very different risk profile have made a decision based on the young health worker...

That being said certain people like the pregnant woman that feels we don't have enough data if there are any I'll effects on that particular group seems relatively valid.

I thought the vaccine didn't stop the spread, just the disease? So the health care workers are going to keep spreading it either way.

It hasn’t been studied yet but it’s very unlikely this is true.

Is there any previous vaccine that this has ever been true of? If it was wouldn’t that enable the disease to continue to be rampant among groups who were not vaccinated?

A quick google shows it is starting to be studied now. We just don't know yet, and its not a sure thing. It may take a future generation of vaccine to be more effective at preventing transmission.

> The science behind this seeming contradiction is relatively straightforward. Vaccines like Pfizer’s and Moderna’s are injected into deep muscle and provide so-called systemic immunity. But they may still leave areas, particularly nasal mucous passages, where the virus is relatively free to multiply. Even without making the host sick, that virus can then potentially spread through coughing or sneezing, just as it is spread by a person with a full-blown coronavirus infection.

There are no conflicting views in my comment.

Your comment illustrates what's wrong in the US and the West in general in a situation like this and has been made painfully visible this year even before this: individualism taken to the extreme, no consideration at all for the common good, no political courage to act in the common good above individuals.

The vaccine given to people has received approval from the relevant health authorities and is being rolled out as a matter of national priority in all countries. It is the best shot we have at ending this pandemic. Medical staff are at high risk and they are also critical, and people obviously look up to them on healthcare issues.

Therefore, medical staff have a duty (a concept that seems completely forgotten these days) to get vaccinated when called both for themselves, their patients, and as example to the public at large.

If that goes against their personal beliefs then they are in the wrong profession and should quit or be fired.

> Your comment illustrates what's wrong in the US and the West in general

I find comments are made much better (are more likely to influence someone’s thoughts) by just deleting these parts.

Try to communicate out of a desire to learn first, inform second, and just skip the shaming.

That's just an inflammatory reply that does not bring anything to the discussion, tbh.

I believe I made a point that is relevant and that has also been discussed in the media this year. A condescending attempt to dismiss it is poor form.

Effective communication includes phrasing arguments in ways that are less likely to trigger filters in the other party.

Lines like this make some people prone to just dismissing what you have to say because you come off as anti-US, anti-Western, pro-communist, or whatever they perceive that line to imply. It also looks like you are virtue-signaling to people who already share your point of view.

The point you make (e.g. societal concerns vs. individualism) IMO is valid. However, if the intent of your comment is to change minds it will fail because the way you have phrased it inherently puts people on the defensive.

Something I often hear at work about me that is valid here is "People rarely disagree with what you say but they disagree strongly with HOW you say it".

We both may wish people didn't care about the "how" if the "what" is correct but that's not the world we live in.

You're being dishonest by assuming the thing in question: whether the vaccine is safe. If it is in fact not safe, then medical professionals have a duty not to take it, as an example to the rest of us to avoid a politically-driven untested product. Don't forget that the manufacturers have been released from 100% of liability from any side-effect whatsoever.

I’m fine with nurses not taking the vaccine but then they can only work with people who are already infected so they can’t infect others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com