Hacker News Reader

Comment by lprd | Hacker News Reader

I'm really struggling to understand all of this. I caught covid last year during the first wave. It wasn't pleasant experience but I survived. I'm still relatively young, the chances of covid severely affecting me (and those in my age group) are very minute. At this moment, I have no desire to take the vaccine. I'd consider taking one with more time/data, but that's just my personal opinion. To be clear, I am not an anti-vaxxer (a shame I even have to state that). The principle of this is what bothers me the most.

Now, I understand the need for elderly people and other certain groups to take this vaccine, but to simply force it amongst all age groups is beyond me. This seems very dangerous, and I don't why democracies are even flirting with the idea.

EDIT: For all those down voting, perhaps you can enlighten me?

View on HN

Because you can still catch COVID and give it to someone else. This is especially true of variants such as the SA B1.351, which appear to escape previous "natural" immunity even in recently recovered patients (3 months). You would be knowingly exposing other people to possibly deadly harm for personal uncertainty in now a fairly well demonstrated (multi-million person trial) safe procedure. The stabilized spike protein vaccines (not AZ or the original Sputnik) have shown significantly better effectiveness against those variants. It's not different from polio or measles as a school child.

So long as you're not a licensed professional or someone (in school) who is required to interact with the public, then I'd agree if you're willing to self-quarantine and mask and social distance whenever you go out, when you're free (morally) not to be vaccinated. If you want the privileges of regularly interacting in a society, however, you have to respect the rights of others in that society as well.

So, other people has the right to demand what you inject in your veins.

In the case of vaccines, yes, this is widely true.

If you are injecting a vaccine into the vein, you are purposely doing it wrong, with well known risks and health effects. That does not meet any standard of care. They are IM injections.

As long as you personally stay in your home and do not interact with anyone else non-socially distanced or without a mask on, and you're not a licensed to provide a service to the public, or attending a public institution, then I would say you should have the moral right not to be vaccinated for a highly contagious and moderately deadly virus.

BTW, if you catch Tuberculosis you will be forced into house arrest and the health agency will force you to zoom call for every pill you take once you are released after 3 months.

As far as you want to interact with them, yes.

Yes, for the same reason people have the right to prohibit you from consuming certain substances before driving: you don't have a right to put other people at substantial risk of harm.

The risk group (boomers+) have had so many advantages that I'm not inclined to risk my health with forced AstraZeneca for them.

They are doing just fine with various rent seeking behaviors in my country. I don't need to rent them my body as well.

If the virus turned out to affect younger people more than older people, do you think we'd have a similar vaccination campaign? (Yes).

In a year or two (when enough vaccines have been produced), everyone who wants one should get it. If you feel unsafe, get it. Wouldn’t it then be unethical to force people to vaccinate to protect those who have already been vaccinated? and at any rate we’d have herd immunity by then

I plan to get it but am waiting for a single long-term (1 year or more) study to be published first

> Wouldn’t it then be unethical to force people to vaccinate to protect those who have already been vaccinated?

You are not vaccinating to protect the vaccinated, but those who _cannot_ be vaccinated, or who are not responding to vaccination.

For example, people with inmmunodeficiencies and autoimmune conditions, who are immunocompromised. Not sure, what the status on pregnant women is, but I would guess neither.

AFAIK, cancer treatments are affected, and some cannot be treated as they conventionally would.

So, it is weighing the rights of people who could get vaccinated to put up with a minor nuisance, but don't want to for personal reasons, against the rights of people who cannot get vaccinated and face potential critical health problems because either not being able to get the right treatment of their underlying disease, or simply directly being more and longer exposed to a potential deadly disease for them.

Additionally, by being unvaccinated, you are part of the pool of potential virus-carriers, and the larger the pool the larger the chance of mutations. That combined with a vaccinated population + evolution means more likely a mutation resistant against the vaccination.

While I sympathize with immunocompromised, this argument fails to stick as COVID-19 is not as transmissible/contagious as many other pathogens.

Regarding pregnancy, We won’t know about the long term effects there for years

It fails to stick with you. It doesn't fail to stick with the doctors which chose the treatments. I presume they know better the implications of COVID-19 over other diseases.

Then this someone else takes the vaccine and all is good. It's nonsense to enforce a vaccine on people that are largely unaffected.

There are people who can't get the vaccine for various reasons be it allergies, immune disorders or otherwise. This is a very selfish view and I'm sad to see it upvoted.

If you live isolated on an island I could understand, but if you want to use the public spaces like school, hospitals etc then we need to calculate the risks. If technically we could prove who spread a virus then we could give you the option to not vaccinate but if you cause someone else to get infected you pay , then you will actually have to calculate the external risks as it should, people would use the masks if they knew there is a small chance they could be accused and proven guilty of murder.

> but to simply force it amongst all age groups is beyond me.

That's how vaccines work.

> This seems very dangerous, and I don't why democracies are even flirting with the idea.

You say you're not an anti-vaxxer, which I believe, but you ARE using their utterly wrong but elegantly misleading talking point. A society being "democratic" does not equal "every member of society can do what ever the hell they want".

And democracies have not been flirting with this idea, they have been implementing it, successfully, for over a century.

> I'd consider taking one with more time/data

And just to drive the point home, no you would not.

Neither of us is able to rationally assess the safety or effectiveness of these vaccines (I'm assuming you are not a professional in the field from the arguments that you are using) so more data/time is useless to people like us. Either we trust the professional and institutions, or we don't. Not having faith in institutions/professionals isn't a problem - hell I even understand it and feel a non-trivial amount of it. But let's not pretend this has anything to do with vaccines themselves.

"That's how vaccines work."

Um, not really. Not all vaccines are given to all groups. For example, covid vaccines are not approved for those under 16, and Shingrix is only for people over 55.

"Neither of us is able to rationally assess the safety or effectiveness of these vaccines (I'm assuming you are not a professional in the field from the arguments that you are using) so more data/time is useless to people like us."

But more time and data can benefit the researchers. There are plenty of examples of authorities changing their recommendations based on more data.

> Not all vaccines are given to all groups.

"Not all" does not counter the general case made.

The whole point of vaccination campaigns is to get the whole population vaccinated to eradicate the breeding ground of the disease.

That's how we managed to eradicate Smallpox, and in a lot of countries Polio, Measles, Rubella,...

Guess, why we managed only to eradicate the first, and what stops us from doing so with the others.

> But more time and data can benefit the researchers.

More time can benefit the virus to try more different mutations. I don't think you are speaking for the benefit of the researchers here.

"The whole point of vaccination campaigns is to get the whole population vaccinated to eradicate the breeding ground of the disease."

That's not entirely true either. You seem to have a habit of telling half-truths to further your own belief. You don't need the entire population to be vaccinated. Many vaccines do rely on herd immunity, but that number isn't 100%. Many fall around 85%, give or take 10%. There are also vaccines given to only very specific people - rabies for animal handlers, post exposure vaccination for rabies, smallpox for the military, etc. Many vaccines aren't able to eradicate illnesses because they are endemic in other hosts of the environment (rabies, lyme, etc).

"Guess, why we managed only to eradicate the first, and what stops us from doing so with the others."

It's specific to each one. Again, many of these illnesses have endemic sources other than people. It's an extremely complicated topic, yet you seem to be some self-proclaimed expert operating with a 5th grade understanding.

"More time can benefit the virus to try more different mutations."

Sure, pathogens mutate. There are going to be new pathogens in the future too. At this point covid is now endemic throughout the world. It isn't going anywhere, even if we vaccinate everyone. I might add that vaccinating everyone isn't even possible due to age and medical condition guidelines.

"I don't think you are speaking for the benefit of the researchers here."

Just an unsubstantiated claim now? Even the researchers have stated that there is still a lot to learn and more studies will take place over the years. If people find out that one of the vaccines shows a correlation with a rare blood disorder (as is currently developing), don't you think people should be informed about that so they can choose which vaccine to get?

> You seem to have a habit of telling half-truths to further your own belief

Thanks for the personal attack. It is a simplification, I grant you that. Simplifications are not lies if they do not distort the underlying truth, they are in fact explanatory. In contrast, bringing up complications which are unrelated to the matter at hand are rhetorical diversions.

> That's not entirely true either.

> Many vaccines do rely on herd immunity, but that number isn't 100%. Many fall around 85%, give or take 10%. There are also vaccines given to only very specific people - rabies for animal handlers, post exposure vaccination for rabies, smallpox for the military, etc. Many vaccines aren't able to eradicate illnesses because they are endemic in other hosts of the environment (rabies, lyme, etc).

All true, but all that is not at all the cases we are talking about. Neither the diseases discussed in the court ruling, nor the covid pandemic.

> It's specific to each one. Again, many of these illnesses have endemic sources other than people. It's an extremely complicated topic, yet you seem to be some self-proclaimed expert operating with a 5th grade understanding.

Again, thanks for diverting from the actual point with a personal attack. How does any of it relate to the topic (the diseases discussed) at hand in at best a hypothetical manner?

> Sure, pathogens mutate. There are going to be new pathogens in the future too.

> At this point covid is now endemic throughout the world. It isn't going anywhere, even if we vaccinate everyone.

I do not see how that should make anything better. To expand on that topic: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/two-thirds-epidemiologist...

> I might add that vaccinating everyone isn't even possible due to age and medical condition guidelines.

True, vaccinating the whole population is not possible. That doesn't stop it from being a goal. Where it isn't possible, it isn't possible. The research on vaccinating children is already being done. Yes, we do not _need_ x-nines for getting herd immunity. But herd immunity and the percentage are an oversimplification themselves of what, as you correctly put it, is a complicated topic.

> > I don't think you are speaking for the benefit of the researchers here.

> Just an unsubstantiated claim now? Even the researchers have stated that there is still a lot to learn and more studies will take place over the years.

I was expressing here a personal opinion, not stating a fact. But let's get more to the factual point:

I do not see how researchers "gain time" by us doing nothing. Time simply passes. All _I_ hear from researchers is expressing the urgency in taking measures: Quarantines, lock-downs, vaccination programs, discontent about stopping the use of AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine, against vaccine nationalism, etc... Arguing against the vaccination program, I only heard from a single guy from the Netherlands.

I think, I have substantiated my claim with the prior link with the epidemiologists urging speed. Can you do the same with your claim, and find me an association/group of virologists, immunologists, or epidemiologists which calls for more time in taking decisions?

> If people find out that one of the vaccines shows a correlation with a rare blood disorder (as is currently developing), don't you think people should be informed about that so they can choose which vaccine to get?

I totally agree, they should be informed. I think, it would be much better, when they can choose, which vaccine they get. (I would get the AstraZeneca/Oxford without a heart-beat, if that means I could get it now. And no, I do not fear to get the disease myself).

I think, the key to get vaccination rates up is to make vaccination as attractive as possible. Not being transparent about the risks is causing distrust, which does the contrary.

I am undecided about mandatory vaccinations.

When I hear that 30% of the population in the US prefers not to, I start to doubt about the liberty of having that decision. If 30% of the population doesn't want to get vaccinated, then it means that either my freedom to go to a restaurant, cinema, etc... will have to stay restricted, or people with the bad luck of poor health or genetics will suffer from the whole situation even more.

Hopefully, working more on improving the carrot rather than the stick will change things.

"epidemiologists which calls for more time in taking decisions?"

Sweden. And even your article implies that 1/3 of all epidemiologist do not agree with immediate total vaccination.

"When I hear that 30% of the population in the US prefers not to, I start to doubt about the liberty of having that decision."

Why? According to the science the covid vaccine only really protects the vaccinated since you can still be a carrier and still have a chance to infect other people. That's why they tell you to continue wearing a mask and socially distancing. The vaccine effectiveness is only measured in preventing serious symptoms, not preventing infection. Not to mention, this isn't a highly deadly disease. People in my age group are twice as likely to be murdered as they are to die from covid.

"Thanks for the personal attack."

You started it.

"All true, but all that is not at all the cases we are talking about. Neither the diseases discussed in the court ruling, nor the covid pandemic."

Tdap is part of the ones in the article and fits this paradigm. It's also the case for covid as there are non-human vectors of infection.

> > epidemiologists which calls for more time in taking decisions?

> Sweden.

Care to provide a link or anything? Or be more specific? Are you talking about a Swedish professional association?

> And even your article implies that 1/3 of all epidemiologist do not agree with immediate total vaccination

No, it doesn't. Here another line, same article: "The overwhelming majority - 88 per cent - said that persistent low vaccine coverage in many countries would make it more likely for vaccine resistant mutations to appear."

I think, I am still owed a reference to a statement of the effect of being in favour of a slower vaccination program.

> Why? According to the science the covid vaccine only really protects the vaccinated since you can still be a carrier and still have a chance to infect other people. That's why they tell you to continue wearing a mask and socially distancing. The vaccine effectiveness is only measured in preventing serious symptoms, not preventing infection.

I would say, that is oversimplified. True, we only know with reasonable certainty the effect of the vaccine on the vaccinated from the initial studies. Recent data from Israel however can make us hope, that it also reduces the transmission: https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-va... Before we risk the lives of people, we want to be more sure. That takes time, but is actually still an argument for more vaccination (more data).

> Not to mention, this isn't a highly deadly disease. People in my age group are twice as likely to be murdered as they are to die from covid.

I think we are turning here in circles. The whole shit-show is not to protect you (or me). It is to protect our parents, or potentially grand-parents. Or other people around us, we may come into contact. Maybe we have a friend who has cancer, or who knows what.

>> "Thanks for the personal attack."

> You started it.

How? I fear you are taking things a bit personal. I do not see, or at least intended anything disparaging in my remarks. I disagree with you and think you are mistaken, but that should be tolerable.

> Tdap is part of the ones in the article and fits this paradigm. It's also the case for covid as there are non-human vectors of infection.

I think, we got a bit derailed here. I understood, you were talking about vaccinations which are deliberately given to subgroups. I wanted to point out, that the ruling was not about vaccinations limited to subgroups, but ones to maximise the vaccination rate. Hence the case, and the ruling. So talking about those diseases doesn't make sense to me (e.g., rabies, lyme, smallpox,...).

If you are saying you see a similarities between Tdap and covid-19 vaccines, I think, you have put yourself a bit in an argumentatively bad spot: We have there a court ruling in favour of a government mandated "whole" (within medical limits) population vaccination program, as it is based on the guidance of expert opinion in favour of it. So I would see the similarities are pointing in favour of doing the same.

Or what did you wanted to say by pointing out the similarities?

Would you look at that...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-recommends-pause-j-j-111853384...

"Or what did you wanted to say by pointing out the similarities?"

You completely missed the point about infection vectors endemic to the environment. You're saying that vaccination eliminates the disease, which is not at all true for these types of pathogens. Even with 100% vaccination the virus will mutate in other host animals.

If you don't remember the Swedish position, then have you been following the news at all. They did not lockdown and jump to conclusions like the rest of the world. The FDA also said they want to wait for more data before approving the vaccine for children.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/sweden-avoided-covid-19...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/health/covid-vaccine-fda-...

"We have there a court ruling in favour of a government mandated "whole" (within medical limits) population vaccination program, as it is based on the guidance of expert opinion in favour of it. So I would see the similarities are pointing in favour of doing the same."

So your argument is just an appeal to authority - 'look at what the experts say!'? If we do that, then we can see that the experts aren't recommending mandatory vaccinations for covid.

"It is to protect our parents, or potentially grand-parents."

This can be done through alternative methods such as masks and social distancing. The experts also say that asymptomatic transmission is unlikely and that transmission is still possible even after vaccination. Most of the vaccine effectiveness numbers have been focused on preventing severe symptoms, not on total immunity. It's hard to advocate for mandatory vaccinations for a vaccine that 1) won't eliminate the disease 2) isn't even approved for everyone because it still needs more safety data 3) may not be beneficial for some segments of the population to recieve - children are usually asymptomatic and they say that asymptomatic people have a low likelihood of transmission, yet you can recieve the vaccine and still have a possibility of infection and transmission, thus it might not be rational to expose those people to the risks of the vaccine if it poses little to no benefit to them and the community.

> Would you look at that...

So, from the article:

"When medical countermeasures injure people in the United States, “we don’t have a lot of tolerance for that, and that tends to undermine vaccine confidence,” Marks said. "So we simply have to do whatever we can to minimize or eliminate issues that might be considered friendly fire.”"

and

"“I would much rather take the risk with the vaccine — a much smaller risk — than to risk it with COVID,” he [Seth Shockley] said."

and "“We believe there’s enough vaccine in the system — Moderna and Pfizer — for all Americans who want to get vaccinated by May 31 to do so,”"

Summary, people are wary of the vaccines, so they rather stop that vaccine, even if the risk of complications is higher with the disease. But you don't even have to because there are enough other vaccines.

> You completely missed the point about infection vectors endemic to the environment. You're saying that vaccination eliminates the disease, which is not at all true for these types of pathogens.

I was saying "vaccinated to eradicate the breeding ground of the disease.", which is not the same as eradicating the disease. It's a straw man you are fighting here. What I am hoping here is to get the prevalence down, maybe to the level of measles, whooping cough,... In other words, all the diseases we do vaccinate already.

> Even with 100% vaccination the virus will mutate in other host animals.

Couple of things. First, the number of mutations is (simplified) mutation-rate times the prevalence times the population size. Lower prevalence means less mutations. Second, mutations are more likely adapted to the host.

Lastly, we tend to be fairly ruthless about animal reservoirs and tend to cull them (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54818615)

So, yes. In cases there is a large animal reservoir, vaccination (of humans) wouldn't be the sole solution. But my point here is, I do think you are digressing, as none of those things are arguments against vaccination.

> If you don't remember the Swedish position, then have you been following the news at all.

I was confused, because I was asking for a group of experts actually saying they want to slow down vaccinating, as you claimed it was for their benefit. "Sweden" does not quite fit that group. I won't get into discussing the semi-related policy choices of Sweden.

> The FDA also said they want to wait for more data before approving the vaccine for children.

Sure, because that decision would be purely theoretical anyway, as the US still hasn't enough vaccines to vaccinate the whole adult population. Point here again, though, we won't stop vaccinating the adult population or people at risk, because vaccinating as many people as possible drives the prevalence of the virus down. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/04/vaccinati...

I guess you found the wrong article, if it is supposed to be in support that statement. It is from Oct. 22, 2020 and pre-dates the emergency approval of the current vaccines in use.

From the article: "Even as a vaccine is seen as crucial to ending the pandemic, opinion polls have shown that Americans are increasingly skeptical about the products and worry that the vetting process is being rushed."

So again, rather than purely looking at the risks vaccine vs no-vaccine, it is about building confidence.

The previous administration wanted to get it out of the door ASAP. The FDA wanted two months of safety data. They got emergency approval somewhere in December.

Apparently it didn't help easing your mind.

> So your argument is just an appeal to authority - 'look at what the experts say!'?

You said "It's an extremely complicated topic, yet you seem to be some self-proclaimed expert operating with a 5th grade understanding.", I think an appeal to authority is appropriate answer here, as it is an attack on the same. Also you claimed experts would profit from time to wait, I think it is not an appeal to authority to hear the cited group. It is direct evidence.

> If we do that, then we can see that the experts aren't recommending mandatory vaccinations for covid.

That is oversimplifying the matter. True, there are experts against mandatory vaccination. I am also not in favour. But the opinion is divided on that matter, as exemplified by the court ruling and expert opinion cited.

Wether that applies to Covid greatly depends on how things evolve.

Mass-vaccination is about reaching herd immunity, at which point even people who are unable to take a particular vaccine are effectively safe from the disease.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Protection_of_th...

The point of freedom is to be free to take decisions about your life, including injecting substances in your veins.

Would you agree with that?

What exactly is the point you're trying to make? Living in a community is about collectively accepting trade-offs on what you can, cannot, and must do. We then codify them into laws and constitutions.

Except you’re not just making decisions about your own life. If you are a carrier, and give a disease to another person when you could have been vaccinated, how are you not culpable?

Nope. I believe in outcomes not freedoms. Wage a war on drugs and you get violence and overdoses. Ban abortions and you get them done in back alleys. Enforce vaccinations and you save thousands of lives. One of these things is not like the others.

Just an added perspective from Canada. Right now the covid variants are causing more and more of the new cases and, in BC, the average age of someone testing positive for the variant is 30. To make matters worse, the variants could be more deadly. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-variants-canada-c...

Our vaccination progress is frustratingly slow and only the most elderly population (80+) have had their first shot in significant numbers. Even if you are only thinking about yourself, you should not be dismissing the risk from these new variants.

If the pandemic continues and voluntary uptake is not high enough, you better believe that vaccines will become mandatory. Being responsible sometimes means doing what we don't want to do.

Mandatory school vaccination is pretty common in most liberal democracies, no? Is this really a new idea?

The idea itself isn't new, though it does open two big questions in the context of the EU.

For individual countries and citizens, do we really want the EU making these kind of decisions as what appears almost out of the blue? The EU isn't exactly lacking in criticism.

Can we truly accept "higher forces" making this decision without running it through the people? A vaccine may be a minor thing, and obligatory vaccination was likely to be accepted anyway. But what if something much bigger and much more intrusive is going to be decided that the public just "has to deal with"?

As someone from the EU, I can't with full confidence say the EU has been transparent in their actions or reasoning. These are people with immense powers deciding the outcomes of lives. I do need transparency that in whatever period of time, with all the rather intrusive technology coming out, they won't pull any weird stunts. This doesn't help making their case.

When the vaccines had been tested properly over a long period of time, like the polio one.

Or the Smallpox in 1905? https://www.history.com/news/smallpox-vaccine-supreme-court

It is not. Almost all of them allow religious, conscience, and medical exemptions.

Only the most totalitarian regimes don't allow exemptions.

If you survived the virus, you should easily survive the vaccine, particularly the mRNA ones. You already know that you tolerate virus mRNA and the S-protein being in your body just fine. The lipid nanoparticle poses incredibly little risk to you unless you happen to be allergic to PEG. You also have no idea of how well you're maintaining antibodies to the virus, or if you can contract and transmit a current or future variant.

> For all those down voting, perhaps you can enlighten me?

It's not about covid. It's about for example measles, which is for children a very serious illness.

you don't vaccinate for yourself, nobody gives a shit about reckless people

the reason we vaccinate people like you is because you are reckless and can potentially infect thousands people

> It wasn't pleasant experience but I survived.

In that age bracket the main fear isn't outright dying, but "Long COVID", all kinds of problems affecting you for the rest of your life, or manifesting only later. Fatigue, lung problems etc.

I've heard of this, but I am curious if:

A) Is there any substantial evidence that supports it

B) If A, then how many individuals are affected?

If you have any material on this, I would gladly read it.

Personally, my mental health is horrible. Being in isolation away from friends/family (among all the other measures we have taken during this pandemic) have slowly deteriorated my mental & physical health.

A) Yes, lots. B) 10%.

https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/themedreview/living-with-covid19 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n132.long

Get the population vaccinated so things can go back to normal and people can go back to work and play without fear of long term illness or death.

"Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration." - Bene Gesserit saying

As far as I know there is no good data on "long covid" that substantially controls for confounders like obesity and age. Obese people are likely to have seemingly "long-term" effects from any respiratory problems that actually disappear if they lose weight (see for example obese asthma sufferers who often have what appears like chronic bronchitis). If you are aware of anything that provides evidence that accounts for confounders I'd be very happy to change my mind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com