Comment by andrew_v4 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrew_v4 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think it's a direct consequence of media and government trying to remove free will from the equation and present taking the vaccine as the only choice people have. If you're going to essentially force people to do it, a statistically meaningless side-effect becomes more important as reason for people to push back (and the media to drum up false fears).

If you treat people like adults and let them consult their doctors and make their own decisions, the bar is much lower for safety (by lower I mean from impossibly high to reasonable). People willingly take much more risky medicines and treatments all the time and are fine with it. But if you try and force something in them, it's not surprising they push back on anything that isn't guaranteed to be perfect.

(So my point is, I think demand would be higher and concerns lower if you just made it available and let people make their own choice. But the whole pandemic has been more about forcing people to do things than about trying to do things that actually solve the problem)

[Edit- it's funny how any presence of giving people control over their bodies evaporates in a situation like this. And re the strawman that "nobody is forcing you" - if the consequence is severe limits on what you are allowed to do, that doesnt really hold up]

> So my point is, I think demand would be higher and concerns lower if you just made it available and let people make their own choice.

That's already how it works, though. Everyone is free to decide for themselves whether or not they'd like to be vaccinated.

To an extent. Presently, you won't be thrown in jail if you don't get it. But you can't go to NYU. You can't go to a wedding. You can't go to a concert, or a football game, you can't fly Qantas...

Yes. You are free to make a choice, not free from the consequences of that choice.

This is a meaningless statement. It pretty much makes the idea of "coercion" impossible.

"The mugger didn't force you give him your money. You could have chosen to say no. You being killed is just you not being free of the consequences of your choice".

Imposing consequences on people is coercing them to make the choice you want them to. None of the consequences mentioned are natural consequences, like getting sick from the disease, but additional consequences someone decided on.

IMO the position that someone should be free from all consequences is the meaningless idea.

Someone not taking the vaccine is imposing consequences on everyone else around them and society at large, raising the risk of immune-escape variants, raising transmission risk to people that can't take it for medical reasons, raising the risk even for vaccine-protected people by defeating herd immunity (J&J gives 72% protection, so you're running a fair risk if the rest of society isn't vaccinated.)

The consequences you complain of are pretty much just pricing in those externalities to the decision.

How is your comment relevant to mine?

The thrust of my argument is that imposing negative consequences (irrespective of reason) is a form of coercion. There are many things that ought to be coerced, but it is ridiculous to assert in the face of imposed consequences that people aren't being coerced or forced into taking vaccines.

People might not want to state it that strongly and the coercion isn't as strong as what criminals or the government can impose, but it's still someone or someones using their power to enforce behavior on others.

And couching that in phrases like "pricing in those externalities" doesn't change this. In fact it makes it more blatant.

By your expansive definition of coercion, everyone else would be getting "coerced" into contact with many more unvaxxed potential carriers by things like going to get groceries, getting on flights, getting tickets etc...exactly the same limitations you're claiming are coercing people into getting vaccines.

So under your expansive definition - which IMO is not the right or correct one - sure, people are getting coerced into getting vaccines. And if they aren't coerced, it's coercion against the rest of the population.

That's why your definition isn't useful and isn't used, and "coercion" is generally used for a specific set of acts.

How does one balance that with the counter desire to not want to go to a wedding, concert, football game, or plane with unvaccinated people?

It's a big shift because we have never as a society catered to the most cowardly before. Personal responsibility used to mean if you cared about something it was on you, now its shifted to forcing it on other people. This is really antithetical to western values.

"Never" is wrong. Unless you mean never until the seatbelt mandates of the 90's. Or MADD in the 80's. Or the 70's when OSHA reared its ugly head. Or the 50's with anti-litter laws and campaigns. Or prohibition in the 20's. Or never until the FDA was founded? A hundred years is a little late to complain about this "big shift."

Acting in the collective self-interest is not new at all, unless you completely ignore history.

I'm still waiting for the M1 Abrams I ordered to show up on my door step - I can't comprehend why anyone would object to me commuting to work in a tank.

Freedom is a process of give and take - the only way to have perfect freedom is to deny freedom from everyone else (since you're declaring your choices more important than those around you). We (I assume you mean America - where I was born and raised but since emigrated from) have never had unlimited freedom - rights and privileges have always been limited by the interests of others from traffic laws to gun ownership and even to mere communication.

I will say that the US has tried quite hard to be on the side of individual freedom over societal freedom and health whenever possible (which has led to some side effects) - that certainly can't be argued. But the US is not an anarchist state and the presence of laws - even of encoded privileges - dictates the lack of full freedom.

There's another level to consider that is a bit more rare in discussions like this though. You don't have the personal value to be held responsible for your actions - if you happen to be the person who mutates a new strain of the virus over irresponsible actions then it sucks for the rest of us since you're judgement proof. When it comes to the trillions of dollars in lost economic productivity that you should be on the hook for we can't collect even a fraction of that.

That's a strange desire because what does it matter? If you were worried, you would have gotten vaccinated, and unless you don't believe the vaccine works, you would be protected.

It's also something that is impossible to know because you don't have the right to inspect someone's medical records.

If a large pool of people refuse the vaccine, they will eventually breed variants that make the vaccine less effective. To wipe out Covid, we need enough people vaccinated so that the disease dies out (doesn't have to be everyone), because the virus can't find enough new people to infect.

And a small fraction of people who are vaccinated won't develop a proper immune response, so they are still vulnerable. Nevertheless, once enough people are vaccinated it will die out.

We will never wipe out covid, because it also is transmitted in a couple species of animals. We'd have to kill/vaccinate bats, civets, minks, etc.

Vaccines aren't 100% effective, otherwise it would be no problem if, say, parents decided not to vaccinate their children for schools.

>"Presently, you won't be thrown in jail if you don't get it. But you can't go to NYU."

You also can't go to NYU if you've never had an MMR. What's your point?

No one is being forced to take vaccines. It’s already announced there will be no federal vaccine passport, and many states are banning passports.

at least here, in California, you can not chose which one you get when making the appointment or when arriving at the vaccination site. Also CSU and UC will require vaccinations for return to on-campus. (Though I'm not sure that they will be able to do so until vaccines are under "emergency use" authorization, not a regular one)

It's true that you can't choose, but lots of places are listing what vaccines they're doing on specific days. You can "choose" by booking an appointment at a location that has the one you want, or by avoiding locations that have ones you don't want.

As an example, I booked my appointment specifically at a location that only carried Pfizer.

yeah, when I went (and got Moderna), I saw many people (who booked the appointment) asking staff "Is it Pfizer" and leaving when the answer was No.

My personal take was just to avoid J&J in favor of mRNA vaccines, but only because of my vague obsessive anxiety.

I have the opposite take.

It seems it would be harder for the government to insert a "biological backdoor" into a viral vector vaccine than something that runs any RNA code as long as it's encoded in a special lipid delivery system (according to my limited understanding). 1 in 250k chance of blood clots is nothing... at least compared to the anxiety of the government having a switch in my biology that could melt my brain at anytime.

That's one take. Mine was more about efficacy. J&J IIRC was around 60%, while mRNA vaccines are around 90%. Big brain vaccine scientists tell me that 60% is fine but all I see is 30% less efficacy. I wouldn't be able to feel confident/safe even after getting J&J.

That seems like a really weird decision because both Moderna and Pfizer are using very similar technologies and haven't had much negative press coverage.

yes, and a waste of appointment slot

anecdotally, I've heard that people are experiencing worse second-dose side effects with Moderna (not dangerous, just the 1-2 day sick feeling).

I wouldn't dodge it because of it, but people might.

Here in Western Washington, I've not seen any site mixing vaccines. One Walgreens might have Moderna and another Pfizer, but any given day any particular store will only have one of them.

Most places say when you sign up which they will have for your appointment, but if they do not you can often tell by looking at the eligibility. If they are offering appointments to people age 16+, they are using Pfizer. If 18+, Moderna.

Most places here also tell you on the signup form that your second appointment will be the same time and place exactly N weeks after the first. If N = 3, they are using Pfizer. If N = 4, Moderna.

Considering no ID was required to get a vaccine and the “proof” is nothing more than a date written on a card, I’m curious how they will enforce it.

Domestically that's the case but if you have(had) to travel abroad often for work or family reasons that won't be the case. I regularly(used to) visit and have family ties to a country that allows vaccine records in lieu of negative tests for entry. I'd say that's reasonable.

https://www.traveloffpath.com/countries-open-for-vaccinated-...

Right, but are you seeing how allowing vaccine records in lieu of other documentation is not the same as requiring vaccination?

None of this has made sense for months I'm just going with the flow. We get x-ray scanned through our clothes every time we fly what's dignity? It's just another airport document as far as Im concerned.

I'm sorry, I can't really tell how your comment is related to my comment? What does verifying that you took precaution to prevent the spread of covid have to do with dignity?

My mistake. I misread your response as requiring one or the other being the same as forcing. Some people find having to show a negative test or vaccination record for international travel as invasive, and to them I'd say that the real violation of privacy happens at the TSA line.

You mean you'll have to fulfil certain legal requirements in order to be permitted entry to a foreign country? Surely that's unprecedented!

Yellow Fever vaccinations in particular have been commonly required for a variety of countries, hence WHO yellow vaccination book.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com