Hacker News Reader

Comment by listless | Hacker News Reader

Yes, but the important thing is that the vaccine is available. They chose not to take it. The argument that we need to keep each other safe no longer holds.

View on HN

Keep in mind there are some who genuinely can't get it, for one medical reason or another. We still need to keep them safe.

There are very few people who can't tolerate the RNA-based coronavirus vaccines. For severely immuno-compromised people, the vaccines may not be effective.[1] People who are going to have their immune systems suppressed for a transplant apparently present some problems, but can be vaccinated before the transplant or weeks afterward.

That's a nice feature of the RNA-based vaccines.

[1] https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/coronavirus-disea...

Keep in mind that that’s not gonna happen.

Unless the President said that, your message is not going to get across.

848 Americans died today marked as a Covid contributed death. There were lockdowns across 90% of the country a year ago when less people were dying from this. So we’re just past that, sorry. Good luck to them.

The goal was just to keep ICU capacity available for the normal distribution of emergencies in society. We’ve done that.

You cannot compare death and infection numbers with those of a year ago when zero people were vaccinated and the vaccine was still months away.

Whatever you are saying is just reinforcing my point?

It means we’ve all been reduced to statistics for 15 months and we have now simply reverted to a mean where the world is not compatible with immunocompromised people and good luck to them, just like before Covid, and just like during and after Covid. They had a 15 month time period where people and the state would help reduce exposure to them, and that was the luckiest time for them to be immunocompromised and thats over now.

This right here is the argument, and has been since February 2020. We got a little lost along the way, but our original social measures to reduce the spread of COVID was due to our inability to protect those who couldn't protect themselves. Now that we have the vaccines, we have no moral reason to now baby the people who refuse to protect themselves.

Children can't get vaccinated yet, though, and I do still want to protect them. It's why my wife and I, though fully vaccinated, haven't totally returned to normal, since our toddler and infant are still susceptible.

On an objective basis, the risk to children is in line with colds and flu.

Which isn't zero, colds and flu kill a few children a year.

I support you in keeping your children healthy, not trying to second guess you as a parent. But "think of the children" is not a good basis for policy here.

For children, COVID is less dangerous than the seasonal flu, and we've never mandated masks or vaccines to protect children from that.

Source for this??

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm

> The risk of complications for healthy children is higher for flu compared to COVID-19.

Kind of amazing people are still so unaware of the vastly varying relative risk among different demographic groups

Good point! And I don't want to imply that the only people left without a vaccine are those who "refuse" it. We're not there yet, but were close! Stay safe!

(what in the world is going on with downvotes in this thread? Are HNers really unable to have difficult conversations?)

Kids are more likely to die in the car/bus on the way to school than by covid. Still it's good to get them vaccinated so they don't end up killing older people.

Forcing children (or anyone really) to undergo a medical procedure for the benefit of other people is evil.

Children grow into adults. We're protecting those future adults.

Against what, a pandemic that's over by then? For more than a year, children's interests have been largely ignored, their well-being and education sacrificed for the sake of scared adults. Now we start vaccinating them, which doesn't actually benefit them but does benefit aforementioned adults, to protect them just in case they catch Covid after the pandemic is over, but not until they're old enough that this is actually a problem? Because they're suddenly that important to us? I don't buy it.

What makes you think the pandemic is over?

New variants are still emerging, and some of them are pretty worrying. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

You didn't even finish reading my first sentence.

What the fuck? You're aware that we vaccinate children for a lot of things, right?

It's not evil, it's common sense. COVID may be the first pandemic you've lived through/remembered, but it's not the first pandemic, and there are far more dangerous diseases out there we don't want coming back.

I was vaccinated as a child of things i am still immune to today.

> You're aware that we vaccinate children for a lot of things, right?

Yes. So they don't get sick, i.e. it's for their own benefit.

We also vaccinate them so they don't infect people who can't be vaccinated.

If their own health wouldn't justify a vaccination, we should stop that. They can still consent to get vaccinated out of altruism when they're adult.

Thankfully, you don't make health policy. Stay away from legislation.

Insurance might not cover some vaccinations for an adult. I know for certain this is the case for HPV; it may also be true for others.

I understand wanting to protect your kids, but here’s some statistics (United States): on average, 500 kids a year die from RSV, a respiratory virus for which there is no vaccine. Last year, 200 kids died from COVID-19, for which a seemingly safe and effective vaccine exists. I understand this probably doesn’t help much since you don’t hear and think about RSV every day for a year straight, but hopefully the vaccines are approved for children soon. Hang in there :)

As long as we still bend the curve to not overwhelm the hospital system. Even vaccinated, I may need an ICU bed from a car accident or a heart attack.

I wish there was data on fully vaccinated people being able to spread infection to others, but that won't be available for a long time.

> I wish there was data on fully vaccinated people being able to spread infection to others, but that won't be available for a long time.

There is such data. That data is what led the CDC to make this change.

Really hoping that the majority of those that haven't been vaccinated are just lazy and not scared of the vaccine. Hopefully this is enough of a carrot, but also hope this doesn't embolden those that haven't been vaccinated and don't plan on it from going mask-less in public when they previously were wearing masks.

In WA it only recently opened up to all, and even those with early access may still be working on a full course. I just finished my full course because I had early access due to volunteer work. So we're not quite through those who are choosing not to take it here. Soon tho it will be all down to choice here.

Oh, good to know.. guess I assumed that because I've heard there's more vaccines than people that want to take them in the valley that it'd be like that in most other places.

That assumes that the vaccine is 100% effective, and that everyone who is at risk can safely take the vaccine. Neither of those are true.

Pfizer and Moderna are both effective to within the mid-high 90's, was my understanding.

the thing that scares me is that Pfizer is "only" ~75% against B.1.351. I'm not worried right now, and I've relaxed a ton since before, but I'm nervous that B.1.351 and other vaccine-resistant strains will rise to prominence once enough people are vaccinated.

Wait, Pfizer is only ~75% effective against B.1.351? Can you provide a source. I was not aware of that and it's worrisome.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2104974

"The effectiveness against any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant was 75.0% (95% CI, 70.5 to 78.9). Vaccine effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal disease due to infection with any SARS-CoV-2 (with the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants being predominant within Qatar) was very high, at 97.4% (95% CI, 92.2 to 99.5). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results (Table S3)."

so it's still quite effective at preventing severe illness, which is why I'm not terribly worried, but still spooky that strains are starting to mutate away from our protection.

And so we will synth a new one in a 2 weeks, just like the last one. The important thing is that we have a cold supply distribution chain, readily available production for mRNA synthesis, and emergency authorizations, which will become regular vax authorizations when it is shown to be a new cutting edge technique and a new golden age in fighting viral infections. Go, go ASAP. Get it. It won’t be your last. But it might be the last of viral cancers, covs, hiv…

The US is solving that by not getting enough people vaccinated :/

Neither of them need to be true for a critical mass of vaccinated people to demand for restrictions to be rescinded. Eventually politicians will realize they need to get re-elected and cave to pressure. It will happen, especially with this new guidance from the CDC. I would bet there are no state wide mask mandates by Jan 1, 2022.

Edit: Minnesota will be ending their mask mandate tomorrow.

I'll be surprised if there are any state wide mandates on July 31

I cant wait for the businesses that demand masks to be disconnected from the ability to operate by market pressures

Most brick and mortar was barely viable during the best market in history so all we gotta do is wait! And also not go to them lol have fun with that gofundme

So you are salivating at the idea that businesses that cared for their employees' safety go under just because you disagree with them politically.

Very nice.

Disagreed politically? I’m talking about major markets like California opening up, not whatever happens already in Georgia or Florida. So I think these more risk averse jurisdictions will also have a few businesses that try to maintain independent restrictions without support from the state, and I think they will have lost tolerance from their entire population or market base by then (a few weeks from now). This is not political, as the Federal government and the state government will be of the same political leaning. Nice try though.

I think the parent's main objection is that you seem to be showing glee at the prospect of a business failing because it shows an overabundance of caution even after the state no longer requires it. That's... kinda petty, no? Especially when wearing a mask inside a store or whatever isn't a particularly difficult thing to do.

Not parent but although i disagree with them, i kinda get where they're coming from.

Some businesses give in to security theater and it is immensely frustrating. For example here in Belgium some shops force you to take a trolley even if you just want to buy a single item and have your own bag. They do this "because COVID". So what happens? A pile up of people at the entrance trying to move caddies over, leading to far more risk there than there otherwise would be if you left people to their own device.

Our swimming pools are open, but they closed the showers "because COVID". So what happens? People are gross, get in the water right away, don't soap up or whatever, and it's far less clean/healthy than it would be for no good reason.

Overabundance of caution is not always a good excuse.

I have no idea what happens in Belgium, but nothing like that happens here in the US. They barely ask people to wear a goddamn mask, and they are all up in arms about it.

Have witnessed Chipotle’s staff scream at a construction worker because he was using a tshirt as a face covering.

“That’s not approved!! Get out of here!”

Different things are happening

So, nothing like Belgium then, and exactly what I described: people being asked to wear a mask and not doing it.

I don’t know the circumstances of the situation you mention, but it hardly qualifies as security theatre. Also, I doubt they screamed ‘not approved’ but I guess no anti-mask narrative sounds dire enough without a little exaggeration.

You're replying to someone else than me. I'm not sure why they brought this up either

Oh, I knew. I was just pointing out that even in the scenario he described it didn't even approximate to what you describe as happening in Belgium (which to be clear, I completely believe).

I’m fine with a business underperforming when it’s due to an over-abundance of any type of decision making. Too large salaries, expand too quickly, charge too much, charge too little, ask too much of customers, whatever it is, I hope businesses which make better decisions do better.

I am expressing glee at the accelerated failure of barely viable businesses.

Its 100% Machiavellian.

Many businesses could have made their patrons equity owners but instead went for the gofundme as nondilutive capital. Many bad tastes in my mouth, so long and goodnight. Evictions restarting soon too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com