Hacker News Reader

It’s an unfortunate reality but why shouldn’t people who are protected be able to take advantage of that? It’s older generations in broad strokes, but also people who were at higher risk, healthcare workers, people who’ve been vaccinated already abroad, etc. It’s not so simple as old vs young and even if it were I don’t see the solution as keeping everyone at a disadvantage because you are bitter that others got vaccinated sooner.

Furthermore, it is possible to take advantage of everything a person with a vaccine pass can do with a (free!) PCR test. It’s even paid for by the government for July and August for travel abroad.

Also, it’s definitely far from certain that some mutation will evaporate all of the progress made. It’s not helpful to speculate like that.

Seems like a question of reciprocity and solidarity. I'm not sure if I agree with the sentiment of OP but I do understand frustration that those of us who had an inconsequentially small probability of falling ill to this virus have lost more than a year of the prime of our lives in an effort to protect others; others who will now enjoy all the freedoms we still don't have back despite there still being next to no risk to us.

> Seems like a question of reciprocity and solidarity.

I have to disagree here. There is neither reciprocity nor solidarity involved, because you gain/lose nothing by them having or not having additional freedoms.

Don't get me wrong I understand OP's frustration and that he/she feels treated unfairly. But OP's frustration is not rational. As harsh as it sounds OP's feelings are driven by envy.

I don't see that anything in your comment precludes reciprocation of unnecessarily conservative limitations on one's life.

It could be argued that keeping everyone home instead of just those at risk was irrational.

That's a completely different discussion whether the strategy was the right strategy in the first place, and unrelated to my argument.

What I'm saying is that given the current situation, player A (OP) loses nothing while player B (the vaccinated) gains something (also called a Pareto improvement). It is not rational for player A to oppose this new situation where B gains something.

Problem with rationality is how it is defined. And yes, of course it is rational to be angry about it. It is also rational for humans to sometimes project this anger at wrong targets. It is still rational behavior because it fulfills a need, although it is classically defined differently of course.

> have lost more than a year of the prime of our lives in an effort to protect others

What, have you been dead for this last year? If not, you haven't "lost more than a year of the prime of our life". Silly hyperbole.

> we still don't have back despite there still being next to no risk to us.

Me, me, me... Yeah, who the fuck cares about risk to others, right? What you're writing comes off as the thinking of a self-centered asshole.

Yep... young people gave up a year of their lives to "save grandmas", and now that grandmas are vaccinated, are still not allowed to go on a vacation or party, even though there's a higher chance of dying in the car driving to/from the party (for healthy individuals from those age groups).

>young people gave up a year of their lives to "save grandmas"

It's disingenuous to suggest that throughout all of this, elderly people were somehow welcome to do as they pleased while the young were locked at home. Don't cast aside the immense suffering and loneliness of elderly people throughout this.

Germany here. Life of many children has become a nightmare. Good luck with any travel with PCR tests, 120 Euro each, and you need at least 2 per child. There's no vaccine for children under 12, and it's officially not recommended for those who is healthy under 16. Many families are now struggling. Even getting a non-PCR quick test which is free requires lots of additional time (this is required for any indoor activity).

The context of the above was Netherlands, where there is no widespread quick testing-on-entry as there is in Germany. There is largely no restriction in day-to-day life in the Netherlands (and even less in the coming weeks), with or without a vaccine QR code; the code would apply for access to large events or travel. Also in Netherlands the government is paying for travel PCR tests through July and August. These countries have taken quite different approaches.

You do raise an excellent point that this vaccine system excludes children.

You can currently travel (and return) freely to loads of places without a vaccination, a test, or a document, or anything. Seems a bit disingenuous not to mention that.

Also, PCR tests are available for way less than 120 EUR.

That's not to say the past year wasn't particularly difficult to families with children and young people in general.

Can you name those destinations where you can travel to/from without tests?

If you have to fly, you have to do PCR test and again on return.

PCR tests in most cities are 80-130 Euro. Only if you live in Bavaria, you may do it for free.

For Netherlands, this is the list of safe countries that do not require you to test/quarantine on return:

https://www.government.nl/topics/coronavirus-covid-19/visiti...

Granted, it is more complex to check what countries require to accept a person traveling from the Netherlands.

Italy, for one! If you ride by car, you don't need anything; going by train, you'll need an antigen test, which you could do in Munich, for free, before boarding the next train heading to the Brenner pass. On your way back, you don't need a test either way.

(Source: came back yesterday)

Sorry, I was wrong -- I thought you can freely travel to e.g. Austria, but you do in fact need to provide a PCR test or be vaccinated on arrival (just not on return). So the list may just be three countries, the Netherlands, Spain and Croatia. Mea culpa.

At least Germany itself has lots of nice and diverse holiday destinations. That's what we're doing this year.

> By default this means the day and month of birth and your initials, unless you share those among many other citizens. In that case, more data may be added

This sounds like k-anonymity, in which case the k is usually made public. Any idea what value they chose?

It's the opposite isn't it? k-anonymity would remove data until you are the same as k others, whereas this adds data (such as first name), so you are not the same as many others?

There's the privacy-utility tradeoff in data anonymisation, but most algorithms focus primarily on privacy. There usually are no parameters that promise any kind of utility, only parameters that promise privacy.

In this case it looks like they want a guarantee on both, which makes sense.

(So yeah, you're right, this definitely isn't just k-anonymity)

> It's only a matter of time before some mutant shows up that's resistant to a certain vaccine and we start from scratch.

That's not a given. There's an evolutionary space for mutations the virus that isn't endless. It seems far from clear that it can generate escape mutants that are resistant to the current vaccines, for that it would have to turn into a completely different virus.

>We emphasize, however, that enhanced transmissibility, rather than immunoevasion or greater lethality, would be considered the most potent path for the virus to become more fit and viable.

>Indeed, more-fit variants can be expected to emerge over time [...], but we believe that these will not continue to emerge indefinitely: nothing is infinite in nature, and eventually the virus will reach its form of ‘maximum transmission’

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01421-7

That's exactly right. As of today, some virologists think that we are already seeing early signs of convergence among virus variants, i.e. the same mutations appearing in different variants.

It's early speculation and there is no guarantee, but it's certainly not given that there will be a variant that forces us to start from scratch.

> My problem with the entire system is that this code is basically a free pass for all the old people we've stayed inside for a year for to go on holiday, while everyone else gets to go through all the same hoops they've been going through for months.

I don't understand. Why does it bother you if someone else is allowed to meet her friends again after being vaccinated and you are not? If they sit alone at home instead, how does it benefit you? The reason why they had to isolate themselves (being at risk of dying and infecting others) is gone. That means there is also no legal legitimation to restrict the people's basic human rights any longer than necessary.

The way I see it is that if you are going to restrict freedom's based on a status, then everyone should have had the option to attain that status before those restrictions are in place. If the government is controlling access to that status, then it is a selective infringement of rights as decided by the government.

In this case the status is vaccinated status, which in many countries is not widely available and the distribution is controlled by the government.

However at the point where everyone has equal access to the vaccination (and uptake is enough to provide herd immunity) such restrictions are unnecessary. So as soon as it's fair to put in place restrictions, they are no longer necessary.

I see the issue here but for the government it's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't, or a lesser of two evils. Keeping restrictions in place for everyone whilst waiting until herd immunity is achieved is a severe restriction of freedoms for everyone, whereas loosing restrictions for those who are vaccinated is unfair but allows society to slowly return to normal.

The vaccine QR code only matters for large events or travel abroad, so the example about meeting friends makes no difference whether you’re vaccinated or not.

In any case, while it is certainly nicer to be vaccinated, it’s possible to get free PCR tests for the equivalent access.

So no football games with friends, and no friends abroad?

PCR test cost around 100eur in slovenia, and take a day or two. Fast tests (HAT) are free, but the waiting lines are 1-3hours, because of all the groups that have to do mandatroy testings each week.

>So no football games with friends, and no friends abroad?

No, that's not true.

I've mentioned it in a few comments now, but for events within Netherlands there is no cost - you can either have your (free) vaccination check or you can get a free PCR test and have a time-limited entry code. PCR tests for this purpose are always free in NL.

And the Netherlands is covering the cost of PCR tests for travel through July and August, by which point any adult who wants a vaccine can have had one.

PCR tests in slovenia are in a ~100eur range.

Time limited is how long? I'm guessing 48 hours? So, even if free, you need to take an hour or two out of your life, every two days to be able to go to the cinema/footbal match/concert?

In slovenia, there are cases of people getting intentionally infected with covid, just to get "the papers", and to avoid the AstraZeneca vaccine (with, quoting the leader of our "expert team": "blood clot issues in a few per 100k people" - which is way more than the covid death rate in those age group).

Add to this the famous saying, that "there is nothing more permanent than a temporary solution".

Sorry to hear PCR tests are so expensive there! They're like that in NL normally if you go to a private lab in order to get a certificate for travel. If you get a government one then there's no certificate for it normally.

>Time limited is how long? I'm guessing 48 hours? So, even if free, you need to take an hour or two out of your life, every two days to be able to go to the cinema/footbal match/concert?

Certainly not saying it is seamless or not a total pain in the ass, but in reference to the OP it is wrong to characterize this as young people suffering, locked at home at the expense of old people who are free to do everything.

Yes, they're expensive. Fast tests are free, but waitint times are in the range of 1-3hours (those are ok to visit restaurants, etc.).

The government here has been moving the goalposts a lot, because we're in the "green" phase now, where just a few months ago, pretty much everything was allowed, and now they've added the vaccine/recovered/tested requirement (called PCT here) to everything. Also, we've ended the "epidemy status", so no more help for businesses, while still limiting how they can operate (requiring PCT, limiting number of people per square meters or percentage of capacity), and night clubs are only allowed to be open until midnight (making it not worth it to open, but without any help to keep the employees employed).

You don't use this system to meet your friends, you use it to go to venues, events, on holiday. Your friends probably don't stand in their front door with a QR validator in hand.

Everyone has had their lives interrupted for a year to save the old and weak, has had their life-saving vaccinations rationed towards the old and weak, and in exchange, the old and weak get to go to concerts without paying for a covid test.

Is that the thanks we get for trying to save their lives? The government isn't helping the younger generations, they didn't vote for them anyway, and the news is full of entitles people demanding to get a stamp to go on holiday before the app goes live.

Is it fair that my human rights are still restricted, while those of the people the restrictions are intended to protect aren't? It doesn't feel fair to me.

>the old and weak get to go to concerts without paying for a covid test.

Be fair now...you also do not need to pay for the test. It's a hassle, true.

> Everyone has had their lives interrupted for a year to save the old and weak

It is a bit ignorant to say that only the old and weak needed saving from covid-19. You won't know if you are strong enough against covid until you are one step away from hospitalization, whether you are 20 or 60.

> Is that the thanks we get for trying to save their lives?

What kind of 'thanks' would you expect exactly?

They have lived the year at higher risk of contracting dangerous symptom, while you were safer in comparison. Was it fair then? When you were able not to fear too much about your safety?

Frankly, forcing people to stay inside while they have been vaccinated and are at an acceptable level of risk, under the guise of 'fairness' is pretty rich.

I think he means the opposite -- that at this point (with the entire vulnerable population fully vaccinated) it's unreasonable to force anyone to undergo restrictions.

"entire vulnerable population fully vaccinated"? where?

Well the USA and some parts of Europe.

That's pretty rich of you, I wonder how you'll look at this comment when you're say 60+ yourself :) You know, one of the old and weak that we will all be

> I don't understand. Why does it bother you if someone else is allowed to meet her friends again after being vaccinated and you are not? If they sit alone at home instead, how does it benefit you? The reason why they had to isolate themselves (being at risk of dying and infecting others) is gone. That means there is also no legal legitimation to restrict the people's basic human rights any longer than necessary.

Because the young people could meet their friends and go on holidays with minimal risk[0], but they were not allowed to, because they had to "save grandma". Now grandma is "saved" and vaccinated, and they're still not allowed to go, with the risk still being minimal.

[0] in slovenia, the have been 600k-1mio (depending on the expert) infections, and total number of 4(!) people died below the age of 35, 88 below 55 (including those 4) - for comparison, average number of deaths in traffic is ~100 per year.

> My problem with the entire system is that this code is basically a free pass for all the old people we've stayed inside for a year for to go on holiday, while everyone else gets to go through all the same hoops they've been going through for months.

Would you have preferred to be one of the people whose lives were in danger because of this disease? There's a good reason they got the first vaccinations.

I'm not opposed to vaccinating the weak and elderly first, but the choice to also give them their freedoms back first leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'd like for everyone to be healthy, but also for everyone to be subject to the same restrictions.

The youth sacrificed a year of their lives for the elderly, and in exchange they'll have their freedoms restricted for longer while the elderly they've sacrificed their time for get a free pass to holidays and concerts.

You get the same freedoms with free covid tests, right? Except when traveling abroad and having to pay for the same test. This is only about convenience as far as I see, greatly helping the tourism industry. What would be your ideal solution, requiring the same tests from everyone?

I don't know where you live but in most countries PCR tests aren't free.

There are some EU countries that will have you take one if you didn't bring your result along (and it will be free of charge), but then you might need to spend a day or more in self isolation till the test result is reported back.

Yes, cross-border traveling is definitely harder and more expensive without vaccinations. Easier domestically.

I'm just not convinced that we should require the same tests even after vaccinations even if it now leads to uneven amount of hassle.

What you want is not possible. They were at a much higher risk of dying, so they got the vaccine first. Because they got the vaccine first, they get to live "normal" lives again before you do.

Yes, that's unfair.

It would have also been unfair to give the vaccine to young people first.

Such is life. Whichever choice you make here, it is unfair. There is no "happy path".

Or actually, we (here in the West) ARE on the happy path. Just have a look at what is happening in Brazil or India to see why we are the fortunate ones. We need to stick with it for a bit longer, and Corona will mostly be a thing of the past here. Many people all over the world would love to swap places with us. Also extremely unfair. Unfortunately.

Why are you talking about fairness in a context like this? Is there any actual health benefit from fully vaccinated people waiting until everyone else is vaccinated? Also, you probably also incur less healthcare costs than they do, but you still contribute to the public healthcare system. Is this also an issue for you? Remember that the elderly also have more actual urgency, as they are much more likely to have less time to live than you.