Comment by aristophenes | Hacker News Reader

Comment by aristophenes | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't understand your first point, what does that have to do with the immune system getting geared up for an infection months or years later?

The second point, your worst case scenario doesn't even address the worst concerns of people who don't want to take the vaccine. They don't trust that spike proteins are the only things in the vaccine. The worst case scenario is not that the vaccine acts like the virus but that it acts different than the virus. And then you get conspiracy stuff like new world order types deliberately introducing things to the vaccine that will make it harder to have kids or stuff. And unfortunately our trusted organizations telling white lies to the public to elicit the behavior they want hasn't helped this trust issue.

But this is all moot for two reasons. First, because someone actually did a study and found that the immune response from infection was ~10 times stronger than from the vaccines[0]. Second, because we've already selected for a virus that is highly contagious and can infect vaccinated people, and will thus continue to be selected to specifically infect vaccinated people since most potential hosts are vaccinated at this point.

In summary, we might have to all be infected, nearly all at once, for this to be over, or just get lucky and the dominant strains will be attenuated to the point where they aren't a major problem.

[0] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.29.454333v1

> The worst case scenario is not that the vaccine acts like the virus but that it acts different than the virus.

Worst-case scenarios should be constrained by your knowledge. I know what's in the Pfizer vaccine, so my worst-case scenarios have to be constrained by that. But sure:

“Worst-case”, somebody's poisoning the vaccines. This leads to severe side-effects from some batches, which the statisticians take entire weeks to notice because they're all asleep on the job. Vaccine roll-out stops pretty-much everywhere, but nobody's able to trace down the saboteur. A dozen new, highly-transmissible and virulent variants emerge, with different antigens to each other and to the vaccines, so vaccinating the populace becomes intractable.

You see that this scenario is incompatible with “everyone gets vaccinated”. The bad stuff largely comes from “people don't get vaccinated”; the only way everyone*'s going to get vaccinated is if the vaccines don't suddenly get poisoned or otherwise become dangerous.

* except the immunocompromised, and others who don't get vaccines for health reasons.

I can't do a “worst-case scenario” where the vaccines are already poisoned, because they're not. It'd be bloody obvious if they were, given how big a sample size the statisticians have to work with. That would be even more blatantly fictional than my “tens of millions die every year” scenario.

I got the vaccine, and recommend others to do so. The reason I have this debate is because the people who are so offended by anti-vaxxers constantly straw-man them instead of being sympathetic and trying to understand them. Like you are straw-manning me, implying that some obvious poison that immediately makes people sick is what I am talking about. Telling people they are stupid is not going to win them over, and forcing them to vaccinate will entrench their opinions and convert more to their point of view.

Try to understand, they don't trust the government, they don't trust the CDC, they don't trust Pfizer and they don't trust you. Yes you have an official list of ingredients that someone with an appropriate degree can understand. But what's the stuff in the actual needle that you are so intent on making sure gets injected into them? Seems perfectly reasonable to them that some PhDs in some pharma companies are really worried about global warming and a coming Idiocracy. Why not put something in the vaccine that reduces fertility for the unwashed masses?

Maybe it sounds crazy to you and me, but a lot of people hear experts saying seemingly ridiculous things (like needing a vaccine for a disease you already got and recovered from), see how everyone falls in line with the narratives as they come and go, watch mainstream news and social media restrict all alternative points of view. And they don't trust the system. And its clear to them that this system they don't trust, also doesn't like them. From that perspective, of course they don't want the people who lie to them and hate them to have the authority to stick some chemicals and DNA (I know, mRNA) in their arm.

The only thing that'll convince those people is for authority figures to become trustworthy.¹ I don't see that happening any time soon.

So who're left? The people who are concerned about vaccines because other people are, rather than because of (misplaced in this instance, but not in general) scepticism of the claims of untrustworthy, powerful people. Those people can be reassured by thought experiments, because they're assuming dangers due to incompetence moreso than malice.

¹: I suppose an argument from game theory might, but only if they think the vaccine-poisoning enemy is in it for the long run, so the threat of the truth coming out in (e.g.) 20 years would be enough to dissuade them from something like that. If they think the enemy's plans are shorter-term, or they can afford the loss of face, I don't think there's any way to convince them short of convincing them that the industry behind “non-addictive” heroin, thalidomide (developed by a Nazi war criminal!!) and the contaminated blood scandal is totally cool and in no way out to get you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com