Hacker News Reader

Comment by version_five | Hacker News Reader

It's something to see the woke crowd go unabashedly totalitarian against those that disagree with them. Invoking a concept (no fly list) they would undoubtedly have argued in wrong for it's original recipients (and I agree) to target their now enemies. Populism is a horrible disease, and just because you agree with its aims in a particular instance does not make it justifiable.

My argument for why we should strongly support e.g. gay rights has always been that it's not acceptable to wait until the government opposes something I want to do. The same applied here. Whether you want a vaccine (and I have mine) or not, embracing authoritarianism towards those that disagree with you is incompatible with basically everything from the enlightenment forward, and should be opposed.

View on HN

Exactly right. I disagree with antivaxxers. There is little argument against getting vaccinated. But to advocate for this. This is just unbelievable. As you said, it's a fawning embrace of authoritarianism just because you agree on position. Yeah, I agree on getting vaccinated, but I don't agree with these despotic measures.

>There is little argument against getting vaccinated.

You would be immensely surprised as to the varying reasons and literature and science brought to bear as to why this statement is incorrect.

Longitudinal cross sectional studies, for one, comes to mind.

Never before used technology to innoculate the ENTIRE population at once, never having been used before also comes to mind.

That only scratches the surface for people objecting to being forced, does not get into nitty gritty details.

Those alone should be sufficient to not inject the entire human population on planet earth with an experimental unapproved medical treatment.

There are _some reasons_ but cost/benefit would heavily favor vaccination. That's what I'm saying. And. like I said, while I don't agree with the stand, I also disagree with the proposed draconian measure as it clearly impinges upon liberty as afforded by our constitution.

Cost/benefit to whom? The disease according to all stats around the world primarily will kill those over 75 who are already ill and frail, under that age, which for most of the world is the AVERAGE life expectancy, the chance of death is near zero.

Avg death age in US from covid is 80. thats HIGHER than the life expectancy. I am not saying who cares about seniors, but, somehow we lost the thread that old people die, and that this happens and is normal.

edit

and that we shouldnt blow up the entire planet and inject everyone with experimental drugs just to save 10,000 over 80's

Where is there never before used technology?

https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/GW&smallpoxinoculation.html

Just to add to my post above: I'm a rich man. This will not be a burden to me or to any of my peers. I oppose this out of belief about how our society should treat people, not because of some personal inconvenience. I can still do whatever I want, as can most readers here I expect. Like any authoritarian laws, this only really impacts groups that society didnt like anyway. It is the most unfair possible kind of idea. It amazes me that in one breath we hear ridiculous ideas about equity, and in another, we hear things like this that promote "hard" unfairness. All authoritarianism is hypocritical, but this is blatantly so.

This theme stretches elsewhere in the pandemic discourse. There's an interview appearing alongside this article, where they discuss the failures of the FDA in approving the vaccine for children and booster shots.

The FDA's comments suggest they're approaching, say, the boosters from the standpoint of managing perceived need rather than safety. This shouldn't be their role. If I want to purchase a delta booster from Pfizer and it's safe and there's a reasonable argument for its efficacy, why shouldn't I? To help manage public perception that the initial dosages aren't effective?

My perception is this weird authoritarianism cuts both ways, against the antivaxxers as well as the provaxxers. The common thread is the failures of authority itself. So much is being revealed in this time about the castles made of sand; why the underlying problems don't get even more attention is beyond me.

> Populism is a horrible disease

Could you explain what you mean by this? What's your definition of populism, and what does it have to do with this issue?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com