Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomp | Hacker News Reader

4) You oppose tyranny. People should be free to make their own choices. By going out unvaccinated, I'm not putting anyone in danger, except those who choose to be endangered (not isolating / sheltering at home, unmasked, unvaccinated).

5) You oppose discrimination. I'm immune but not vaccinated. Where's my immunity certificate?

View on HN

> By going out unvaccinated, I'm not putting anyone in danger

Yes, you are.

* while a vaccinated person can spread the virus as well, current understanding is that it does so less than for an unvaccinated person.

* vaccinated people can get sick, even if there's a much lower chance

* vaccinated people can still have children who are not vaccinated

None of this is absolute. It's a matter of percentages, chances and what not.

Your claim is an absolute, and it's absolutely wrong.

> * vaccinated people can still have children who are not vaccinated

They should just vaccinate them then. I don't see why it is fine for the children to be unvaccinated but not for tomp.

It’s not that it’s “fine” for children to not be vaccinated, it’s that it is literally not possible to vaccinate anyone under 12 in the US right now legally.

My suggestion is that this should be changed.

Clinical trials for that are ongoing. Earliest possible approval is October.

They are putting disproportionately and unjustifiably lot of effort in trying to verify the safety of the vaccine for children compared to teens or older. It should have been available for them along with the rest of the population.

The argument that "there haven't been enough clinical trials in order to allow children to take the vaccine" is similar to the whole "there hasn't been FDA approval!!".

Also, just came to my attention that you ignored the "You oppose discrimination. I'm immune but not vaccinated. Where's my immunity certificate?" part of tomp's argument. Why do you want him to take the vaccine despite the fact that he is not endangering others?

Google “should I get the vaccine if I already had COVID?”

Not sure what your point is. The general scientific consensus so far seems to be that there is no evidence to justify the need for people who already had COVID to get vaccinated. If anything it is worse, as only around 15% of the world population is vaccinated. By getting vaccinated while you already have COVID antibodies you take the vaccine from someone who does not.

The CDC recommends getting vaccinated if you’ve had COVID unless there are medical reasons not.

As for there not being enough vaccines around the world: I’m taking the US centric view, sorry, because the whole context of this topic is about NYC etc.

We’re drowning in vaccines here, they are expiring while sitting in a fridge, and the logistics are currently just not there to rapidly move cold-store vaccines to another country.

I see that you’re suffering from the common affliction of having a strong opinion about something you have no clue about: vaccines have not been approved for those younger than 12.

Now that your knowledge level has increased, will you please stop endangering others and take the vaccine?

Thanks!

> vaccines have not been approved for those younger than 12

And I suggest that this should be changed. Chill and try to be less toxic please.

You don't know if I have taken or not the vaccine so please don't assume.

Apologies. I mistakenly thought that I was replying to the one I originally replied to, who stated they weren’t vaccinated.

I have no empathy and patience left anymore for those people.

I love how people repeat propaganda without thinking, claiming both “vaccines are 100% safe” and “we need to wait to make sure vaccines are safe for children” without even noticing the logical contradiction...

I love how people like you think that building a strawman is effective at making an argument: nobody claims vaccines are 100% safe. They are not.

But when the risk of adverse effects of a vaccine is lower than 0.001% and the risk of adverse effects of not having a vaccine is many orders of magnitude higher, the choice is obvious.

It makes total sense to stagger the testing and deployment based on age groups, especially for COVID-19: due to the insane mortality rate a high age, the benefits of vaccine far outweighed the risk of not doing it.

The fact that these elderly automatically functioned as a huge test group for further deployment for others was a very convenient additional benefit.

Likewise, it also makes total sense to be more cautious for kids. The younger they are, the higher the consequences.

Try again.

I want to drive a car without the tyranny of speed limits, I’m not putting anyone in danger except those who choose to be endangered (driving a car, walking a street). I oppose discrimination. I know how to drive a car, where is my driver’s license?

I want to be able to date without the risk of HIV, seems we have to abolish gay bars and make homsexuality itself a crime.

In many states, it’s a crime to have unprotected sex while knowingly having HIV and not informing your partner. That covers things right there.

Do you have any other examples to demonstrate your ability to make absurd analogies?

Not anymore… California repealed its law, and Illinois is in the process of doing the same. You can knowingly transmit HIV to someone in California without telling them anything, and its not a crime.

No it doesn't; you are not having fundamental rights such as free movement abolished. Now have another go at comprehending the analogy now that its basic mechanics have been explained to you in simple terms and consider that your inability to grasp the analogy demonstrates a moral or intellectual (or both) failing on your part that you seriously need to address. You are demanding the abolition of the right to free movement, god only knows what you'll want next.

I think if you build your own roads, then you are free do drive a car at what ever speed you wish. Since the state has laid down roads, it makes some sense for the state to put speed limits in place for what ever reason.

But state didn't own anyone's body, so the state really have no right to force vaccinations.

People are still free to make their own choices. The government isn’t holding you down and jabbing your in the arm. What’s happening here is that you are not being allowed to engage in particular aspects of society based on your choices, the same way you are prohibited from smoking in certain areas, from entering a bar if you are under 18, or driving your car on the wrong side of the road. Human societies are a trade off in which you forfeit certain individual rights in exchange for collectivist benefits you wouldn’t have otherwise. You aren’t “opposing tyranny”, you are simply angry you aren’t being allowed to leech off of society.

The fact that your movements will be stored centrally and a profile developed has far more reaching implications and concerns that bad actors (future elected officials and their minions) will use this power to the detriment of society.

I agree that limits to freedoms are necessary but this is too extreme.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com