Comment by rubicon33 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rubicon33 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That's fair, my apologies for proclaiming that you don't understand. I should have known better especially on this forum.

I see where you're coming from and I don't entirely disagree with your conclusion. The post you linked, makes a strong case for not jumping to conclusions based on grey matter studies, which I think is sound advice.

That said, I maintain that given the option to get COVID or not get COVID, I would greatly prefer the later. You similarly won't find me gaming long hours, and I make sure to get plenty of sleep. In other words, taking precautions that avoid injury is generally a good idea. And FWIW, I don't find the controls in that study to be terrible? I'm not exactly an authority of statistical analysis though, so I'll trust that this is outside my scope of understanding.

Where it sounds like we disagree most is whether or not the risk of COVID causing injury is worth something as small (or large) as asking for proof of vaccination.

It just so happens that I think asking for proof of vaccination is a relatively minor thing given the possibilities of COVID.

No matter what you do, at some point you'll likely catch a SARS-CoV-2 infection (or maybe you already have). This is pretty much inevitable, just like with the other endemic common cold coronaviruses. Fortunately vaccination can greatly reduce the risk of having clinical COVID-19 symptoms.

This implies that getting the vaccine for the sake of others is far more pointless than we thought right? This would make getting the vaccine a much more personal matter, rather than a societal one.

No, it's not. Vaccinated individuals - even those who catch the virus - have far lower levels of the virus in their bodies, which means fewer chances for mutations.

> CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said recent studies had shown that those vaccinated individuals who do become infected with Covid have just as much viral load as the unvaccinated, making it possible for them to spread the virus to others.

This is why the CDC started recommending masks again.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-administr...

right, so in reality, the vaccine is little more than an invisible, permanent but intrusive mask that protects yourself, and not necessarily others...

So the vaccine is for people who want to protect themselves against a serious reaction. Makes the case for vaccination far less compelling than what most people believe.

No. It's still significantly less likely that a vaccinated individual catches it in the first place, thus dramatically slowing community spread.

Seems like that is also up for debate. In this CDC study[1], 74% of cases were in the vaccinated. Probably around 69% of the population were vaccinated, meaning the fact that more than 69% of the cases were in the vaccinated suggests that the vaccinated were even more susceptible than the unvaccinated. I'm sure there are plenty of considerations with this study, but it certainly isn't glaringly obvious that vaccination reduces susceptibility.

[1]https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm...

Thank you. The majority in this thread seem to assume a higher net effect in preventing the spread through vaccination than is really the case.

Misleading/debunked: https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/142224191618851636...

Blog discussing this from shaklee3's Twitter link:

https://inguyun.medium.com/the-provincetown-outbreak-is-actu...

Are you trying to make the claim that the vaccine makes you more susceptible to catching Covid than being unvaccinated?

You prefer death to being ill?

The new data for the delta variant shows reduced protection for unvaccinated people (e.g. public benefit) from being around vaccinated people, but still shows benefit to vaccinated people.

I'm not sure I'm getting your second sentence.

What about it? To attempt to restate it: due to the emergence of the delta mutation, it is becoming less reliable to rely on the shared benefit of others being vaccinated to protect unvaccinated or immunocompromised individuals. So the risks to all populations is increasing, but not proportionally: the speed of spread to those without the personal benefit of being vaccinated is increasing much faster.

Edit: note, I’ve seen your other link, and do wonder why that was observed for that community. Here I am referring to current CDC estimates for the country and reports of hospital utilization averages overall.

Viral loads in the sinuses such that it's transmissible. This is not the same as viral loads in the body.

Still means it's comparably transmissible right?

But it does not mean the same risk of generating new variants.

This has been debunked in a way. Viral load does not translate to how well they transmit it. Vaccinated people do not transmit covid as easily.

> You similarly won't find me gaming long hours, and I make sure to get plenty of sleep. In other words, taking precautions that avoid injury is generally a good idea.

That's awesome for you, but not what we are discussing here.

What we are discussing here is you mandating that all drivers of cars gets to bed by 10PM and have a good sleep, on the chance that lack of sleep leads to bad driving which leads to higher chances of accidents, including to those who slept well last night, yet were involved in the accident.

The post I was replying to included links to studies, in which grey matter was assessed in people who play too many video games, don't sleep enough, etc. I was merely making the point that evidence of gray matter reduction in other studies, isn't reason alone to write off the one I linked. We should probably take them all seriously (assuming sound practices).

>What we are discussing here is you mandating that all drivers of cars gets to bed by 10PM and have a good sleep, on the chance that lack of sleep leads to bad driving which leads to higher chances of accidents, including to those who slept well last night, yet were involved in the accident

Not even close to the reality of the situation, but you wouldn't be the first to take a very hyperbolic approach to it.

It is indeed rhetoric, but the underlying difference of opinion that is being highlighted is the agency that is being denied.

We are not disagreeing on the benefits of a practice ( vaccination or taking a nap ).

It's not "asking for proof of vaccination" though is it? It's denying access to restaurants, bars and so-on to those do not or will not accede to such a demand. I don't see that social apartheid as minor thing.

I had all these concerns prior to this announcement. I wouldn't say all of those are now gone. However I must point out that the vaccine, at least in the US, is not being hoarded by the elite and wealthy. It is in most urban areas being made as readily available as possible. NYC even started providing a pre-paid $100 debit card which offsets time lost from work for those who could not afford that. Perhaps I am missing it - what sort of divide is being drawn?

Please let’s not throw around words like apartheid and Holocaust in situations that don’t warrant it. Both of those are commonly used by anti-vax community to draw attention to their perceived pain at being requested to vaccinate. But they trivialise the incredible violence done to millions of people, some of the worst crimes committed by our species. Trivialising these just to score points is unconscionable.

And let me be clear, taking a shot that is safe and effective is not an unreasonable ask. Restricting access to leisure to people who are willing to take this precaution isn’t unreasonable. And no, it’s in no way comparable to some of the worst crimes committed by humans.

There's no "holocaust" in my post, please don't tar me with that brush. Apartheid, "separateness" in Afrikaans, seems entirely appropriate here. Except that there won't be vaccinated bars and non-vaccinated bars, there will just be vaccinated bars, those who refuse to show a vaccine passport will just have to go sit in the park or something.

For the record, I'm fully vaccinated, but if/when bars start demanding vaccine passports in the UK, I stop going to bars.

Don’t play semantic games. “I was just using an Afrikaans word” is a sorry excuse. We know exactly what that word means and what specific historical crimes it refers to. You are trying to evoke the memory of those crimes to make this situation look unjust. It’s exactly that behaviour that I’m requesting you not engage in.

> they will have to go sit in a park

Seems fine to me. That’s hardly the worst thing that could happen.

If you’re already vaccinated, like nearly everyone aged 30+ in the UK is and refuse to open an app on your phone to show that … I can only hope that you’re in a small minority. I guess most people just want to get on with it, rather than sticking to some principle. Im not even sure what the principle is here. Hardly anyone will be negatively affected by this mandate because nearly everyone is vaccinated.

> i stop going to bars

Cool. Parks are better for your health anyway. Good day.

Well it seems we won't agree on the substantive point, but in case you're interested, that principle is a hostility to ID cards and demands from the state to provide them in various circumstances.

And refused entry to a bar I wouldn't dream of going to the park, I head home with two bottles of decent white wine.

Good day to you too.

@jjgreen (can't reply another layer of nesting)

> that principle is a hostility to ID cards and demands from the state to provide them in various circumstances

Can't a bartender legally obligate you to show your id to prove you are old enough to drink? Your argument makes no sense.

They may refuse to serve me if I appear to be under 18 and refuse to show proof of age. I do not appear to be under 18 and have only once or twice in my life been asked for proof of age, in each case I declined, chuckled, and moved on the next pub.

Hahaha. What do you do when you’re travelling past international borders and they ask you for a passport? Do you chuckle them too?

Or let me guess, you don’t travel out of England at all so you can avoid the tyranny of passport checkers?

Or do you do the sane thing and show your passport? So then you concede that in certain cases at least the State has a compelling interest in verifying a person’s papers.

I was responding to a question about bars, not about international travel. I have no objection to showing a passport at a national boundary, I do object to doing so to buy some eggs or a glass of wine; don't you see those things as being different?

I don't see them as being different. I'll show ID when I'm asked in both places. You seem to think they're different somehow. In both cases the State is enforcing a rule for the good of society (keeping out Undesirables(TM), restricting access to alcohol from children). I think both of these are reasonable, and I'm happy to comply. You will only comply with one of these seemingly, and I can't see why.

Btw, it's beneath you to try an innocent "some eggs". We know exactly what Tesco is going to card someone for, and it's not eggs.

Then we understand each other completely.

Sure, but you can't see a reason why they should be able to check? For someone you know, besides yourself?

Apartheid was a system of separation based on essential personal characteristics. Vaccination-admission requirements would lead to separation based on behavioral choice, probability of disease transmission, and liability risk.

It seems like an inappropriate and needlessly emotive choice.

I disagree with you but upvoted for the first point about using hyperbole to further one's point. That's not acceptable and undermines those atrocities and their weight.

Both sides are doing it - left considers the entire right-wing populace as 'Fascists'. The right considers the entire left-wing populace as 'Communists' and along with it comes calling out atrocities, historical turning points, etc to further their agenda.

>that is safe and effective is not an unreasonable ask

There are more post-vax deaths recorded in VAERS for the covid vaccines over the past 6 months than for all other vaccines over the past 20 years. It's definitely not 100% safe. Sure the risk is low, but the risk of dying of covid is also quite low for a significant subset of the population. There's also absolutely zero long-term safety data on the vaccines, because it's impossible to know what the effects 3-5 years down the line of a new treatment will be when that treatment's only existed for under a year.

Go look at VAERs more carefully – not what someone on TV told you to believe it says but the actual data and its collection rules. The CDC requests reports of deaths following vaccination, even if there isn’t a suspected connection to the vaccine – they’re not going to want someone who died in a car crash but the whole point here is getting a large amount of data for analysis. The emergency authorization includes unusually broad collection because they’re trying to maximize the odds of seeing a real problem earlier.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...

“FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.”

Now, think about how broadly the vaccines have been given to hundreds of millions of people. Beyond the obvious conclusion that there is very little chance of a hidden serious complication which hadn’t yet manifested at that scale, think about how compressed that is in timing: if you take 100M people and look at that population for 6 months you’re going to see many deaths with or without vaccination. Now, remember that the elderly and other high risk populations were sensibly prioritized, so those rates will be even higher. Anyone looking at the data has to carefully adjust for things like that – it’s not just a query for the number of deaths but seeing whether it’s unusual for the cohort: are 70 year olds with pre-existing conditions dying at a different rate than they used to, not compared to a global rate covering kids to retirees?

“Apartheid” is a very serious term referring to a brutal system of racial discrimination. I think you are being extremely disrespectful to its victims by using the same term to describe people who suffer inconsequential consequences because they’re unwilling to be safe around other people.

The vaccines are available free to everyone, take minimal time to get, and extremely safe. This is an inconvenience on the level of having to wear pants on a hot day or wash your hands (which takes far more time in aggregate), and it’s only for voluntary activities which nobody needs to do to function.

Apartheid was being shut out of decent schools or jobs, packed into bad housing conditions, and being beaten if you complained about it, all enforced by a brutal prison system.

The vaccines aren’t safe for everyone. Lupus runs in my family, I already have an autoimmune condition, and I’ve already had COVID. For me, getting the vaccine would be all risk (even if it’s unlikely) with no gain.

I said “extremely safe” for that reason - there are always people who have problems with just about anything, but from a population perspective the numbers look quite good. People like you, young children, etc. are also why it’s important for the rest of us to do our part – as long as there’s so much community spread, they don’t have a safe alternative.

really? which strain/mutant of COVID did you get? There are quite some people get COVID twice, I hope you won't. One way to reduce such chance is to get the vaccine.

From https://www.lupus.org/resources/covid19-vaccine-and-lupus:

"The American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Guidance recommends that people with autoimmune and inflammatory rheumatic disease (which includes lupus) get the vaccine unless they have an allergy to an ingredient in the vaccine."

and

"In general, you should get the vaccine even if you have already had COVID-19."

Right, and my father that has lupus absolutely got the vaccine. I, however, don't - and don't want to get lupus. It's a small risk, probably the same as getting sick normally, but it's still a risk with basically no benefit to me.

Let's be clear: the primary reason the messaging has been "previously infected people should still get the vaccine" is primarily because there are a lot of people out there that think they had COVID when they didn't. I had a friend who thought he had it twice, and then finally did get it on the third time. I had another friend think he got it back in February of last year and then actually got it late last year. They're both relatively intelligent (if not ignorant about certain things), and that's just in my little friend group.

I understand why they went down that road, but there's no reason for me to take it.

If that upsets you then you should in no circumstances watch Seinfeld's The Soup Nazi, which is a pity, one of the best episodes in my view.

Oh, don’t worry - I appreciate the difference between humorous and serious usage. The Seinfeld writers were not arguing that more people should become seriously ill because the alternative was a rather minor inconvenience.

Obviously it’s not just asking. What would be the point of asking if the response to any answer was the same?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com