Hacker News Reader

> We don't have a COVID problem, we have a health problem. Has the government been encouraging people to take vitamin D, get fresh air, exercise, and get to a healthy weight? The rhetoric has been sit down and get the jab.

I'm disabled and it's not my fault. I'm a healthy weight, I have a vegetarian diet high in vegetables, I do my rehab exercises every day and see the doctor frequently. And yet my condition is progressing, because that's the nature of it.

My comorbidities aren't a moral failing.

Would you advocate for government mandates on everyone else for your sole benefit? Or do you feel that you're a representative sample of the high-risk group?

There are many government mandates for the benefit of disabled people. We generally think this is ok.

Which of those mandates require other people to lose their jobs for not getting a chemical injection?

You can get weekly tests.

Having to undergo the inconvenience of weekly tests, to be allowed to do a large fractions of jobs, which makes you undesirable to employers as well to do the cost of testing, is discrimination.

Yes, it's discriminating against people who are putting the lives of those around them at risk.

I'm fine with that.

COVID vaccines don't stop transmission enough to provide herd immunuty, so don't reduce the risk posed to others.

In fact not getting vaccinated makes it more likely one will acquire natural immunity from an infection, and people with natural immunity are less likely to transmit the virus, so it may actually be more protective for others if a higher percentage of the population doesn't get vaccinated and acquires natural immunity.

If not enough people get vaccinated, transmission won’t be stopped.

If the virus has a fertile easily infectable unvaccinated population to continuously mutate in, herd immunity is unlikely to be achieved.

> If not enough people get vaccinated, transmission won’t be stopped.

The comment above yours literally just explained that the vaccine does not stop transmission of the virus! You're repeating catchphrases from 12 months ago when the government was insisting the vaccine stopped the spread of the virus; when they knew perfectly well that wasn't true!

There's this thing called convalescent immunity. Maybe don't speak of what you know nothing about?

Yes there are ... You have established that a greater than zero consideration for the people with disabilities exists and that is great.

The question is whether there is a what is the greatest cost you are willing to impose on everyone to provide a small benefit to some specific people.

And, no, you don't get to claim children will do just fine going without face to face contact with other children their age for years for some nonquantifiable benefit that might or might not accrue to a person at risk.

I actually don't think I'm a representative sample. my comorbidities are unusual and I'm probably not at significantly higher risk for covid complications. I was just taking issue with the parent's implication that most health problems can be solved with diet and exercise. a lot of us struggle hard to stay healthy but our bodies betray us.

Undoubtedly it cannot be in your case, but exceptions are not so useful when talking about mediocristan populations

i certainly would. If me getting a vaccine helps this person, a bigger win.

I’m sorry and you’re right, it’s not your fault. But that doesn’t disregard what the person you were replying to was saying. The government has not encouraged taking vitamins or exercise. In Colorado they banned people from going hiking in national forests, state parks, etc. Which is ironic given that’s a great way to socially distance

>Has the government been encouraging people to take vitamin D, get fresh air, exercise, and get to a healthy weight?

The government has been advocating for exercise and general health for decades. Despite this, we remain one of the least fit countries in the world. If the government cannot convince someone to take a safe, free shot that might save their lives, how can you reasonably expect them to convince someone to exercise?

Because obesity will kill them. That's the message that's not being said in a COVID context. Healthy at every size is one of the biggest health lies in America

>Because obesity will kill them. That's the message that's not being said in a COVID context.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in America, and obesity is the #1 risk factor for it. This message has been clear and emphasized since the 1970s. Despite messaging, obesity has gotten worse, not better. You are wrong and oversimplifying the problem if you think COVID can be solved by telling people to lose weight.

That message can be reinforced in the context of COVID, given obesity is the leading preventable risk factor for COVID.

Instead, a huge number of people are laser focused on rationalizing the imposition of mandates, especially on extremely low-risk group, even children.

It's really not an either-or situation. You can encourage people to be generally healthier, and also encourage them to get vaccinated (or force them).

And if you compare the two, the vaccine is much closer to a magic cure - it's very dependable and takes "1 month" to work (assuming a two shot vaccine). Whereas encouraging people to be less obese is both incredibly hard (as decades of campaigns prove), and even in the best case scenario, would take a long time for most people.

People should definitely be encouraged to get vaccinated too, I agree. But there should be no institutionalized discrimination against the unvaccinated, just as we shouldn't discriminate against the obese to encourage them to eat less.

if i'm fat, my fat won't jump onto you and kill you.

COVID vaccines don't stop transmission, so don't protect other people.

For individuals this is true, for populations this is false.

No, it is true for populations as well. Herd immunity via vaccination is not possible:

https://twitter.com/eliaseythorsson/status/14240115421950238...

This is a misleading interpretation of the data in Iceland. According to the parent link, 18 people are hospitalized there, compared to ~80,000 in the US. Adjusted for population, that is a >75% lower overall hospitalization rate. Infection rates in unvaccinated are also more than 2x vaccinated in Iceland. Unless you misinterpret the data, it is undeniable that vaccines reduce transmission and incidence of severe disease.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-954838214391

The higher rates of death and serious illness among the unvaccinated has nothing to do with what I was arguing. You are willfully misinterpreting my argument.

I was arguing that given Iceland, at almost full vaccination, is having its biggest COVID wave yet, means full vaccination does not provide herd immunity, and thus every one will eventually get exposed to COVID irrespective of the vaccination rate.

So you can't make a sound argument that other people's decision to get the vaccine is increasing other people's chance of being exposed to COVID.

> I was arguing that given Iceland, at almost full vaccination, is having its biggest COVID wave yet

By ignoring the denominator you misinterpret your own data. Iceland’s ‘biggest wave yet’ had >2x fewer cases and 4x fewer hospitalizations than the US Delta Wave when adjusted for population. Fewer cases means fewer chances to get infected.

Can you help me understand why you choose to compare USA vs Iceland (which is fraught with confounding factors)

when Iceland (early) vs Iceland (now) seems like a perfectly reasonable and better comparison?

>Can you help me understand why you choose to compare USA vs Iceland (which is fraught with confounding factors)

I didn’t, the parent brought up Iceland. What are the confounding factors?

>Iceland(early) vs Iceland (now)

Ok, at its peak Iceland had 2x the number of new daily cases during its delta wave as its prior wave owing to the increased transmissibility of Delta. Despite this, hospitalizations during their delta wave were 1/3 of the prior wave. Unvaccinated Icelanders were also 2x more likely to be infected during their delta wave. It is undeniable that vaccination reduces hospitalization and infection rate.

>>It is undeniable that vaccination reduces hospitalization and infection rate.

This is completely irrelevant to my argument, yet you continue to repeat this point in an exercise of bad faith sophistry.

My argument is that vaccination does not provide herd immunity, and that thus the virus will continue to propagate until every one has been exposed to COVID, irrespective of the vaccination rate.

The point I'm making is that the argument that being vaccinated protects others is unsubstantiated. If anything, not being vaccinated leads to infection happening sooner, which leads to immunity much stronger than that conferred by vaccination.

Your argument is weak. The only evidence you have provided that vaccination cannot lead to herd immunity is a quote tweet about Iceland which has been discredited. US experts argue vaccination can confer herd immunity. If you disagree present data that supports your case.

> COVID vaccines don't stop transmission, so don't protect other people.

They reduce transmission.

Not enough for herd immunity:

https://twitter.com/eliaseythorsson/status/14240115421950238...

So with or without full vaccination, it's inevitable that eventually every one is exposed to COVID.

>Not enough for herd immunity

The tweet you cite notes that only 18 people are hospitalized in Iceland. Adjusted for population, the US has over 4x as many hospitalizations. This is a huge success and 100% due to the high vaccination rates. Iceland was able to achieve this voluntarily. The US cannot.

That again has nothing to do with my argument, which is about the risk that being unvaccinated poses to others. If you are equally likely to be exposed to COVID if many are unvaccinated as if many are vaccinated, then you can't argue that other people deciding to not get vaccinated puts you at any additional risk.

> If you are equally likely to be exposed to COVID if many are unvaccinated as if many are vaccinated

That’s not true. According to data YOU provided, unvaccinated people are more than 2x more likely to be infected than vaccinated. Less vaccination leads to more infections and more hospitalizations.

But vaccinated people transmit the virus at a sufficiently high rate to prevent herd immunity from being established.

Without herd immunity, the virus will propagate, even if it's at a slower rate, making it inevitable that every one is eventually exposed to the virus.

Do you have data to support this claim?

Government sponsored marketing campaigns do not compare to mandates for vaccines in the workplace. Until the government mandates food quality standards and people start arguing about whether they can buy/sell Doritos or Pepsi in schools, workplaces, as part of foodstamps, etc as part of their freedoms, then it's a false equivalence.

>Until the government mandates food quality standards

That's a great idea but if you believe that the government mandating workplace safety standards is massive overreach, then how could it possibly tell people what they can and cannot eat?

Not advocating for anything here, just pointing out (what seem to me) logically comparable things.

cynically advocating for a position you don't actually hold is one of the weakest ways to make a point, and the people who resort to it are almost invariably bad at judging what is and isn't comparable

be bold enough to advocate for a position here and defend it

Thanks for the feedback

> > the pro-choice people seem to overlap heavily with the pro-mandate people. I don't think you can logically hold both of those positions

Well, not from the "governments are either allowed or not allowed to tell people to do things" angle.

From the "what do medical experts suggest we do to minimize unnecessary death and suffering" point of view it's possible to be consistently on the same side though.

It's definitely not consistent from the bodily autonomy angle, though. And that's a pretty major angle, considering how deeply we're connected with our bodies.

Personally, I think anybody who advocates for abrogation of bodily autonomy is an absolute monster, whether an anti-abortionist, a pro-vaccine-mandateist, or an anti-recreational-druggist.

Our bodies are all we have. This is the most important freedom we hold.

"If you want to keep this job you'll stick this needle in your arm" is no different, morally, from "If you want to keep this job you'll stick my dick in your mouth." And tens of thousands of HR departments tasked with preventing the latter will now rush to enforce the former. Absolutely disgusting.

There's a difference between asking people to do something and asking them to do nothing though. In general, bodily autonomy is important and this the best abortion defense in my opinion as an anti abortionist.

While there is a difference, bodily autonomy is about the right to make decision around your own body, not the right for your body to run on it's own. So I would argue it is not a good argument as you say.

But your body runs according to the dictates of nature, not solely your will.

For example, my body often breathes even when I don't particularly will it. I also cannot stop the process of digestion with my mind. If I were to ask for the 'right' to stop digestion by asking a doctor to sever my intestines, it would be good for the government to then charge such an irreputable doctor with assault and maybe murder.

I believe you are misinterpreting that data. 5% of COVID deaths listed COVID as the only cause. The other 95% list additional causes. In some cases, those are pre-existing conditions like "hypertensive diseases" or "diabetes", but not all of them are. Some of the most common causes are things like "influenza and pneumonia", "respiratory failure" and "cardiac arrest".

Pneumonia, respiratory failure and cardiac arrest are symptoms of COVID. They aren't pre-existing conditions that make COVID worse. They are just more specific explanations about the exact mechanism by which COVID killed the person.

So what?

At any given time, someone the population is weak in some way.

Had there not been covid, most of those people would be alive.

Cause of death is covid. That covid killed them more easily is a different matter.

Today, those same people can get a vaccine and are extremely likely to avoid the hospital and death.

I am consistently shocked at just how willing so many of us are to blame others. And that is all.

> except the pro-choice people seem to overlap heavily with the pro-mandate people. I don't think you can logically hold both of those positions

It’s about how your personal choices impact other people. To be deliberately shocking to help show why these are different:

You can’t cough on me and give me an abortion. I can’t choose to have an abortion and that creates a super spreader event that gives everyone around me an abortion.

You can choose not to get vaccinated, be an asymptomatic spreader, and pass Covid on to other people. Your choice of taking the vaccine or not taking the vaccine can impact lots of people, and even hasten their death.

Societies have various laws that prohibit certain choices you make that can have a negative impact on others. For example see drunk driving, or someones choice to use speech to inflame a riot. Where those lines are drawn, or should be drawn, can certainly be up for debate. Reasonable people can disgree

COVID vaccines don't stop transmission, so this is not about protecting other people.

Exactly. In addition to that, this recurring argument that compares vaccine mandates to mandates prohibiting "bad" acts is odd.

Legally speaking, mandating the vaccine is forcing a person to act (get jabbed) through no act of their own. Mandating abortion bans is prohibiting an act (getting an abortion). So the two scenarios aren't comparable.

> Mandating abortion bans is prohibiting an act (getting an abortion).

Banning abortion means de facto forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

For variants other than Delta they greatly reduce transmission, with Delta they still reduce it, but not nearly as much.

they reduce it by a nonzero amount, which I believe to be an appropriate threshold, given the lack of common, significant side effects

you probably have a different threshold, which is okay, but it is likely one you will have to persuade the majority to adopt, if you want to get your way

It doesn't reduce it enough to provide herd immunity, meaning the virus will continue to propagate until every one has been exposed. See Iceland's experience:

https://twitter.com/eliaseythorsson/status/14240115421950238...

The Oxford Vaccine Group says herd immunity through vaccination is infeasible now:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/10/delta-variant-...