Hacker News Reader

Comment by arrakis2021 | Hacker News Reader

arrakis2021

I don’t think there is any meaningful risk to getting the vaccine. But you asked for “why” so here goes:

1. I Have had covid and got over it. The fatality rate in my age group is <.1% There is simply no necessity. I am not going to get something I don’t need just because Pfizer needs to get paid.

2. I recall a half year’s worth of politicians and media saying not to trust “a rushed vaccine promoted by Trump.” Most people are not just going to conveniently forget that messaging.

3. I have yet to see any data that explains why my natural immunity is inferior to what’s provided by a vaccine. This would be a first. The “TruSt tHE ScIeNCe” crowd needs to explain why this is being ignored.

Hope that helps.

View on HN

Regarding 3., the reason it is being ignored is because it may dampen uptake of the vaccine by people who had already had and recovered from COVID. You probably were already aware this was a reason but just to clarify and in case. It's probable that being vaccinated can improve on your natural immunity[1], though since natural immunity can be comparable to or better than immunity from vaccination, it shouldn't be considered necessary in my opinion. At least in Israel, their Health Ministry is recommending people who have already had COVID need only get one dose, as a compromise.[2]

[1]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

[2]: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israeli-study-recovered-...

Oh yes you’re right I understand that reasoning, and I don’t necessarily disagree with it - but my point is that it’s still a reason for hesitation.

That very act of avoiding the topic/suppressing it and pushing “specific science” makes lots of people - many who are very intelligent and aware - suspicious. Pretending that these people are conspiracists or of lower IQ is just counter productive, and will get nowhere.

> That very act of avoiding the topic/suppressing it and pushing “specific science” makes lots of people - many who are very intelligent and aware - suspicious.

Suspicious of what exactly? The COVID vaccines aren’t very profitable, certainly not compared to the monoclonal antibodies, antivirals etc, of which the unvaccinated are the greatest consumers. However, the data is unequivocal on their effectiveness in drastically reducing negative outcomes. The vaccines being involved in political in-group out-group dynamics is bitterly regrettable, but that is circumstantial to whether there is legitimate suspicion of the vaccines.

Suppressing something that is true makes someone untrustworthy. You don’t need a theory of their motives to explain this.

> Suppressing something that is true makes someone untrustworthy. You don’t need a theory of their motives to explain this.

That might be true if the people developing and testing the vaccine were the same people belittling natural immunity. From what I’ve seen that isn’t close to being an accurate characterization. Lumping them together is just the same behavior of which you accuse them, political. Should we be suspicious of you?

> That might be true if the people developing and testing the vaccine were the same people belittling natural immunity.

Why does it need to be confined to that group?

> Lumping them together is just the same behavior of which you accuse them, political.

Where do I accuse a group of something? Where do I “lump people together”.

> Should we be suspicious of you?

You are free to be suspicious of whoever you choose.

> Why does it need to be confined to that group?

Because they're the ones actually presenting the vaccines to the world, and being pro-vax doesn't mean being a deceitful natural immunity denier. I.e unless there is a significant overlap of [vaccine producer and vaccine approver], and [deceitful natural immunity denier] in a Venn diagram then it isn't reasonable to lay the suspicion of the deniers onto those who produce the vaccines.

> Where do I “lump people together”

By being suspicious of the vaccines due to the messaging of people who have nothing to do with the production or approval of the vaccines. That is implicitly lumping together vaccine developers, vaccine manufacturers, vaccine testers, and regulators into the same group as a bunch of politicians, journalists, and a range of other parties on the periphery all speculating or spinning things to gain a desired outcome. If that first group didn't publish the data and all I had to go on was the spin then I'd join you in suspicion, but thankfully I don't have to because I can go read the studies myself, and I was personally in one of them.

> Because they're the ones actually presenting the vaccines to the world

No, the drug developers and testers are not the ones ‘presenting’ the vaccines to the world. The vaccines are being presented by politicians and drug companies.

> By being suspicious of the vaccines

Where did I say I was suspicious of the vaccines?

> I don't have to because I can go read the studies myself, and I was personally in one of them.

Being in a study on vaccines doesn’t tell you anything about the population data, but it might create a personal attachment.

In any case, you may be able to read the papers, but most people obviously can’t, and are relying on public communicators to help form their understanding.

In this context, suppression of true information creates distrust.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com