Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Can you explain employers and schools who previously had vaccine mandates (hepatitis and measles are examples I’ve seen for schools and healthcare workers) and what makes this vaccine different?

If the argument is “mandates are wrong”, we’ve had them for over 150 years. If the argument is it’s not safe, its FDA approved and has been administered over a billion times.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/vaccine-mandates-in-s...

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/guides-pubs/downlo...

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolesc...

EDIT: @LurkingPenguin: While this is a good point, the data shows that vaccination protects against an intense infection resulting in the need of ICU and ventilation care (protection having been infected by COVID and recovering from previously does not).

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e3.htm

View on HN

Most of the "vaccine mandates" provided as supporting examples for absolute COVID vaccine mandates have exclusions for those who have existing immunity.

For example, individuals who have had a laboratory-confirmed measles infection or can otherwise prove immunity do not need to be vaccinated against measles according to the CDC[1].

Over 44 million Americans have already had a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and the science indicates that people who have recovered from infection have significant protection not inferior and perhaps superior to vaccine-based immunity[2].

The vast majority of people who have had a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the US can prove it as easily as people who have been vaccinated can prove they were vaccinated.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/faqs.html

[2] https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...

These vaccines are also more dangerous. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-pauses-use-mode... Finland and Sweden have now halted Moderna vaccination for under-30s due to side effects.

Not sure there are any conclusions to draw from this information tidbit. Nordics halted Moderna, true, but Pfizer is offered instead of Moderna.

The conclusion is that because the approval process was expedited, the safety risks Moderna posed to under-30s were not discovered until millions had already taken it. I.e. these vaccines have gone through a much shorter time period of testing than previous ones.

I am not familiar with the Nordic legal environment, but this could be that because Pfizer has a better safety profile than Moderna, so they'd rather use Pfizer. At the same time, both Pfizer and Moderna are much safer than raw covid according to all direct data that I've seen.

not if you're below 30

Haha, not sure about below 30, but below 18 both covid and vaccines have minuscule negative impact. Instead of arguing whether the impact is 1:100,000 or 1:90,000 (AHA, vaccine mandates for children are a moral imperative because after adjusting for adverse effects short term numbers lean oh so slightly in favor of vaccines), perhaps drop the conversation as irrelevant altogether? There are other concerns in life...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com