Hacker News Reader

Comment by WhisperingShiba | Hacker News Reader

And thats a good thing too. Don't reward poor behavior with compliance.

It's trivially easy to understand that getting a vaccine that benefits you, as well as the people around you, is good for the people around you, much more so than it is good for someone you're protesting against.

And not getting the vaccine is potentially bad for you, and those around you, much more so than it is bad for anyone you're protesting against.

The vaccine helps your body fight the virus, and reduce the spread of the virus in your local community. That should be the key point in deciding if you get a vaccine.

That's just the thing though, isn't it. Is the vaccine good for you and the people around you? Since we know asymptomatic carriers are a thing, does getting the vaccine protect those around you? Are you even able to get reliable reporting on the side effects (of various shots) and what groups are likely to be at risk for them?

Assuming a disagreement about reality is a disagreement about values is a great way to straw man without knowing it.

That's got real "I'm not taking the safe, free, incredibly effective vaccine to own the libs" energy.

I knew it was controversial when I posted it, and I know this comment will be too. That's not my energy at all, but I do think poor behaviors yield rightfully earned distrust and consequences.

I was 100% on board with at home testing every 3 days schemes, mask wearing (even though I doubt the efficacy of most masks), but having compulsory medical procedures with a relatively untested, proprietary technology is where I draw the line.

I'm omitting the "compulsory" part, however, the "medical procedures with a relatively untested, proprietary technology is where I draw the line." is simply ridiculous. I'm fairly certain (some exceptions do exist) that you have had many proprietary drugs and medical procedures which have been far less tested than Covid vaccines. I mean, pretty much all new medicine is proprietary; and the vaccines have now been injected in billions of people for a long time and we have observed the results.

I can accept the argument "this is where I draw the line" if and only if in pre-Covid you would have refused most of what doctors would prescribe you. If you want to draw a line between pre-Covid modern prescription drugs (all proprietary, many also with weird new tech, all tested on far less people than the vaccines) and the current vaccines, you're going to need a substantially different argument than "medical procedures with a relatively untested, proprietary technology". Heck, even simply saying "I don't believe that such procedures should be compulsory ever for any reason" would be a much more reasonable argument than that.

>I'm omitting the "compulsory" part, however

It's intellectually dishonest to chop up what he says, even though you admit it, to make it easier to argue against.

This is such a silly mentality. Deciding to not do something that should be done just because someone who is incompetent tells you to is the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You aren't 'punishing' those in power by not taking the vaccine. You are punishing every other person in society.

Even though vaccinated are still transmitting and catching it? Seriously, who am I punishing.. if you want it then get it. According to your logic that is how to prevent COVID except when it isn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com