Definition of 'fully vaccinated' could change, CDC chief says | Hacker News Reader

Definition of 'fully vaccinated' could change, CDC chief says

sfchronicle.com

12 pointshncurious33 comments

I'm generally on board with vaccines, and am myself currently fully vaccinated, however, this has just become a condition of my employment at _a very large tech company_. So the possibility that this definition is completely negotiable and shifting like the sands makes me uncomfortable.

What about the idea that your dependency on your health protection could be affected by things like availability, quality issues, etc?

My wife is a diabetic, and I absolutely cringe at the thought that her insulin supply could be limited or tainted.

My wife didn't have a choice about being dependent on her medicine. But you did.

I don't mean to be callous but I'm not sure I'm drawing a direct line here? How does my comment imply I want some interruption in your wife's insulin supply?

> How does my comment imply I want some interruption in your wife's insulin supply?

It doesn't. And I made no such suggestion about wanting interruption in medicines.

I merely questioned the wisdom of voluntarily making oneself dependent on an uninterrupted, untainted supply of medicine.

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/2021031...

Ah! I see then we agree.

you do realize that the public school system in america had had pseudo-mandatory vaccines for a while now right?

In fact, the list of vaccines required has changed over time even!

Somehow we all managed to cope with that for the past 20 or so years….

Pseudo is doing a lot of work in your reply, as there as always been a very easy exemptions, religious or otherwise. The recent movement has been too close those exemptions (see maine & the supreme court), and so now this resembles force more than procedural hoops.

Required vaccines for school children are for diseases that affect school children. Not to protect old people or people with co-morbidities from a diseases that has little to no impact on young healthy people. Asking children to be a shield is immoral.

That, plus most of those vaccines were tested for 13+ years before becoming mandatory. Polio was an outlier at 6 years. The cost benefit analysis made sense in that case given how destructive polio is for kids.

Speaking of polio vaccines, the field trials for polio involved ~1.83 million children, recorded 518 cases of paralytic polio and demonstrated a 71% reduction in paralytic polio. The mRNA covid vaccine clinical trials involved ~2000 children and recorded no severe covid. Surely polio vaccines and mRNA covid vaccines for kids are just the same thing because people dressed up in white coats were involved in both cases.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/30169...

The polio vaccines had problems and caused it in some people. Improvements in manufacturing removed that danger.

I'm just waiting for natural immunity to be accepted. I don't understand why I have to take a second (albeit small) risk.

In Hungary, natural immunity is accepted. I have a number of friends who are fully immune from natural infection. We traveled a bit this year and they had huge hassles at borders because their immunity cards were only accepted in Hungary. Yet I, with only one J&J shot, had no problems at all, despite very likely having far weaker immunity. It seems a bit silly to force them to get vaccinated when they're already immune. I wish governments would switch tactics from trying to force people to get vaccinated to trying to persuade people to want to voluntarily get immunity in the safest way possible.

Most of the EU accepts natural immunity, few want one shot of you want to travel without quarantine.

Which is a problem that you need a shot even if you had no symptoms. I won't fly until this craze is over and I am doubly vaccinated. Certainly not getting a pass. They will demand another shot in half a year anyway and I don't even have a crystal ball to look into the future.

The EU demands only one booster shot if you have been previously infected which seems sane. Viral loads vary heavily amongst infected people.

For some the virus apparently had little effects. As variants remain a potential threat then, asking for one shot to ensure some baseline immunity seems reasonable.

As a general rule, it seems sane, yes. But I have a friend who is a nurse, she got bad COVID during the first wave, but fully recovered. Later, she got vaccinated because she was required to for work. The vaccination left her with POTS (racing heart rate and dizziness every time she stands). I'm not saying this is common or likely, but what do we gain by forcing people to get a vaccine who don't need it? Once someone has immunity, it should be their choice if they want an additional vaccine.

> but what do we gain by forcing people to get a vaccine who don't need it?

They need it. Immunity to the variants is far from guaranteed. We can’t afford to let people spread the disease. Nobody wants to end up with the USA death numbers.

This is why I hope the greenpass certs just leak. You cannot as easily withdraw them since that would mean vaccinated people would need to get a new cert.

To be honest, Covid policies are driven by fear. It is a serious disease, but the response is as bad as against the war on terror.

This will be just like the Patriot act. If you accept it they will keep pushing all kinds of drugs on you. You must resist, with violence if necessary.

My concern is that the vaccine may be affecting the ability of our immune system to fight off other diseases. See the following:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/10/26/1046432...

Doesn't mean the vaccines have weakened people's immune system. This is just the backlog of people avoiding medical treatment due to the considerably increased risk it posed.

Dupe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29051078

Reply on news.ycombinator.com