Hacker News Reader

Comment by caeril | Hacker News Reader

I bet on the order of 71% of Germans supported mandatory discrimination against undesirables in 1940 too, but here we are yet again, claiming that what a majority of the population supports is indicative of moral correctness.

If these measures don't work, like literally every authoritarian measure undertaken by governments so far, maybe Germany can put all the un-vaccinated into camps, too. We need to keep the unpure away from us.

Sure, the R0 value of the contagion amongst a 100% vaccinated population is still >1.0, and there are early indications that Omicron has a sufficiently mutated spike protein as to render the vaccine immune response ineffective, but why let epidemiological facts stand in the way of exercising power over one's inferiors?

View on HN

It's really hard to sympathize with people fighting for the "right" to infect me with a disease.

And really hard to listen to people compare vaccine mandates to the holocaust.

People saying this are being flagged, but the fact remains that COVID vaccines don't stop transmission.

The CDC themselves state that viral load is similar in fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

And yes, people have the right to refuse medical treament; that's a human right. It's there for very good reasons, and there is broad agreement among civil liberties experts on that point.

> The CDC themselves state that viral load is similar in fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

You missed a pretty important bit of that statement.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-var...

> However, like prior variants, the amount of viral genetic material may go down faster in fully vaccinated people when compared to unvaccinated people. This means fully vaccinated people will likely spread the virus for less time than unvaccinated people.

As for transmission, the CDC actually says the vaccines do help here. (Not stop, but reduce.) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythings...

> And yes, people have the right to refuse medical treament; that's a human right.

Most states in the US require a variety of vaccinations to enter public school. New York requires it even for private/religious schooling (https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/immunization/schools/sc...). Measles, DTaP, polio, etc. have widespread existing requirements predating COVID.

I didn't miss any part of that statement.

Everything I stated is factual, and I insinuated nothing else.

The person I was replying to clearly inferred that vaccinated individuals don't infect others, and that's dangerously wrong.

As for schools requiring vaccines, there is a lot to take issue with there - mRNA vaccines are different, with no long term data, for a different virus. The mandated vaccines don't require biannual top ups, and are for viruses that actually threaten children themselves - school agechildren have a near-zero mortality risk form COVID.

But the fact remains, regardless of all the weeds we could get into there, and NY state law notwithstanding, **human beings have a fundamental right to not be forced into medical treatment**.

As I said, civil liberties groups have written on this at length, and been largely ignored. I think ignoring them requires a level of stupidity bordering on evil.

> Everything I stated is factual, and I insinuated nothing else.

You left a pretty important bit out. Lying by omission is still lying.

> human beings have a fundamental right to not be forced into medical treatment

Thought experiment: If SARS-CoV-2 were as transmissible as it is currently, but 50% fatal, would you still hold that position?

Do human beings perhaps also have a right to life and a certain level of protection from others who might do them harm?

Vaccines still allow for transmission. That there may be lower infection rates for Delta and Omicron - may - isn't part of that fact, unless I claim to present a big picture, which I clearly fucking didn't.

If the virus were 50% fatal that would be a *250x* increase in mortality rate for 18-44 yos... That's the difference between dying in a pedestrian accident, and dying by lightning strike.

Even if I conceded that in such a situation, extreme measures might trump human rights - which I don't, because human rights are inalienable - would mandating vaccines actually help? Would people not voluntarily take them, and have wildly increased social pressure to take them?

And once people were mandated into taking a vaccine, how often would it be boosted: every 6 months? Would Pfizer be allowed to keep their contracts secret, and allowed to prevent other countries from sharing vaccines or making their own? Even when other countries have abysmal vaccination rates?

At what point would the vaccination boosters stop? When 90% of the population has been through the virus? Or never, because a new variant could come along? What if they start raising the prices, and only the wealthy can stay alive?

And this is all assuming that in this alternate universe, the vaccines actually prevent transmission. Which ours don't.

Fun thought experiment; I suggest you think about it a bit more.

A whole Gish Gallop worth of dodges there.

Let's see if we can nail it down. If we had a vaccine that perfectly prevented transmission, and the virus had a 50% mortality rate, would your proposed human right be flexible, or does it remain a societal suicide pact?

Is it possible for two human rights to be in conflict with each other?

That's not a Gish Gallop, those are all relevant points. If you choose not to see that, that's on you. Because there is a profit motive, and there are secret contracts, and there are profound inequalities in global distribution.

But sure, let's "nail it down" in this hypothetical fantasy, where vaccines perfectly stop transmission and the virus is orders of magnitude more lethal:

You still don't have a right to put Pfizer's goop into people who don't want it. Clear?

And, if the vaccination perfectly prevented transmission, then people who don't take it would only be hurting themselves. Your argument falls apart completely.

Except for people that can't get vaccinated, which while is a minority isn't a small amount. People have rights, unless those rights interfere with other people's rights. You don't have the right to be a walking bio weapon. I don't think you should be forced to be vaccinated, but I think society has a right to place restrictions on where you can go if you choose to remain infectious.

Re those who can't get vaccinated, once again: Vaccinations do not prevent transmission. Vaccinations do not prevent transmission. Vaccinations do not prevent transmission. Do you get it?

... A walking Bioweapon?

Please, tell me - if you can - what the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) is, in order to prevent a single case, hospitalization, ICU admission or death.

If you can't tell me that, then you have no leg to stand on to accuse people of being "walking bioweapons" (jesus h christ). And once you find any of those 4 NNTVs, I think you'll be more than a little surprised, if you have any intellectual honesty at all

Except in this thread, the hypothetical was: "where vaccines perfectly stop transmission and the virus is orders of magnitude more lethal".

Also, way to move the goal post. Why is the requirement to stop a single case?

> the hypothetical was: "where vaccines perfectly stop transmission and the virus is orders of magnitude more lethal".

As I said: "if the vaccination perfectly prevented transmission, then people who don't take it would only be hurting themselves".

- The argument already caved in on itself. The logic fail was hilarious. And you're still arguing? Pfffft, feck off.

> way to move the goal post. Why is the requirement to stop a single case?

Because you called unvaccinated people "walking bioweapons", and I'd like you to try and quantify that for yourself. Don't you like knowing what you're talking about? The NNVT exists for that purpose.

Please don't come back at me with more poorly thought through accusations; at my limit for the day.

You seem to be letting your emotions rule and not following the thread you started.

Your point was: vaccines don’t prevent infections. Even if vaccines were hypothetically 100% effective at preventing infections then there is still no point in putting restrictions on the unvaccinated since those vaccinated would be perfectly protected.

My question was, given the above what about people that can’t get the vaccine for various reasons? We’ll have “walking bio weapons” that are dangerous to them.

Basically how far does individual freedom extend with you? Does it go so far as putting other people at risk?

I suggest you try reading the thread again after getting some oxygen or something. All the answers are there.

This study (respectable institution, large sample, not yet peer reviewed) seems to claim vaccines significantly lower the chance of transmisson. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v...

It's hard to sympathize with people who still believe this series of vaccines prevents others from spreading infections and thus all measures to require compliance are fine.

See sibling comments for the citations. Vaccines significantly lower the chance for transmission.

Maybe. One non peer reviewed study. Reduces transmission some. For a brief period.

How does this translate into force everyone to take an experimental shot (with some number of side effects and deaths) every X months?

We see, right now, outside of "studies", I've seen in my own family and I'm not the only one, these vaccines do not stop transmission. They do not stop infection. Maybe they "reduce". They do not stop.

So parent posters histrionics about "right to infect me with disease" is just.. histrionics. The vaccinated can also infect him with a disease.

If you're vaccinated, how can anybody infect you with it?

How did you and a whole bunch of other people apparently hear "95% efficacy against severe disease" and somehow decide that meant "100% efficacy against infection"?

They’re really not, they don’t know you nor do they care about you.

That was just a reframing you did to make them seem malicious, when they’re mostly indifferent, afraid or misinformed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com