Hacker News Reader

Can you elaborate on these "political reasons"? I've heard other people say this, too, but I can't follow the reasoning. What is the government's ulterior end result of "booster for everybody" besides increased public health?

The only conspiracy I can at least follow along is the one where government is funneling money to their buddies at evil BigPharma, however there are plenty of easier ways to do this than a nation-wide vaccination campaign.

View on HN

All the restrictions that were imposed in my country hit everybody equally. Which doesn't make sense from the risk reward perspective. For people in age group 0-30 the risk of death is close to zero. For age group 80+ is more than 15%. Orders of magnitude difference. The government tried to do a lock down for 65+, but there was a huge backlash (why they can go out but I cannot?), so the ordinance only said it's a recommendation for 65+ to stay indoors. Only thing they did is "Hours for Seniors". Only 65+ can go to shops in morning hours - 10-12 am, even though it was illegal.

There is a strong argument that boosters are pointless for young people (or even bad due to small myocarditis risk for young males), but politicians are scared of making mandatory vaccinations for 50+ only.

(Based on an interview with a well known sociologist)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com