You’re not allowed to walk into public places spraying bullets in every direction, but that is what you are potentially doing when you’re not vaccinated. Piss off with the juvenile freedom argument; freedom stops where your nose does and does not cover fatal contagions.
But you are allowed to breathe peanut dust which could kill the right person. Freedoms extends to the entire public space and you breathing is a natural process. Society tries to balance the freedom of everyone.
Spraying bullets in public spaces like the woods are common and are legal, welcome and governed by local laws. Similiar topless beaches areas exist where other areas of the beach do not allow this. This balances the needs of different groups.
This seems to be a more and more common view lately. There is free and widely available medicine that works extremely well. Take it or don’t but the “bullets” are not going away. That’s why it’s called a pandemic.
Vaccinated people spread the disease, too. Maybe once the mRNA vaccine’s side effects have subsided — specifically brain fog & lethargy — people will be able to have less emotional, hyperbolic retorts to shitposts.
This logic is shete. There are already several classes of people who either can’t or shouldn’t take the vaccines: kids under twelve, immunocompromised, and people who have severe reactions to vaccines. It’s weird but I happen to have family members in several of those categories.
According to this shete logic, we should close all elementary schools, daycares, and nursing homes.
Also it is psychotic to vaccinate kids right now. We don’t have a good sense of the long term side effects of the vaccine. We usually figure that out with long term trials lasting years.
Yes we do. There are hundreds of vaccines, none have long term side effects. There was some suspicion regarding one flu vaccine and narcolepsy, but it's been mostly ruled out and is entirely due to the peculiar etiology of that disorder, not the vaccine as such (the virus it targets is the known trigger for that autoimmune disorder).
You are full of shit. There is a chance of heart inflammation. Now you might say that COVID-19 is worse but that is forcing someone to basically play roulette on themselves for society.
Not getting vaccinated is playing roulette as well, and the odds are clear. The point is that not getting vaccinated is not just playing roulette with your own head, but with others'.
There is no need to argue with you anymore. First you say that all vaccines are safe. Then when I find examples of them being unsafe, you say it was a manufacturing mistake from 60 years ago. Then when I find another from 1998 you argue that bowel obstructions are not long term and that it was 3 decades ago. Then I find another from only 4 years ago and you say that it is only one example. Then I go and find two more. Keep on walking back your claims.
Note that many of these vaccines were already approved and not under emergency use authorization. Ever wonder how many side effects vaccines under trial have and how many never make it out of trials?
Himinlomax - “Yes we do. There are hundreds of vaccines, none have long term side effects. There was some suspicion regarding one flu vaccine and narcolepsy, but it's been mostly ruled out and is entirely due to the peculiar etiology of that disorder, not the vaccine as such (the virus it targets is the known trigger for that autoimmune disord…”
“Ah, at last, one relevant example. So you're right, there is one case where a vaccine had negative side effects, long term. Out of hundreds of vaccines. Doesn't change much to the argument, statistically.”
dagsdgfhdgdj -
“You have to go back over 60 years and even then only find issues caused by manufacturing problems, i.e., cases where not the intended vaccine was injected...”
Nope, wrong again. Go look at the game theory of taking a vaccine for a trivial example.
Suppose there are 100 people. Suppose a virus has a 10% chance of killing you and the vaccine has a 1% chance. Now give the vaccine to 99 people. Should the last person take the vaccine? The virus is gone. Their probability of dying from the virus is now 0% instead of 10%. But their probability of dying from the vaccine is still 1%.
Different people taking the vaccine at different times have different risk profiles.
That is just the hypothetical example. There are actual real life examples of this with Covid-19. Some Scandinavian country was giving the vaccine to the elderly. Apparently they were already fragile and taking the vaccine pushed them over the edge and killed them.
Now if you are one of those people should you take the vaccine or be forced to? Your best bet is actually to have everyone else take the vaccine and NOT take it yourself.
Some people say that this is an example of a tragedy of the commons and that the health community pushes everyone to take the vaccine even if it is NOT in their specific self interest to do so. Everyone wants to be last. No one wants to be first. What do you actually think these vaccine mandates are pushing?
Go look at the Cutter incident. It killed 10. Seems like the long term side effect that you claim does not exist.
“ In 1955, some batches of polio vaccine given to the public contained live polio virus, even though they had passed required safety testing”
Go look at the rotavirus incident.
“ The results of the investigations showed that RotaShield vaccine caused intussusception in some healthy infants younger than 12 months of age who normally would be at low risk for this condition.”
What a terrible example. You're taking as an example a case where a production defect resulted in contamination by the disease itself. The long term side effects are not caused by the vaccine as a vaccine, they were those of the disease a faulty vaccine contained. It boggles the mind how anyone can find this a compelling argument, but that's par for the course for antivaxers.
Your second example is a short term effect, not a long term one. Wrong again.
> Go look at the Cutter incident. It killed 10. Seems like the long term side effect that you claim does not exist.
Not to mention what could happen if someone messed up and injected bleach instead of the vaccine.
You have to go back over 60 years and even then only find issues caused by manufacturing problems, i.e., cases where not the intended vaccine was injected...
“In 2017, the Philippines stopped a school-based dengue fever vaccination program after reports of complications and several deaths linked to the product called Dengvaxia. The French manufacturer, Sanofi Pasteur, later stated that the vaccine posed a risk to those without prior infection from one of the disease’s four stereotypes. The result was that it actually increased the risk that a child would contract a more severe form of the disease.”
Is 4 years recent enough?
Edit: Read more carefully, the paper cited 4 examples. One was Cutter.
“ Next on the list is the widespread vaccination against the childhood disease measles. In the early 1960s, thousands of children received a particular inactivated vaccine, so if they were exposed to the actual measles virus, they developed atypical measles. This was characterized by high fever, severe abdominal pain and lung inflammation and often required hospitalization. That particular vaccine was eventually withdrawn.
The final case deals with the vaccination attempt of the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Children treated with one type of vaccine in the 1960s developed an enhanced form of the disease, often suffering from high fever, bronchopneumonia and wheezing. Dozens ended up being hospitalized and two died. There still is no vaccine to prevent RSV infection, but scientists are working hard to develop one, according to the CDC.”
Ah, at last, one relevant example. So you're right, there is one case where a vaccine had negative side effects, long term. Out of hundreds of vaccines. Doesn't change much to the argument, statistically.
There was another in the CDC article. So 5 so far. And these were vaccines that had passed trials unlike the current COVID-19 vaccines that haven’t even passed trials yet. The COVID-19 vaccines in the US are ALL under emergency use authorization. Many, many vaccines don’t pass trials because of adverse side effects. Also these 5 were what I found with just a little research.
It’s as if you don’t actually know whether the vaccines are safe since no long term trials have been completed. And that even after trials have been completed, some vaccines are actually unsafe and not just due to manufacturing defects.
Use your brain people. Don’t let someone else think for you. Keep your agency.
Feel free to take the vaccine if you choose but do your own research first. Don’t be affected by the screamers. When someone tells you something, go find out if it is actually true. When someone tells you something absolute then be extra careful.
When someone approaches a topic without an open mind be extra cautious. Signs of this are not looking for evidence, not considering evidence, not allowing for the possibility that we just might not know, and not allowing for a more complex reality.
“ This report highlights three unusual manifestations of this syndrome: 1) transient hepatitis, 2) persistence of pulmonary lesions for several years, and 3) occurrence of excessively high measles hemagglutination-inhibition antibody titers.”
Everything you say, I go find evidence against and you find no new evidence. You just walk further and further back.
- no vaccines with long term side effects
- wrong, how about Cutter and rotavirus
- only one vaccine with long term side effects
- wrong, how about these 2
- only 60 years ago
- wrong, how about 23 years ago
- only manufacturing defect
- wrong, how about RSV, and these two others
- only 30 years ago
- wrong, how about 4 years ago
- only got you measles
- wrong, you got atypical measles
- no long term effects
- wrong, did you not read that there were multiple deaths? Did you figure out what atypical measles is? Did you find out about it’s long term side effects?
- I never said vaccines were safe, just that there were none with long term side effects
- wrong, you must mean short term side effects that fade away? Hahahaha. Deaths, paralysis, lesions, bowel obstructions that left untreated can kill you, etc…
Do you know what long term side effect even means? It doesn’t mean that the side effects only begin showing up later. An effect that occurs immediately and persists is still a long term side effect. A bullet to your brain has a long term side effect. It’s action is immediate but it’s side effects can be long lasting.
If vaccines are not safe, then why are you arguing that people take them? Also if you can’t tell if they are safe, how can you argue that taking the vaccines is safer than getting COVID-19? How can you argue definitively that the vaccines are safer for everyone? Why are you arguing against waiting for results of long term trials?
When faced with more and more evidence, instead of learning more, you stay incurious. You argue with so much self assurance but do not bother researching and thinking through a situation that is not fully known.
“In 2017, the Philippines stopped a school-based dengue fever vaccination program after reports of complications and several deaths linked to the product called Dengvaxia. The French manufacturer, Sanofi Pasteur, later stated that the vaccine posed a risk to those without prior infection from one of the disease’s four stereotypes. The result was that it actually increased the risk that a child would contract a more severe form of the disease.“
You do know how the vaccine works right? The virus still infects you and quite possibly reproduces for awhile. It is just that your immune system has been primed to recognize the virus and kill off cells that have been infected. In other words, vaccinated people can still spread the virus.
In fact, in some cases, the virus will break through meaning that not only do you get the virus but you show symptoms. Also there are cases of vaccinated people infecting other vaccinated people.
Wearing a mask isn’t driving drunk. That is exactly what we are asking children to do while the trials are under way. Your shete logic means that you think that children under 12 who don’t take the vaccine should not go to schools. Or are you advocating that we force them to take the vaccine too? Ha! Not even the CDC recommends that.
I didn't compare wearing a mask to driving drunk, I compared wearing a mask to wearing a seat belt. I compared driving drunk to not getting vaccinated.
Can you not read? I am comparing wearing a mask to NOT driving drunk.
I am saying that wearing a mask is being considerate of others just like not driving drunk. It is also like wearing a seatbelt in that it can protect you!
Masks help in protecting you from COVID-19 and from you spreading it. If unvaccinated people wear masks what is your problem?!
It's an easy thing to protest, stop spending money on places that want to operate in a jurisdiction that treats you this way. Let NYC become a progressive paradise and move somewhere that respects its citizens.
I can move anywhere, but most people can’t. This is absurd to force people to vaccinate with a premature product when a year ago we were just going to close things temporarily to “flatten the curve” and allow the virus to spread. A lot of gaslighting has been going on since then, and I feel really bad for its victims. Also, business owners again are faced with the onus, which just makes them take the brunt of the vitriol vs. shitty politicians
Ah - so, we should not change our behavior based on new knowledge? Perhaps we should also allow chemical companies to dump toxic pollutants because we called that living before the clean air and water act...
This happens when a comment is down-voted. Sometimes it happens to non-mainstream opinions being voiced, but more often it's because the comment is considered by others to be inflammatory or unsubstantiative. See the site guidelines for more details https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I see. It only appears to happen thus far when it goes against the mainstream thought process. I'm sure I'll see some apolitical usage at some point, but I've yet to witness it. Thank you for your answer.
If you are trapped there, maybe you have no choice, but why would one willingly visit a place that treats you like that? I have my vaccinations, but I would not spend money anywhere that wanted me to prove it. I go out and spend money to relax and enjoy myself, if businesses start to pretend that I owe them something for the privilege of spending money there, I just won't do it. People lose their minds because its covid, but in normal circumstances, invasion of privacy is a pretty good reason not to want to eat or work out somewhere.
Different people have different opinions on things. Different communities have different values. And in general, people who live in a big city tend to have a lot of trust in institutions (governmental and otherwise) and in prioritizing the needs of a community above the theoretical liberty of the individual. People who live in more rural areas tend to be the opposite.
The way I see it, it's not that I owe the business something for the privilege of spending money there - it's that the business offers me additional value, the knowledge that other people there are vaccinated.
You don't have to see it this way, but it's possible for people to see things differently from how you see it.
Unless it's the local baptist church telling you about the evils of the gays (right trusting institutions), or Jeff Bezos telling you that the institution which is Amazon is actually a good thing for humanity (left not trusting institutions).
Point is, these sorts of generalizations are generally wrong. Populist distrust of institutions exists on both political poles.
Home schooling your children too? School districts requiring vaccination records for all sorts of things. What invasion of privacy. It’s like they do it to protect other children.
Not sure I see the equivalence between showing my kids have their childhood vaccines before they go to school and having to flash a vaccine pass every time I go to the gym or to eat. Honestly I would rather it was mandated by government and then assumed (not that I think that is compatible with western rights) than having to show this kind of information on request to businesses as I go about my day. Most people here would agree with that for most things - people get bent out of shape about advertising cookies. But somehow covid has made everyone hysterical and no indignity can be too much in the name of preaching and checking for covid orthodoxy. I find it really weird.
ID requirements are draconian, but they are a straightforward reaction to the anti-vax reality-denying hysteria. As a libertarian, this whole saga has been a double punch. When people throw out "freedom" as a justification for their terrible (and ultimately herd-following) decisions, it maligns and undermines the concept itself. And it lets the authoritarians step in and take credit for what should have been common sense.
Drawing a parallel with a different topic - while I believe that drugs shouldn't be illegal, that doesn't mean I would support my friends being junkies. And I certainly wouldn't encourage people to become junkies just to spite the current unjust laws.
> Most people here would agree with that for most things - people get bent out of shape about advertising cookies. But somehow covid has made everyone hysterical and no indignity can be too much in the name of preaching and checking for covid orthodoxy. I find it really weird.
It's actually not that weird. Tracking cookies haven't caused 600,000 deaths and countless hospitalization. The "indignity" of showing your vaccine card, like the indignity of showing your ID to get into a bar or buy alcohol?
I originally brought up home schooling because people seemed shocked anyone can ask for vaccination records. I'm bringing up ID here because you seem shocked that businesses ask for additional records.
> if businesses start to pretend that I owe them something for the privilege of spending money there, I just won't do it.
I've started doing exactly the opposite. Almost every place I spend my money these days caters to reasonable people and quickly kicks out most of the riffraff.
I don't want to go to a business that caters to all customers, because being surrounded by annoying people is miserable. I want to spend my time in an enjoyable ambiance. "Take all comers" places typically aren't that. Doubly so for any place that serves alcohol.
Yeah. I'm not looking for a religion. I'm just looking for a good relaxing time. Last thing I want is to deal with some mouth breather don’t tread on my rant while trying to enjoy a cocktail.
I agree with everything you say. But to me, it's places that cater to "riff raff" that I associate with carding for a vaccine pass or whatever. Same as I would never go to a bar that would search my bag, or fly with a discount carrier that treated me like a cow being herded around. The fact that I only go to places that treat me respectfully and as an adult is exactly why I would not go to a place that makes me go though a bunch if hygiene theatre before I can pay them. To me, covid has made lots of businesses reinvent themselves under the economy airline model where customers are stuck with them and have to do what they say, and all service inadequacies are "for your safety". If that's why makes you feel better, none of my business, but it's not for me.
Unfortunately, even flying business won't spare us from the "no tread on me" man-child espousing on his manifesto on security theatre in the airport security line. I'm happy to pay extra for an environment without that sort of exhausting neck beard bullshit polluting the ambiance. Avoiding exactly that crowd is why I TSA PreCheck and pay for lounge access.
Your thinly veiled racism is on full display. ID laws are inherently racist, and have been leveraged by white supremacists for decades to keep POC from enjoying the rights and privileges they're guaranteed under the law.
Businesses requiring vaccination IDs are de facto discriminating against POCs and other minorities because POCs and minorities are less likely to have ID, and less likely to be vaccinated.
I understand the emotion behind this because I often feel the same way myself. But these businesses already have other requirements from their customers that everybody seems to accept just fine, so it’s not easy to draw a hard line here. No shoes or shirt? Sorry, not serving you. Underage? Not coming into my bar.
ID laws are inherently racist, and have been leveraged by white supremacists for decades to keep POC from enjoying the rights and privileges they're guaranteed under the law.
Businesses requiring vaccination IDs are de facto discriminating against POCs and other minorities because POCs and minorities are less likely to have ID, and less likely to be vaccinated.
You know what would make requirements like these much more palatable? If there was accommodation for people who already have antibodies (ie have been infected and recovered).
There is mounting evidence that people with naturally acquired immunity will not significantly benefit from further vaccination [1][2].
This is a strong argument for strategically targeting our vaccination efforts toward the highest risk populations: elderly with comorbidities, and people who have not yet been exposed and lack access to modern healthcare facilities (ie rural populations in developing countries).
Alas, the rhetoric from the top continues to maintain that - as quoted in the article - this is a "pandemic of the unvaccinated".
As a final point, what also seems to be chronically left out, is the evidence that combinations of existing medicines have proven very effective at preventing hospitalization and death [3].
> There is mounting evidence that people with naturally acquired immunity will not significantly benefit from further vaccination
It's a shame that the mainstream, public health narrative unquestioningly rejects prior infection as an alternative. All substantial evidence points to the contrary.
That said, identifying those who've legitimately had a prior infection is rather difficult. There are no "I had a PCR-confirmed infection" passports. A large and unlikely fraction of the population believes they were infected, with endless anecdotes about illnesses at the end of 2019 and beginning of 2020. Furthermore, vaccination really shouldn't pose any undue risk to this population.
But, yeah, it's yet another unforced error by public health officials (or at least the media interpreting and relaying their guidance) to outright reject this argument.
Well put, and I definitely agree on the point of verifying prior infection being difficult and costly.
> Furthermore, vaccination really shouldn't pose any undue risk to this population
I also agree with this point, and it is corroborated by the primary sources I've reviewed. That said, I want to emphasize that it doesn't seem like a good tradeoff to waste vaccines on people who will not benefit from it, especially if that precludes vaccinating the most vulnerable populations across the world.
Interesting. Thank you for pointing that out. The "less developed" comment may have turned some people off, but FWIW:
> An EU Digital COVID Certificate is a digital proof that a person has either 1) been vaccinated against COVID-19, 2) received a negative test result, or 3) recovered from COVID-19.
Regarding negative tests it says:
> The Member States agreed on a standard validity period for tests: 72 hours for PCR tests and, where accepted by a Member State, 48 hours for rapid antigen tests.
I wonder what the standard is for "recovered from COVID-19"; i.e. whether it's just a doctor's diagnosis, contemporaneous PCR confirmation, or subsequent antibody test.
91 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 162 ms ] threadSpraying bullets in public spaces like the woods are common and are legal, welcome and governed by local laws. Similiar topless beaches areas exist where other areas of the beach do not allow this. This balances the needs of different groups.
According to this shete logic, we should close all elementary schools, daycares, and nursing homes.
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2021/07/31/coronavirus-teen-...
Note that many of these vaccines were already approved and not under emergency use authorization. Ever wonder how many side effects vaccines under trial have and how many never make it out of trials?
“Ah, at last, one relevant example. So you're right, there is one case where a vaccine had negative side effects, long term. Out of hundreds of vaccines. Doesn't change much to the argument, statistically.”
“I never said all vaccines are safe.”
dagsdgfhdgdj - “You have to go back over 60 years and even then only find issues caused by manufacturing problems, i.e., cases where not the intended vaccine was injected...”
That's still 3 decades, and that was short term”
Suppose there are 100 people. Suppose a virus has a 10% chance of killing you and the vaccine has a 1% chance. Now give the vaccine to 99 people. Should the last person take the vaccine? The virus is gone. Their probability of dying from the virus is now 0% instead of 10%. But their probability of dying from the vaccine is still 1%.
Different people taking the vaccine at different times have different risk profiles.
That is just the hypothetical example. There are actual real life examples of this with Covid-19. Some Scandinavian country was giving the vaccine to the elderly. Apparently they were already fragile and taking the vaccine pushed them over the edge and killed them.
Now if you are one of those people should you take the vaccine or be forced to? Your best bet is actually to have everyone else take the vaccine and NOT take it yourself.
Some people say that this is an example of a tragedy of the commons and that the health community pushes everyone to take the vaccine even if it is NOT in their specific self interest to do so. Everyone wants to be last. No one wants to be first. What do you actually think these vaccine mandates are pushing?
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....
Go look at the Cutter incident. It killed 10. Seems like the long term side effect that you claim does not exist.
“ In 1955, some batches of polio vaccine given to the public contained live polio virus, even though they had passed required safety testing”
Go look at the rotavirus incident.
“ The results of the investigations showed that RotaShield vaccine caused intussusception in some healthy infants younger than 12 months of age who normally would be at low risk for this condition.”
All from the CDC.
Your second example is a short term effect, not a long term one. Wrong again.
LONG TERM means years down the road. We already have a year of experience with this vaccine, starting with the participants of the first trials.
This is just silly.
Not to mention what could happen if someone messed up and injected bleach instead of the vaccine.
You have to go back over 60 years and even then only find issues caused by manufacturing problems, i.e., cases where not the intended vaccine was injected...
EDIT: 23 not 32 years
More examples.
One from 2017 with several deaths.
“In 2017, the Philippines stopped a school-based dengue fever vaccination program after reports of complications and several deaths linked to the product called Dengvaxia. The French manufacturer, Sanofi Pasteur, later stated that the vaccine posed a risk to those without prior infection from one of the disease’s four stereotypes. The result was that it actually increased the risk that a child would contract a more severe form of the disease.”
Is 4 years recent enough?
Edit: Read more carefully, the paper cited 4 examples. One was Cutter.
“ Next on the list is the widespread vaccination against the childhood disease measles. In the early 1960s, thousands of children received a particular inactivated vaccine, so if they were exposed to the actual measles virus, they developed atypical measles. This was characterized by high fever, severe abdominal pain and lung inflammation and often required hospitalization. That particular vaccine was eventually withdrawn.
The final case deals with the vaccination attempt of the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Children treated with one type of vaccine in the 1960s developed an enhanced form of the disease, often suffering from high fever, bronchopneumonia and wheezing. Dozens ended up being hospitalized and two died. There still is no vaccine to prevent RSV infection, but scientists are working hard to develop one, according to the CDC.”
It’s as if you don’t actually know whether the vaccines are safe since no long term trials have been completed. And that even after trials have been completed, some vaccines are actually unsafe and not just due to manufacturing defects.
Use your brain people. Don’t let someone else think for you. Keep your agency.
Feel free to take the vaccine if you choose but do your own research first. Don’t be affected by the screamers. When someone tells you something, go find out if it is actually true. When someone tells you something absolute then be extra careful.
When someone approaches a topic without an open mind be extra cautious. Signs of this are not looking for evidence, not considering evidence, not allowing for the possibility that we just might not know, and not allowing for a more complex reality.
So basically that vaccine didn't work to prevent measles. That's not a long term side-effect. That's a vaccine not working.
Here is the quote for the RSV vaccine that I had included in the earlier comment.
“Dozens ended up being hospitalized and two died.”
Also can you not at least do your own research on atypical measles? Pulmonary lesions for several years sounds long term to me.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7468641/
“ This report highlights three unusual manifestations of this syndrome: 1) transient hepatitis, 2) persistence of pulmonary lesions for several years, and 3) occurrence of excessively high measles hemagglutination-inhibition antibody titers.”
Everything you say, I go find evidence against and you find no new evidence. You just walk further and further back.
- no vaccines with long term side effects
- wrong, how about Cutter and rotavirus
- only one vaccine with long term side effects
- wrong, how about these 2
- only 60 years ago
- wrong, how about 23 years ago
- only manufacturing defect
- wrong, how about RSV, and these two others
- only 30 years ago
- wrong, how about 4 years ago
- only got you measles
- wrong, you got atypical measles
- no long term effects
- wrong, did you not read that there were multiple deaths? Did you figure out what atypical measles is? Did you find out about it’s long term side effects?
- I never said vaccines were safe, just that there were none with long term side effects
- wrong, you must mean short term side effects that fade away? Hahahaha. Deaths, paralysis, lesions, bowel obstructions that left untreated can kill you, etc…
Do you know what long term side effect even means? It doesn’t mean that the side effects only begin showing up later. An effect that occurs immediately and persists is still a long term side effect. A bullet to your brain has a long term side effect. It’s action is immediate but it’s side effects can be long lasting.
If vaccines are not safe, then why are you arguing that people take them? Also if you can’t tell if they are safe, how can you argue that taking the vaccines is safer than getting COVID-19? How can you argue definitively that the vaccines are safer for everyone? Why are you arguing against waiting for results of long term trials?
When faced with more and more evidence, instead of learning more, you stay incurious. You argue with so much self assurance but do not bother researching and thinking through a situation that is not fully known.
https://www.immunology.org/public-information/bitesized-immu...
The point is that they're much less likely to do so, just like being sober makes you less likely to commit vehicular manslaughter.
I didn't compare wearing a mask to driving drunk, I compared wearing a mask to wearing a seat belt. I compared driving drunk to not getting vaccinated.
I am saying that wearing a mask is being considerate of others just like not driving drunk. It is also like wearing a seatbelt in that it can protect you!
Masks help in protecting you from COVID-19 and from you spreading it. If unvaccinated people wear masks what is your problem?!
Round up everyone who has AIDS.
Regardless, I agree with the sentiment professed above that this is an unconscionable action at the government level.
It may be that you're predominantly clicking on and reading inherently political topics, and so getting a disproportional view of the trend.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/08/03/world/covid-delta-va...
The way I see it, it's not that I owe the business something for the privilege of spending money there - it's that the business offers me additional value, the knowledge that other people there are vaccinated.
You don't have to see it this way, but it's possible for people to see things differently from how you see it.
Unless it's the local baptist church telling you about the evils of the gays (right trusting institutions), or Jeff Bezos telling you that the institution which is Amazon is actually a good thing for humanity (left not trusting institutions).
Point is, these sorts of generalizations are generally wrong. Populist distrust of institutions exists on both political poles.
Drawing a parallel with a different topic - while I believe that drugs shouldn't be illegal, that doesn't mean I would support my friends being junkies. And I certainly wouldn't encourage people to become junkies just to spite the current unjust laws.
It's actually not that weird. Tracking cookies haven't caused 600,000 deaths and countless hospitalization. The "indignity" of showing your vaccine card, like the indignity of showing your ID to get into a bar or buy alcohol?
I originally brought up home schooling because people seemed shocked anyone can ask for vaccination records. I'm bringing up ID here because you seem shocked that businesses ask for additional records.
I've started doing exactly the opposite. Almost every place I spend my money these days caters to reasonable people and quickly kicks out most of the riffraff.
I don't want to go to a business that caters to all customers, because being surrounded by annoying people is miserable. I want to spend my time in an enjoyable ambiance. "Take all comers" places typically aren't that. Doubly so for any place that serves alcohol.
Businesses requiring vaccination IDs are de facto discriminating against POCs and other minorities because POCs and minorities are less likely to have ID, and less likely to be vaccinated.
To me, it seems that showing your home address to every bouncer is a much greater invasion of privacy than vaccination status.
Businesses requiring vaccination IDs are de facto discriminating against POCs and other minorities because POCs and minorities are less likely to have ID, and less likely to be vaccinated.
There is mounting evidence that people with naturally acquired immunity will not significantly benefit from further vaccination [1][2].
This is a strong argument for strategically targeting our vaccination efforts toward the highest risk populations: elderly with comorbidities, and people who have not yet been exposed and lack access to modern healthcare facilities (ie rural populations in developing countries).
Alas, the rhetoric from the top continues to maintain that - as quoted in the article - this is a "pandemic of the unvaccinated".
As a final point, what also seems to be chronically left out, is the evidence that combinations of existing medicines have proven very effective at preventing hospitalization and death [3].
[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf
[2] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
[3] Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) https://scholarlycommons.henryford.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
It's a shame that the mainstream, public health narrative unquestioningly rejects prior infection as an alternative. All substantial evidence points to the contrary.
That said, identifying those who've legitimately had a prior infection is rather difficult. There are no "I had a PCR-confirmed infection" passports. A large and unlikely fraction of the population believes they were infected, with endless anecdotes about illnesses at the end of 2019 and beginning of 2020. Furthermore, vaccination really shouldn't pose any undue risk to this population.
But, yeah, it's yet another unforced error by public health officials (or at least the media interpreting and relaying their guidance) to outright reject this argument.
> Furthermore, vaccination really shouldn't pose any undue risk to this population
I also agree with this point, and it is corroborated by the primary sources I've reviewed. That said, I want to emphasize that it doesn't seem like a good tradeoff to waste vaccines on people who will not benefit from it, especially if that precludes vaccinating the most vulnerable populations across the world.
Despite its name the EU COVID vaccination certificate also covers recording PCR-confirmed infections and even tests.
It is open source so even less developed countries like the US could use it if they wanted to.
> An EU Digital COVID Certificate is a digital proof that a person has either 1) been vaccinated against COVID-19, 2) received a negative test result, or 3) recovered from COVID-19.
Regarding negative tests it says:
> The Member States agreed on a standard validity period for tests: 72 hours for PCR tests and, where accepted by a Member State, 48 hours for rapid antigen tests.
Source: https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-re... (reformatted from original as plain text)
I wonder what the standard is for "recovered from COVID-19"; i.e. whether it's just a doctor's diagnosis, contemporaneous PCR confirmation, or subsequent antibody test.