How can members of a legislative body simply vote that others they disagree with can no longer vote anymore? Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of having a legislative body in the first place?
They can totally vote - soon as they get vaccinated. If hairdressers, teachers, doctors, nurses, etc. are required to be vaccinated to continue their trade, why shouldn't the same apply to politicians?
This only applies to 9 out of 100 members of parliament, and was support by 62 out of 100, so it's not like this is some stealth power grab - assuming all nine of the dissenting MPs are from the Opposition, the Opposition has gone from 38 votes out of 100 to 29.
That said, I don't know how the Latvian constitution works, but I'm wagering the Government can't push through anything with 62 votes for, 29 against that it couldn't already push through with 62 for, 38 against.
The whole point of a democracy is that you can vote out the majority ruling party. Once they start banning minority oppositions from voting at all, it's dead, it's over. The voters who selected those MPs are disenfranchised, it's not a democracy anymore. Very simple.
This feels like a weirdly one way decision. As in, this policy is not one they can be undone by legislators who disagree because they’re excluded from voting by the same policy.
Europe will be hell this winter. The inability to maintain the lie that restrictions were worth it because "we were waiting for vaccines" will mean that they have to scapegoat "the unvaccinated" even harder.
No law, human right or ethical qualm is to be considered. Just hate and blame because authoritianism and segregation is what we've always wanted and needed. Personal choice is a sin.
It's a sin when, in aggregate, it causes large scale sickness and death.
Everyday the world gets smaller, it can't be stopped and there is nowhere to hide. This perculiarly American 'freedom fantasy'* will become more and more untenable as real reality bites.
*Americans are very much less free than they think they are - they don't even have the first freedom - the freedom from fear!
99+% recovery rate is not "large scale sickness and death". But authoritarian governments almost invariably cause large scale sickness and death.
The reality is that lack of freedom is the default state of the world through history, and America was one of the few exemptions.
Losing that is extremely sad, and to see political opposition locked out of the process for no good reason is chilling. It means that freedom will be lost, and with it, we will see a rise in large scale sickness and death caused by governments.
Nurses, teachers, doctors, hairdressers, etc., should not be subject to vaccine mandates. Doing that exacerbates the problems of understaffed ICU's, schools, and service industry, not to mention the fact that governments have been the biggest killers of people. Compared to a virus with a 99+% survival rate, they have killed orders of magnitude more. Giving governments more power at a time like this, and tanking the economy like this, as well as shutting so many people out of the economy, seems like stepping on a landmine to prevent getting shot.
Okay, sounds like you have a pamphlet you'd like me to read.
I'd simply state that many public health measures are mandated. This is just another one.
You can't drive drunk, you have to wear a seat belt, you can't build buildings out of straw or sticks (you silly pigs), you can't pour sewage into you can't have unprotected sex without disclosing it when you know you're HIV positive. You can't sell black tar heroin.
You can't fly into various countries from a country with yellow fever without proof of vaccination against yellow fever.
You can focus on that "99+%" survival rate if you like (which involves ignoring that the actual survival rate greatly differs between different cohorts), but if you don't take into consideration the considerable amount of resources and effort that healthcare systems put into achieving that, you're only deceiving yourself.
Also - hospitals have limited capacity designed for non-pandemic times. Vaccination against Covid prevents excessive demand from a preventable severe illness overwhelming healthcare systems, causing even more excess deaths, even if they didn't die from Covid, they died due to Covid.
Lastly, as members of society, we have obligations to other members of our society. Pay tax to contribute to shared infrastructure, follow the laws passed by representatives of your country's voters, etc.
I'm quite happy for people to remain unvaccinated if they ensure that they can never pass it onto others, and if they waive their rights to medical treatment if they become ill.
> You can't drive drunk, you have to wear a seat belt, you can't build buildings out of straw or sticks (you silly pigs), you can't pour sewage into you can't have unprotected sex without disclosing it when you know you're HIV positive. You can't sell black tar heroin.
None of these are an irreversible medical treatment, so they don't even fall into the same category. Thus, this argument is disingenuous.
> You can't fly into various countries from a country with yellow fever without proof of vaccination against yellow fever.
This is reasonable for a vaccine that has been well-tested using already proven technology, and by "well-tested", I don't just mean widely tested. I mean tested long-term with a control group. The COVID vaccines are not tested in that way. The supposed control group got the vaccines pretty quickly, eliminating them as a control group.
Also, it's only reasonable because such countries require it of non-citizens, who don't get the same privileges as citizens of the country do. When a country starts requiring citizens to get vaccinated in order to keep their jobs, but don't require illegal immigrants to get vaccinated when they cross the border, it is clear that it's about power, and such an argument is disingenuous.
> You can focus on that "99+%" survival rate if you like (which involves ignoring that the actual survival rate greatly differs between different cohorts), but if you don't take into consideration the considerable amount of resources and effort that healthcare systems put into achieving that, you're only deceiving yourself.
That was always the survival rate. It hasn't changed since COVID appeared. Nothing the medical system did changed that. In fact, there's speculation that using ventilators caused protons and more deaths.
Also, would we have so many deaths if so many politicians had not made so many stupid or malicious mistakes? The mayor of NYC ignored it for a while. The governor of New York sent COVID-positive patients into nursing homes.
In actual fact, the virus might have had a better survival rate without those things.
> Lastly, as members of society, we have obligations to other members of our society. Pay tax to contribute to shared infrastructure, follow the laws passed by representatives of your country's voters, etc.
Sure thing. The problem? These mandates are not laws! They are executive edicts. Laws are passed by legislatures, and as far as I know, not a single one has passed an actual law. The mandates should not have the force of law.
Oh, and when there was such a law? It was upheld by the Supreme Court, but the only penalty was a one-time fine of $150 in today's money. I'd gladly pay such a fine and move on with my life.
However, that law and Supreme Court ruling were then used by the Supreme Court to justify the forced sterilization of women. It was playing with fire then, and it's playing with fire now. Do you want to live in a world where the government can make such medical decisions for you?
> I'm quite happy for people to remain unvaccinated if they ensure that they can never pass it onto others,
See the above point that there is no data that the naturally immune spread COVID.
> and if they waive their rights to medical treatment if they become ill.
Ill with COVID? Fine. I accept that. Ill with anything else? That would be disingenuous and pure power-seeking.
But even if ill with COVID, the fact that naturally immune people don't spread it means that you want such people to recover to them be useful as a shield against COVID for everyone else with their contribution to herd immunity.
Thus, in any case, denying medical treatment to the unvaccinated is not about health, it's about power.
> None of these are an irreversible medical treatment,
Fair, I'll concede that they differ in that regard. And that other vaccines mandated for various roles were tested far more slowly than these ones.
However, given that mRNA based COVID vaccines requires six monthly boosters and that mRNA has a median half life of about 10 hours in the body[1], and that mRNA is disallowed entry into the nucleus unless specifically escorted in by specialist proteins, and that reports of myocarditis/pericarditis are very rare, and nearly always temporary, I'm unsure what is irreversible about them.
> The supposed control group got the vaccines pretty quickly, eliminating them as a control group.
Well, the control group has well and truly self-selected now, wouldn't you agree?
> When a country starts requiring citizens to get vaccinated in order to keep their jobs, but don't require illegal immigrants to get vaccinated when they cross the border, it is clear that it's about power
I can't comment on this, as it's an American political thing. However, I'd be surprised if illegal immigrants working as nurses or teachers weren't also required to be vaccinated.
> That was always the survival rate. It hasn't changed since COVID appeared.
Well, dedicated medical professionals and ICU units existed before COVID appeared. So yeah. And it's not like Covid-19 is the first respiratory virus they've encountered.
> In fact, there's speculation that using ventilators caused protons and more deaths
I'm sure there is such speculation, however, if you're being put on a ventilator, it's because you're close to death anyway. If you have any research on the increased death allegations, I'll read it with an open mind.
> Also, would we have so many deaths if so many politicians had not made so many stupid or malicious mistakes? The mayor of NYC ignored it for a while. The governor of New York sent COVID-positive patients into nursing homes. In actual fact, the virus might have had a better survival rate without those things.
I agree those were egregious actions. However, your last statement - can you expand on that? Is the survival rate higher in say, Texas, or Florida?
> These mandates are not laws! They are executive edicts. Laws are passed by legislatures, and as far as I know, not a single one has passed an actual law. The mandates should not have the force of law.
This really comes down to constitutional law, which differs from country to country, but I assume that the executive has the power to pass edicts such as this, because the people who wrote, and the people who amended, the American constitution, saw it fit to do so. That said, I'm sure if the mandates are unconstitutional in the USA, that the Supreme Court will declare them as such.
> See the above point that there is no data that the naturally immune spread COVID.
Once they're no longer infected, I agree. But when they become reinfected?
> Ill with COVID?
Yeah, I was implying it, but should've said it explicitly.
And my apologies, I was being glib to sound cool in an Internet fight (And I realise in the cold light of the new day that I failed miserably in that regard).
In reality, I don't want to deny anyone medical treatment, I was voicing my frustration at people who reject the evidence based medicine involved in developing the Covid vaccines, but then accept the evidence based medicine that may save their lives in an ICU - some of the more prominent leaders of the anti-vaccination movement in my country have been hospitalised with Delta, and continue minimising the seriousness of their illness on social media, from a hospital bed.
Obviously, they and I share different opinions about the evidence that Covid vaccines are based on, but I wonder why their skepticism doesn't extend to intensive care.
> the fact that naturally immune people don't spread it
> However, given that mRNA based COVID vaccines requires six monthly boosters and that mRNA has a median half life of about 10 hours in the body[1], and that mRNA is disallowed entry into the nucleus unless specifically escorted in by specialist proteins, and that reports of myocarditis/pericarditis are very rare, and nearly always temporary, I'm unsure what is irreversible about them.
Myocarditis/pericarditis is much more likely the younger you are. It is not rare, according to the standards by which we have judged other vaccines, which have been pulled over less.
> I agree those were egregious actions. However, your last statement - can you expand on that? Is the survival rate higher in say, Texas, or Florida?
Yeah, higher than New York, as far as I know. The vast majority of deaths in the early part of the pandemic came from New York.
> This really comes down to constitutional law, which differs from country to country, but I assume that the executive has the power to pass edicts such as this, because the people who wrote, and the people who amended, the American constitution, saw it fit to do so.
No, that power was never given in the US Constitution. Executive edicts only apply to the Executive Branch. In other words, the President can only issue orders to the employees in the Executive Branch; he cannot issue orders to ordinary citizens. And he can only issue orders to the Executive Branch in order to enforce laws passed by Congress.
By the way, Congress also does not have that power.
> That said, I'm sure if the mandates are unconstitutional in the USA, that the Supreme Court will declare them as such.
No, unfortunately, the Roberts Court will bend over backward to give the government what it wants. See the opinion that declared Obamacare Constitutional. The legal reasoning is still considered one of the weakest the Supreme Court has ever published.
> Once they're no longer infected, I agree. But when they become reinfected?
Correct.
> In reality, I don't want to deny anyone medical treatment, I was voicing my frustration at people who reject the evidence based medicine involved in developing the Covid vaccines, but then accept the evidence based medicine that may save their lives in an ICU - some of the more prominent leaders of the anti-vaccination movement in my country have been hospitalised with Delta, and continue minimising the seriousness of their illness on social media, from a hospital bed.
And I can understand that. I have a relative who is rabidly anti-COVID vaccine. She is...unhealthy, and because of her health choices, she would probably benefit from the vaccine. But her radical opinions are blinding her to the best course of action for herself.
I'm not rabidly anti-COVID vaccine; I want people to have the choice to get it or not.
> Obviously, they and I share different opinions about the evidence that Covid vaccines are based on, but I wonder why their skepticism doesn't extend to intensive care.
Agreed.
I have decided to not get it for several reasons, not least of which is that I am staying healthy, but I also have seen evidence that pilots seem to be affected by it more than the average person (high altitude seems to be a factor). I want to be a pilot, so that worries me.
But I also made the decision that if I get COVID and need to go to the hospital, I'm SOL because I've made that choice. My wife has been told to not take me to the hospital in that situation.
People can claim I would cave if it happened, and while that might be fair, we never know unless it does. But for now, I do not want to contribute to the lack of hospital beds. That's the sacrifice I intend to make for society because yes, I agree that sacrifices need to be made in a pandemic.
> Obviously, they and I share different opinions about the evidence that Covid vaccines are based on, but I wonder why their skepticism doesn't extend to intensive care.
People who break these mandates aren't universally removed from society, politics and the economy. Moreso, even if they were, the measure would be more effective than removing unvaccinated people from society, because the vaccines don't work well enough to be a silver bullet.
At some point you'll have to accept that death is a natural part of life, but I have a feeling that you're willing to sell yourself and the future of everyone who comes after you for a tiny bit of safety that is actually biologically infeasible before you need to look reality in the eye.
The virus wouldn’t have a high survival rate if we didn’t have these measures. Otherwise hospitals would be completely overrun, which would not only increase death rates directly related to COVID but also those of people with any other illness who rely on hospital care to survive.
You can’t have it both ways: if you’re against the measures then you have to accept what that would mean.
> The virus wouldn’t have a high survival rate if we didn’t have these measures. Otherwise hospitals would be completely overrun, which would not only increase death rates directly related to COVID but also those of people with any other illness who rely on hospital care to survive.
Where's your proof? Seriously. How do you know it would be worse? We might all have herd immunity by now and not be worried about it.
Also, if people are so worried about hospital capacity, why are they firing doctors and nurses who haven't had the shot, but have natural immunity? The CDC recently admitted they have no data showing that people with natural immunity spread COVID [1]. Yet the vaccinated can (and if you don't believe that, then you have not been paying attention). So why are naturally-immune doctors and nurses being fired when we supposedly need them most, to stop ICU's from being overwhelmed?
The reason is because it's not about health. It's about control.
So when you bring up the argument that ICU's are being overwhelmed, I just ignore it; it's a distraction. You just don't know that yet.
I agree with you that people who have proven to already have antibodies should not be required to get a vaccine. That is a compromise that probably would have already happened if there wasn't a constant stream of insanity from antivaxxers clouding the ability to have normal, nuanced discussions about policy. Instead, the front lines of debate are on 5G causing COVID, microchips, space lasers, and comparisons of vaccine mandates to the holocaust.
But the data showing that mass-vaccination has reduced deaths and kept ICUs from overflowing is so blatantly obvious that you have to be exercising willful ignorance to not accept it. It's basically flat-earth level of denialism. You can see the direct correlation between vaccination rates and deaths/ICU intakes by looking at the data.
Sure, vaccines have reduced deaths...for now. Except, have they? Not really. [1] See the bump between July and November? That was after mass vaccination.
That begs the question: what happens when their efficacy wears off, as it appears to do?
It's not a flat-earth level of denialism. It's taking into account all factors, and in science, all factors matter. [2]
Look at the ratio of cases to deaths in the data from countries where people generally believe in science and are accurately measuring data: Canada, Germany, Israel, France, etc.
Look at Portugal, with the highest vaccination rate in Europe and see how there are 3-6 deaths/day despite a resurgence in cases.
The US has a low vaccination rate, and is in complete disarray regarding COVID (in many cases simply due to the fact that each state has its own policies/problems), but most modern countries are carefully balancing policy to keep ICUs at a manageable rate.
With the same argumentation nurses and doctors should not be forced to wash/disinfect their hands before treating their patients.
But of course that would be silly. If your job is to help others to get to health requires a small insignificant action that involves your body, this action can (and should be) mandated.
Getting a COVID vaccination that 7.000.000.000 shots have been administered to other people (world wide) without any speakable side effects is not a big thing to ask for.
Washing/desinfecting hands also has side effects on that scale.
> Getting a COVID vaccination that 7.000.000.000 shots have been administered to other people (world wide) without any speakable side effects is not a big thing to ask for.
If you think that, you haven't been paying attention.
Several shots have been halted by countries because of side effects. The FDA recently admitted that they expect about as many kids to get myocarditis as will be saved by the shot if they approve it for kids. VAERS data has shown a jump in reported cases.
If you don't think side effects exist, you are in a bubble.
I think you are misrepresenting my statement. I said "without any speakable side effects".
You always have to compare potential side effects of a measure against the effects of the things the measure should protect against. Safety belts might be detrimental to saving you life in traffic accidents in a not insignificant percentage of cases (e.g. being trapped in a burning car) – however if you compare it to the likelyhood of dying because you are not using a safety belt the whole thing is miniscule.
Many people say they don't want to get vaccinated because they don't know about the long term effects of such a vaccination. But if they were honest they would need to admit that they don't know about the long term effects of getting the virus as well. Not to speak of the real risk to die or destroy your respiratory apartus in the process, in which case worrying about purely hypothetical long term effects seems to be a little delusional.
The one minor difference to the safety belt example is that your choice also affects the risk for the rest of society. If you dont wear your safety belt, you don't increase the risk for others in a meaningful way. If you don't vaccinate, you not only do that, but you prolong the pandemic for the rest of society – for what to me looks like a purely symbolic "victory".
> I think you are misrepresenting my statement. I said "without any speakable side effects".
> You always have to compare potential side effects of a measure against the effects of the things the measure should protect against. Safety belts might be detrimental to saving you life in traffic accidents in a not insignificant percentage of cases (e.g. being trapped in a burning car) – however if you compare it to the likelyhood of dying because you are not using a safety belt the whole thing is miniscule.
And there are still ways to reduce the risk of dying from a seat belt even further. I have a seat belt cutter in my car for a reason.
There is no such mitigation for vaccines.
> Many people say they don't want to get vaccinated because they don't know about the long term effects of such a vaccination. But if they were honest they would need to admit that they don't know about the long term effects of getting the virus as well. Not to speak of the real risk to die or destroy your respiratory apartus in the process, in which case worrying about purely hypothetical long term effects seems to be a little delusional.
Except that viruses tend to get less deadly over time, which we are seeing with Delta. So I can take precautions to reduce the chances of catching COVID, which indirectly reduces my chances of having a long-term side effect of COVID.
> The one minor difference to the safety belt example is that your choice also affects the risk for the rest of society. If you dont wear your safety belt, you don't increase the risk for others in a meaningful way. If you don't vaccinate, you not only do that, but you prolong the pandemic for the rest of society – for what to me looks like a purely symbolic "victory".
Except that the CDC has admitted [1] that they have no evidence of naturally immune people spreading the virus, while there is copious amounts of evidence that vaccinated people spread the virus.
So maybe those who are vaccinated are the ones prolonging the pandemic because they are still spreading it, while those who became naturally immune are not spreading it.
Oh, and by the way, not wearing a seat belt does increase the risk of the other people in the car as well as those in other cars involved in an accident. [2]
I've often wondered what the lived experience would have been like in 30s Germany or 10s Russia. Now we know. Its not hard to totally transform society once the reigns of power are seized; and most will just go along with it.
Removing the opposition's right to vote is a NAZI tactic. Every totalitarian government started with tactics like this. Often campaigning on a popular platform. The vaccine is no different to the socialist utopia promised by the Soviets. The utopia is not the problem it's the means of getting there.
It's a tactic of authoritarian regimes, it's not something unique to the nazi regime so calling it a nazi tactic is a bit of a stretch. Then again the GP never called it that anyway, he mentioned 2 authoritarian regimes.
32 people voted against this. It only applies to 9 people. If they really want to oppose the government, get vaccinated, like the rest of the country is going to have to do.
Let me show you how far you've drawn your bow, by reductio ad absurdum.
> First they came for the drink drivers, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a drink driver.
> Then they came for the heroin dealers, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a heroin dealer.
>Then they came for the construction companies that built buildings that collapsed and killed hundreds, and I did not speak out - because I didn't run a construction company that knowingly adulterated concrete to increase profits.
These are all equivalent "mandates" to secure the public good.
But hey, when the secret police start dragging unvaccinated people away to death camps, I'll freely admit you were right. Make sure to let me know when that happens.
If you truly feel that refusing vaccination is equivalent to dealing heroin, killing hundreds through negligence or drunk driving I understand why you believe this a bad comparison.
The vaccine no doubt lowers the health risk from getting COVID but it's looking like it does little to protect anyone but the vaccinated person.
Would you please stop doing this, regardless of how wrong others are or you feel they are? maybe you don't feel you owe better to people you consider wrong, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
Explain how this removes anyone's right to vote. In pretty much every country, there was always a way to vote: by post, while wearing a mask at the polling station, and presumably online where supported.
Locking people up in their houses. Preventing politicians from voting? Fining businesses that don't violate rights of their employees... Sounds pretty much like fascism and socialism, after all National Socialist party did this in Germany. Now the modern left is following in exactly those footsteps.
Yea it's all very interesting. Especially considering the lethality of the virus. Humans are very short sited and the public health officials have basically put all the eggs in one basket. Now when an actually deadly virus comes along we're probably screwed.
I have six children from 5 to 17 in my blended household, I know how much lockdowns suck.
But lockdowns prevented our healthcare systems being overwhelmed thus causing many more excess deaths, and protected vulnerable people like my wife who has heart failure, where a Covid infection is highly likely to lead to death.
So, I genuinely thank you for abiding by the lockdowns, I know how difficult they were, but your doing so saved the lives of many people like my wife, so I really do appreciate it, and acknowledge that it was hard.
I was quoting, ad verbatim, a comedian's response to hysterical comparisons of the current situation to Nazi Germany, in the context of people doing exactly that.
If you can't distinguish Bill Bailey's choice of words from mine, that's a you problem.
It was not only hard, but it was also pointless in many cases. Spain did not allow children to go out for about 2 months even though there was a little reason to do that because outdoor activities pose very little risk.
No one from policy makers have admitted this mistake or even apologised, and there is still denial that it was a wrong measure. The state had to pay back all fines collected from rule breakers but it was only due to legal technicality.
What is a "blended household"? I was only allowed my regular household, so just the 3 (then 4) of us confined inside our own walls for months.
>lockdowns prevented our healthcare systems being overwhelmed thus causing many more excess deaths
It is impossible to know if this is true. That is - if shutting healthy infants, children, young adults, and healthy adults in their own homes for months had any net gain. Personally, I've only seen downsides. Friends (also with kids) that have had latent mental health issues come to light, family losing their jobs and livelihoods, etc etc.
Please do not take HN threads into ideological flamewar. What you did here was particularly hellish, even by the standards of this wretched flamewar thread. We ban accounts that vandalize HN like that, so please don't do it again.
Edit: it also looks as though your account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of which ideology they're battling for or against, because it destroys what this site is supposed to be for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing and sticking to the rules from now on, we'd be grateful.
This is a new low, even for you dang. A huge part of the Nazi's rise to total power in Germany was because of barring the opposition from voting in the Reichstag. The comment you are admonishing is relevant and exactly on the nose considering the headline.
Nazi analogies are obviously the ultimate flamebait cliché. If somebody wants to make a substantive comment out of one, they have a high bar to clear, and the GP didn't even try, so predictably we got a flamewar.
Would you please stop using HN primarily for political and ideological battle? We ban accounts that do that, regardless of what it is they're battling for. I'm not going to ban you right now because it doesn't seem right to do that in response to a moderation criticism (however misplaced), but you're clearly on the wrong side of the line. We need you to fix this if you want to keep posting here. Smiting enemies is not what this site is for.
It's not flamebait, it's reality. And for the people who believe that (of which there are many here as I'm sure your ban hammer has noticed), what you are doing is offensive and evil, or at least in service of it.
Anyways, GP wasn't even calling anyone a Nazi, he was saying "History is repeating itself" and he's dead on. How would you have preferred he phrased it. You did not exactly suggest an improvement, and heaped on a lot of moral condemnation in your "plz respect my authoritah" copy&paste mod message.
You're not doing a particularly good job at being a janny here, IMO.
Come on you guys. Grandiose invocation of Nazis in contemporary arguments is literally the ultimate flamebait cliché. This isn't hard!
Since everybody knows that, nowadays the argument is "yes but my grandiose invocation of Nazis is the real one, the one that civilization fails to heed at its peril". We heard that for a certain 4 years all going in one direction and now the people who didn't like that use the same rhetoric to bolster their notion of civilizational collapse. This is one more way in which ideological battlers of opposing sides resemble each other more than they resemble anyone else. Hacker News is intended more for users who can make do without Nazis in their arguments.
In any case, all the priors are so against it working that you're better off without them anyhow. Nazis don't strengthen your case. All they do is rev up people who agree with you and piss off people who don't—the hallmark of flamebait. There's no persuasive there there.
I actually agree with the GP here. The analogy to 1930's Nazi Germany, or the early stages of any authoritarian regime (notice the GGGP also used 1910's Russia) has many similarities to today.
History is a cycle, and unfortunately, we seem to be heading into bad times.
The reality is that antivax lawmakers are by and large radical populists from the extreme ends of political spectrum, exploiting the weaknesses of the uneducated (and typically most vulnerable) portion of the electorate.
Most of them are also political opportunists, knowingly lying and manipulating the weakest in our societies.
Their political work mostly boils down to amplifying harmful misinformation and giving it legitimacy and credibility through their office — all for their selfish political ends.
That being said, they are democratically elected representatives, and banning them from the democratic process rightfully raises questions about legitimacy of such measures, regardless of morality of their political ways.
But in addressing those questions, we have to consider consequences of their political action, which are accounted in tens or even hundreds of human lives lost EACH DAY.
What do we value more? Human lives, or the right of immoral political actors to exploit the drawbacks and imperfections of our fragile democratic processes?
> But in addressing those questions, we have to consider consequences of their political action, which are accounted in tens or even hundreds of human lives lost EACH DAY.
Sure, if we do the same for the politicians like New York's governor who forced nursing homes to take COVID-positive patients and actually killed people.
However, is there political action really killing people? The CDC had admitted that they have no data showing that naturally immune people spread the virus [1], but vaccinated people do. So perhaps those politicians are helping save lives by encouraging people to become naturally immune instead!
In other words, you assume they are killing people. That assumption is disingenuous.
> What do we value more? Human lives, or the right of immoral political actors to exploit the drawbacks and imperfections of our fragile democratic processes?
The slowness of democratic processes, and allowing people to make their own decisions are features, not bugs.
Also, the biggest killer of people throughout history has always been governments that are out of control. This is a case of a government going out of control, which has far more deadly potential than not getting vaccinated for a virus with a 99+% survival rate and where the vaccinated still spread the virus.
Goodbye freedom? Since when someone's medical preference became mandatory public and a basis for segregation? Since today, apparently. Someone stop the planet, please.
82 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] threadThis only applies to 9 out of 100 members of parliament, and was support by 62 out of 100, so it's not like this is some stealth power grab - assuming all nine of the dissenting MPs are from the Opposition, the Opposition has gone from 38 votes out of 100 to 29.
That said, I don't know how the Latvian constitution works, but I'm wagering the Government can't push through anything with 62 votes for, 29 against that it couldn't already push through with 62 for, 38 against.
The whole point of a democracy is that you can vote out the majority ruling party. Once they start banning minority oppositions from voting at all, it's dead, it's over. The voters who selected those MPs are disenfranchised, it's not a democracy anymore. Very simple.
No law, human right or ethical qualm is to be considered. Just hate and blame because authoritianism and segregation is what we've always wanted and needed. Personal choice is a sin.
Everyday the world gets smaller, it can't be stopped and there is nowhere to hide. This perculiarly American 'freedom fantasy'* will become more and more untenable as real reality bites.
*Americans are very much less free than they think they are - they don't even have the first freedom - the freedom from fear!
The reality is that lack of freedom is the default state of the world through history, and America was one of the few exemptions.
Losing that is extremely sad, and to see political opposition locked out of the process for no good reason is chilling. It means that freedom will be lost, and with it, we will see a rise in large scale sickness and death caused by governments.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I'd simply state that many public health measures are mandated. This is just another one.
You can't drive drunk, you have to wear a seat belt, you can't build buildings out of straw or sticks (you silly pigs), you can't pour sewage into you can't have unprotected sex without disclosing it when you know you're HIV positive. You can't sell black tar heroin.
You can't fly into various countries from a country with yellow fever without proof of vaccination against yellow fever.
You can focus on that "99+%" survival rate if you like (which involves ignoring that the actual survival rate greatly differs between different cohorts), but if you don't take into consideration the considerable amount of resources and effort that healthcare systems put into achieving that, you're only deceiving yourself.
Also - hospitals have limited capacity designed for non-pandemic times. Vaccination against Covid prevents excessive demand from a preventable severe illness overwhelming healthcare systems, causing even more excess deaths, even if they didn't die from Covid, they died due to Covid.
Lastly, as members of society, we have obligations to other members of our society. Pay tax to contribute to shared infrastructure, follow the laws passed by representatives of your country's voters, etc.
I'm quite happy for people to remain unvaccinated if they ensure that they can never pass it onto others, and if they waive their rights to medical treatment if they become ill.
None of these are an irreversible medical treatment, so they don't even fall into the same category. Thus, this argument is disingenuous.
> You can't fly into various countries from a country with yellow fever without proof of vaccination against yellow fever.
This is reasonable for a vaccine that has been well-tested using already proven technology, and by "well-tested", I don't just mean widely tested. I mean tested long-term with a control group. The COVID vaccines are not tested in that way. The supposed control group got the vaccines pretty quickly, eliminating them as a control group.
Also, it's only reasonable because such countries require it of non-citizens, who don't get the same privileges as citizens of the country do. When a country starts requiring citizens to get vaccinated in order to keep their jobs, but don't require illegal immigrants to get vaccinated when they cross the border, it is clear that it's about power, and such an argument is disingenuous.
> You can focus on that "99+%" survival rate if you like (which involves ignoring that the actual survival rate greatly differs between different cohorts), but if you don't take into consideration the considerable amount of resources and effort that healthcare systems put into achieving that, you're only deceiving yourself.
That was always the survival rate. It hasn't changed since COVID appeared. Nothing the medical system did changed that. In fact, there's speculation that using ventilators caused protons and more deaths.
Also, would we have so many deaths if so many politicians had not made so many stupid or malicious mistakes? The mayor of NYC ignored it for a while. The governor of New York sent COVID-positive patients into nursing homes.
In actual fact, the virus might have had a better survival rate without those things.
> Lastly, as members of society, we have obligations to other members of our society. Pay tax to contribute to shared infrastructure, follow the laws passed by representatives of your country's voters, etc.
Sure thing. The problem? These mandates are not laws! They are executive edicts. Laws are passed by legislatures, and as far as I know, not a single one has passed an actual law. The mandates should not have the force of law.
Oh, and when there was such a law? It was upheld by the Supreme Court, but the only penalty was a one-time fine of $150 in today's money. I'd gladly pay such a fine and move on with my life.
However, that law and Supreme Court ruling were then used by the Supreme Court to justify the forced sterilization of women. It was playing with fire then, and it's playing with fire now. Do you want to live in a world where the government can make such medical decisions for you?
> I'm quite happy for people to remain unvaccinated if they ensure that they can never pass it onto others,
See the above point that there is no data that the naturally immune spread COVID.
> and if they waive their rights to medical treatment if they become ill.
Ill with COVID? Fine. I accept that. Ill with anything else? That would be disingenuous and pure power-seeking.
But even if ill with COVID, the fact that naturally immune people don't spread it means that you want such people to recover to them be useful as a shield against COVID for everyone else with their contribution to herd immunity.
Thus, in any case, denying medical treatment to the unvaccinated is not about health, it's about power.
Fair, I'll concede that they differ in that regard. And that other vaccines mandated for various roles were tested far more slowly than these ones.
However, given that mRNA based COVID vaccines requires six monthly boosters and that mRNA has a median half life of about 10 hours in the body[1], and that mRNA is disallowed entry into the nucleus unless specifically escorted in by specialist proteins, and that reports of myocarditis/pericarditis are very rare, and nearly always temporary, I'm unsure what is irreversible about them.
> The supposed control group got the vaccines pretty quickly, eliminating them as a control group.
Well, the control group has well and truly self-selected now, wouldn't you agree?
> When a country starts requiring citizens to get vaccinated in order to keep their jobs, but don't require illegal immigrants to get vaccinated when they cross the border, it is clear that it's about power
I can't comment on this, as it's an American political thing. However, I'd be surprised if illegal immigrants working as nurses or teachers weren't also required to be vaccinated.
> That was always the survival rate. It hasn't changed since COVID appeared.
Well, dedicated medical professionals and ICU units existed before COVID appeared. So yeah. And it's not like Covid-19 is the first respiratory virus they've encountered.
> In fact, there's speculation that using ventilators caused protons and more deaths
I'm sure there is such speculation, however, if you're being put on a ventilator, it's because you're close to death anyway. If you have any research on the increased death allegations, I'll read it with an open mind.
> Also, would we have so many deaths if so many politicians had not made so many stupid or malicious mistakes? The mayor of NYC ignored it for a while. The governor of New York sent COVID-positive patients into nursing homes. In actual fact, the virus might have had a better survival rate without those things.
I agree those were egregious actions. However, your last statement - can you expand on that? Is the survival rate higher in say, Texas, or Florida?
> These mandates are not laws! They are executive edicts. Laws are passed by legislatures, and as far as I know, not a single one has passed an actual law. The mandates should not have the force of law.
This really comes down to constitutional law, which differs from country to country, but I assume that the executive has the power to pass edicts such as this, because the people who wrote, and the people who amended, the American constitution, saw it fit to do so. That said, I'm sure if the mandates are unconstitutional in the USA, that the Supreme Court will declare them as such.
> See the above point that there is no data that the naturally immune spread COVID.
Once they're no longer infected, I agree. But when they become reinfected?
> Ill with COVID?
Yeah, I was implying it, but should've said it explicitly.
And my apologies, I was being glib to sound cool in an Internet fight (And I realise in the cold light of the new day that I failed miserably in that regard).
In reality, I don't want to deny anyone medical treatment, I was voicing my frustration at people who reject the evidence based medicine involved in developing the Covid vaccines, but then accept the evidence based medicine that may save their lives in an ICU - some of the more prominent leaders of the anti-vaccination movement in my country have been hospitalised with Delta, and continue minimising the seriousness of their illness on social media, from a hospital bed.
Obviously, they and I share different opinions about the evidence that Covid vaccines are based on, but I wonder why their skepticism doesn't extend to intensive care.
> the fact that naturally immune people don't spread it
I'm still unsure what you mean by th...
Myocarditis/pericarditis is much more likely the younger you are. It is not rare, according to the standards by which we have judged other vaccines, which have been pulled over less.
> I agree those were egregious actions. However, your last statement - can you expand on that? Is the survival rate higher in say, Texas, or Florida?
Yeah, higher than New York, as far as I know. The vast majority of deaths in the early part of the pandemic came from New York.
> This really comes down to constitutional law, which differs from country to country, but I assume that the executive has the power to pass edicts such as this, because the people who wrote, and the people who amended, the American constitution, saw it fit to do so.
No, that power was never given in the US Constitution. Executive edicts only apply to the Executive Branch. In other words, the President can only issue orders to the employees in the Executive Branch; he cannot issue orders to ordinary citizens. And he can only issue orders to the Executive Branch in order to enforce laws passed by Congress.
By the way, Congress also does not have that power.
> That said, I'm sure if the mandates are unconstitutional in the USA, that the Supreme Court will declare them as such.
No, unfortunately, the Roberts Court will bend over backward to give the government what it wants. See the opinion that declared Obamacare Constitutional. The legal reasoning is still considered one of the weakest the Supreme Court has ever published.
> Once they're no longer infected, I agree. But when they become reinfected?
Correct.
> In reality, I don't want to deny anyone medical treatment, I was voicing my frustration at people who reject the evidence based medicine involved in developing the Covid vaccines, but then accept the evidence based medicine that may save their lives in an ICU - some of the more prominent leaders of the anti-vaccination movement in my country have been hospitalised with Delta, and continue minimising the seriousness of their illness on social media, from a hospital bed.
And I can understand that. I have a relative who is rabidly anti-COVID vaccine. She is...unhealthy, and because of her health choices, she would probably benefit from the vaccine. But her radical opinions are blinding her to the best course of action for herself.
I'm not rabidly anti-COVID vaccine; I want people to have the choice to get it or not.
> Obviously, they and I share different opinions about the evidence that Covid vaccines are based on, but I wonder why their skepticism doesn't extend to intensive care.
Agreed.
I have decided to not get it for several reasons, not least of which is that I am staying healthy, but I also have seen evidence that pilots seem to be affected by it more than the average person (high altitude seems to be a factor). I want to be a pilot, so that worries me.
But I also made the decision that if I get COVID and need to go to the hospital, I'm SOL because I've made that choice. My wife has been told to not take me to the hospital in that situation.
People can claim I would cave if it happened, and while that might be fair, we never know unless it does. But for now, I do not want to contribute to the lack of hospital beds. That's the sacrifice I intend to make for society because yes, I agree that sacrifices need to be made in a pandemic.
> Obviously, they and I share different opinions about the evidence that Covid vaccines are based on, but I wonder why their skepticism doesn't extend to intensive care.
I agree with you completely here. It...
At some point you'll have to accept that death is a natural part of life, but I have a feeling that you're willing to sell yourself and the future of everyone who comes after you for a tiny bit of safety that is actually biologically infeasible before you need to look reality in the eye.
The virus wouldn’t have a high survival rate if we didn’t have these measures. Otherwise hospitals would be completely overrun, which would not only increase death rates directly related to COVID but also those of people with any other illness who rely on hospital care to survive.
You can’t have it both ways: if you’re against the measures then you have to accept what that would mean.
Where's your proof? Seriously. How do you know it would be worse? We might all have herd immunity by now and not be worried about it.
Also, if people are so worried about hospital capacity, why are they firing doctors and nurses who haven't had the shot, but have natural immunity? The CDC recently admitted they have no data showing that people with natural immunity spread COVID [1]. Yet the vaccinated can (and if you don't believe that, then you have not been paying attention). So why are naturally-immune doctors and nurses being fired when we supposedly need them most, to stop ICU's from being overwhelmed?
The reason is because it's not about health. It's about control.
So when you bring up the argument that ICU's are being overwhelmed, I just ignore it; it's a distraction. You just don't know that yet.
[1]: https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/12/cdc-admits-it-has-no-ev...
But the data showing that mass-vaccination has reduced deaths and kept ICUs from overflowing is so blatantly obvious that you have to be exercising willful ignorance to not accept it. It's basically flat-earth level of denialism. You can see the direct correlation between vaccination rates and deaths/ICU intakes by looking at the data.
That begs the question: what happens when their efficacy wears off, as it appears to do?
It's not a flat-earth level of denialism. It's taking into account all factors, and in science, all factors matter. [2]
[1]: https://usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spr...
[2]: https://gavinhoward.com/2020/08/in-science-all-factors-matte...
Yes, they certainly have.
Look at the ratio of cases to deaths in the data from countries where people generally believe in science and are accurately measuring data: Canada, Germany, Israel, France, etc.
Look at Portugal, with the highest vaccination rate in Europe and see how there are 3-6 deaths/day despite a resurgence in cases.
The US has a low vaccination rate, and is in complete disarray regarding COVID (in many cases simply due to the fact that each state has its own policies/problems), but most modern countries are carefully balancing policy to keep ICUs at a manageable rate.
Why not allow nurses and doctors to be unvaccinated and "keep ICU's at a manageable rate"?
Also, Israel was first to acknowledge the waning effect of vaccines.
And for Portugal, when was their vaccination campaign? Was it less than 6 months ago? If so, the vaccines have not worn off yet.
But of course that would be silly. If your job is to help others to get to health requires a small insignificant action that involves your body, this action can (and should be) mandated.
Getting a COVID vaccination that 7.000.000.000 shots have been administered to other people (world wide) without any speakable side effects is not a big thing to ask for.
Washing/desinfecting hands also has side effects on that scale.
If you think that, you haven't been paying attention.
Several shots have been halted by countries because of side effects. The FDA recently admitted that they expect about as many kids to get myocarditis as will be saved by the shot if they approve it for kids. VAERS data has shown a jump in reported cases.
If you don't think side effects exist, you are in a bubble.
You always have to compare potential side effects of a measure against the effects of the things the measure should protect against. Safety belts might be detrimental to saving you life in traffic accidents in a not insignificant percentage of cases (e.g. being trapped in a burning car) – however if you compare it to the likelyhood of dying because you are not using a safety belt the whole thing is miniscule.
Many people say they don't want to get vaccinated because they don't know about the long term effects of such a vaccination. But if they were honest they would need to admit that they don't know about the long term effects of getting the virus as well. Not to speak of the real risk to die or destroy your respiratory apartus in the process, in which case worrying about purely hypothetical long term effects seems to be a little delusional.
The one minor difference to the safety belt example is that your choice also affects the risk for the rest of society. If you dont wear your safety belt, you don't increase the risk for others in a meaningful way. If you don't vaccinate, you not only do that, but you prolong the pandemic for the rest of society – for what to me looks like a purely symbolic "victory".
> You always have to compare potential side effects of a measure against the effects of the things the measure should protect against. Safety belts might be detrimental to saving you life in traffic accidents in a not insignificant percentage of cases (e.g. being trapped in a burning car) – however if you compare it to the likelyhood of dying because you are not using a safety belt the whole thing is miniscule.
And there are still ways to reduce the risk of dying from a seat belt even further. I have a seat belt cutter in my car for a reason.
There is no such mitigation for vaccines.
> Many people say they don't want to get vaccinated because they don't know about the long term effects of such a vaccination. But if they were honest they would need to admit that they don't know about the long term effects of getting the virus as well. Not to speak of the real risk to die or destroy your respiratory apartus in the process, in which case worrying about purely hypothetical long term effects seems to be a little delusional.
Except that viruses tend to get less deadly over time, which we are seeing with Delta. So I can take precautions to reduce the chances of catching COVID, which indirectly reduces my chances of having a long-term side effect of COVID.
> The one minor difference to the safety belt example is that your choice also affects the risk for the rest of society. If you dont wear your safety belt, you don't increase the risk for others in a meaningful way. If you don't vaccinate, you not only do that, but you prolong the pandemic for the rest of society – for what to me looks like a purely symbolic "victory".
Except that the CDC has admitted [1] that they have no evidence of naturally immune people spreading the virus, while there is copious amounts of evidence that vaccinated people spread the virus.
So maybe those who are vaccinated are the ones prolonging the pandemic because they are still spreading it, while those who became naturally immune are not spreading it.
Oh, and by the way, not wearing a seat belt does increase the risk of the other people in the car as well as those in other cars involved in an accident. [2]
[1]: https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/12/cdc-admits-it-has-no-ev...
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.(Martin Niemöller)
Let me show you how far you've drawn your bow, by reductio ad absurdum.
> First they came for the drink drivers, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a drink driver.
> Then they came for the heroin dealers, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a heroin dealer.
>Then they came for the construction companies that built buildings that collapsed and killed hundreds, and I did not speak out - because I didn't run a construction company that knowingly adulterated concrete to increase profits.
These are all equivalent "mandates" to secure the public good.
But hey, when the secret police start dragging unvaccinated people away to death camps, I'll freely admit you were right. Make sure to let me know when that happens.
The vaccine no doubt lowers the health risk from getting COVID but it's looking like it does little to protect anyone but the vaccinated person.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Then people go, "It’s like Nazi Germany, these lockdowns". Yes, because that’s what the Nazis are known for, isn’t it? Mild inconvenience.
But lockdowns prevented our healthcare systems being overwhelmed thus causing many more excess deaths, and protected vulnerable people like my wife who has heart failure, where a Covid infection is highly likely to lead to death.
So, I genuinely thank you for abiding by the lockdowns, I know how difficult they were, but your doing so saved the lives of many people like my wife, so I really do appreciate it, and acknowledge that it was hard.
> I know how much lockdowns suck
> and acknowledge that it was hard.
Flip flopping through the arguments as it seems fit. Contradiction is your new reality.
If you can't distinguish Bill Bailey's choice of words from mine, that's a you problem.
If you have abandoned logic, that’s fine but that’s a you problem.
No one from policy makers have admitted this mistake or even apologised, and there is still denial that it was a wrong measure. The state had to pay back all fines collected from rule breakers but it was only due to legal technicality.
>lockdowns prevented our healthcare systems being overwhelmed thus causing many more excess deaths
It is impossible to know if this is true. That is - if shutting healthy infants, children, young adults, and healthy adults in their own homes for months had any net gain. Personally, I've only seen downsides. Friends (also with kids) that have had latent mental health issues come to light, family losing their jobs and livelihoods, etc etc.
Oh, and for keeping their parks safe from untermenschen, of course.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: it also looks as though your account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of which ideology they're battling for or against, because it destroys what this site is supposed to be for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing and sticking to the rules from now on, we'd be grateful.
Would you please stop using HN primarily for political and ideological battle? We ban accounts that do that, regardless of what it is they're battling for. I'm not going to ban you right now because it doesn't seem right to do that in response to a moderation criticism (however misplaced), but you're clearly on the wrong side of the line. We need you to fix this if you want to keep posting here. Smiting enemies is not what this site is for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Anyways, GP wasn't even calling anyone a Nazi, he was saying "History is repeating itself" and he's dead on. How would you have preferred he phrased it. You did not exactly suggest an improvement, and heaped on a lot of moral condemnation in your "plz respect my authoritah" copy&paste mod message.
You're not doing a particularly good job at being a janny here, IMO.
Since everybody knows that, nowadays the argument is "yes but my grandiose invocation of Nazis is the real one, the one that civilization fails to heed at its peril". We heard that for a certain 4 years all going in one direction and now the people who didn't like that use the same rhetoric to bolster their notion of civilizational collapse. This is one more way in which ideological battlers of opposing sides resemble each other more than they resemble anyone else. Hacker News is intended more for users who can make do without Nazis in their arguments.
In any case, all the priors are so against it working that you're better off without them anyhow. Nazis don't strengthen your case. All they do is rev up people who agree with you and piss off people who don't—the hallmark of flamebait. There's no persuasive there there.
History is a cycle, and unfortunately, we seem to be heading into bad times.
Most of them are also political opportunists, knowingly lying and manipulating the weakest in our societies.
Their political work mostly boils down to amplifying harmful misinformation and giving it legitimacy and credibility through their office — all for their selfish political ends.
That being said, they are democratically elected representatives, and banning them from the democratic process rightfully raises questions about legitimacy of such measures, regardless of morality of their political ways.
But in addressing those questions, we have to consider consequences of their political action, which are accounted in tens or even hundreds of human lives lost EACH DAY.
What do we value more? Human lives, or the right of immoral political actors to exploit the drawbacks and imperfections of our fragile democratic processes?
Sure, if we do the same for the politicians like New York's governor who forced nursing homes to take COVID-positive patients and actually killed people.
However, is there political action really killing people? The CDC had admitted that they have no data showing that naturally immune people spread the virus [1], but vaccinated people do. So perhaps those politicians are helping save lives by encouraging people to become naturally immune instead!
In other words, you assume they are killing people. That assumption is disingenuous.
> What do we value more? Human lives, or the right of immoral political actors to exploit the drawbacks and imperfections of our fragile democratic processes?
The slowness of democratic processes, and allowing people to make their own decisions are features, not bugs.
Also, the biggest killer of people throughout history has always been governments that are out of control. This is a case of a government going out of control, which has far more deadly potential than not getting vaccinated for a virus with a 99+% survival rate and where the vaccinated still spread the virus.
[1]: https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/12/cdc-admits-it-has-no-ev...
How much are people actually terrified by propaganda in media that are able to justify this decisions? Why we need to repeat history over and over?