[jaquer_1]

1. Force people into draconian measures that won't stop infection and violate their rights.

2. Convince them that it's necessary to stop the pandemic without giving any arguments.

3. Have them defend your measures in public forums and feel very smart.

[dang]

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[feikname]

> Force people into draconian measures that won't stop infection and violate their rights.

It won't stop infection. But it greatly reduces that rate and, above all, your risk of death and the strength of the disease in general in case you do catch it.

> Convince them that it's necessary to stop the pandemic without giving any arguments.

The argument should be very clear: vaccines are a known and easy way to make the virus a non-threat, or a small one at that.

To that end, you can see the numbers for yourself after vaccination started[1] and how greatly the number of deaths and cases has reduced.

[1] see for example Brazil since June till now: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/brazil/

> Have them defend your measures in public forums and feel very smart.

Given this is a place where IT Big Corp and govts. are constantly critized, I don't think anyone here is defending this as an WHO or any institution ass kisser

[lb0]

> draconian measures

really?

What's the fuzz about anti vaxxers always talking about "won't stop infection" or "stop the pandemic" - 1st this is not black and white - 2nd and nowhere I have seen that these are the actual arguments for these measures?

[titzer]

> "won't stop infection" or "stop the pandemic" - 1st this is not black and white

Seriously. Mitigating the damage from failure to contain and eradicate the virus when we had the chance (in the precious few early weeks where lockdowns had that potential, but guess what, the same people f'd that up) involves filter after filter after filter. Each filter reduces spread and severity by some amount. Masks reduce (but don't eliminate) transmission. Vaccines reduce (but don't eliminate) infections. Vaccines reduce the length of infection, reducing transmission. Lockdowns and social distancing reduce the spread. On and on. Every single measure is applying a filter that might only be 90% successful. That is no way a logical argument for no filter at all.

These people really don't understand how bad this pandemic would be if we had no mitigation measures at all. The entire hospital system would collapse and millions (more--probably tens of millions) would die. Yet that's what they constantly argue for. Yet forcing people to get a needle in their arm is "draconian".

[ekianjo]

> in the precious few early weeks where lockdowns had that potential

We have enough data by now, worldwide, to clearly say that lockdowns were completely bullshit and ineffective. There is virtually no correlation with viral spread and lockdown status.

[titzer]

> to clearly say that lockdowns were completely bullshit and ineffective.

You're saying that ineffective, half-hearted lockdowns elsewhere were ineffective? Hold the phone.

Victoria, Australia. South Korea. Wuhan. New Zealand. Singapore.

These lockdowns eradicated the virus locally--for several months at a time; but they are precarious, leaky ships due to the virus spreading everywhere else. An effective worldwide lockdown was exponentially more difficult. But very large countries with the ability to isolate themselves from international travel did do effective lockdowns, so I will not be accepting your narrative above.

[chrisseaton]

> violate their rights

Can you talk us through exactly which rights you think are being violated?

[ekianjo]

> Can you talk us through exactly which rights you think are being violated?

I recall the left has been very vocal about "my body my right" when it came to some different kind of issue.

Funny that the standards don't hold very much.

[chrisseaton]

> "my body my right"

That debate is about the state forcing you to do something.

This debate is about Google opting to not employ you.

Not even remotely comparable.

[summerlight]

Abortion is not even remotely comparable to this particular issue since it doesn't harm anyone but the real stakeholders. Not getting vaccine threaten everyone around you. Probably it's more comparable to the idiom "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".

[ekianjo]

> Not getting vaccine threaten everyone around you

I am kind of tired of hearing that when ACTUAL DATA shows that vaccinated people transmit the virus just as well.

[summerlight]

I am also kind of tired of hearing those who tries to turn this complex statistical problem into a simple binary problem in order to make an argument against vaccine.

Yeah, it's not a binary problem but the reproduction rate drastically decreases with vaccine. Vaccinated people may transmit the virus, but they're less likely to get infected at the first moment AND less likely to spread. This is supported by ACTUAL DATA from everywhere, including Israel and Portugal.

[titzer]

> the left has been very vocal about "my body my right"

Regarding abortion. Are pregnancies contagious now, creating a serious public health crisis?

[ekianjo]

> creating a serious public health crisis

the serious health crisis where mostly people with 3-4 comorbidities (or old age) are dying? It's rather a crisis when your population is not being very healthy in the first place.

[kaba0]

It’s not that goddamn hard to understand to even average intelligence people.. where do people with serious symptoms go when they can barely breath? To the hospital. Does the hospital has limited capacity? Yes. Will they be flooded really quickly when a disease grows exponentially? Hopefully you know the answer.

Now, tell me, where do healthy 20 years olds go (who I guess you are able to emphasize with, or is that only yourself?) when they get in an accident? Is a cancer discovered at the prime of someone’s life “comormibidity”?

[Ekaros]

Most of the time they happen due to contamination by foreign gene material. And historically they certainly have caused lot of mortality.

[efa]

I assume he means the right to not have a substance injected into your body if you don't want it.

[chrisseaton]

Google aren't forcing you to get an injection. They just won't employ you if you don't. That's not a violation of any rights.

Google also won't employ you if you turn up to your interview with very bad breath. That's not a violation of a right to not clean your teeth.

You're seriously confused about what a 'right' is.

[ekianjo]

> That's not a violation of any rights.

There is no medical secret anymore? Being vaccinated or not should be, and remain, a private decision - with your doctor as a counterpart. Your employer has nothing to do in it.

[chrisseaton]

> There is no medical secret anymore?

No I don't think that's a right is it?

I've always had to disclose vaccination status prior to the pandemic to my employer for travel reasons, for example.

[ngngngng]

The right to do whatever I feel like because that’s what “freedom” means /s

[nefitty]

1. Early messaging was muddled. We all know now that the vaccine lessens health impacts.

2. Not having an entire generation and their aggregated centuries of experience wiped out is probably beneficial for the future of a society.

3. I am vaccinated and am going to get a booster this week because I am very smart.

[titzer]

> and feel very smart.

Careful now, very smart person, this blade has two very sharp edges.

[jensensbutton]

> violate their rights

Citation needed.

[pwinnski]

Three separate errors in point 1.

Point 2 is false.

Point 3 is too vague to make any sense.