Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by graeme 2 hours ago
In the UK it's commonly said, and the Guardian is a UK paper.

Though you've noticed a real thing: for some reason during and after the pandemic publications outside of the UK started saying it too and I don't know why.

1 comments

> outside of the UK

> I don't know why

My guess is because it has a negative connotation (the pre-2020 definition of jabbing someone was to hit someone, not inject someone).

In the UK, I believe jab has long been equivalent to shot in the US (complete with nonviolent connotation despite the word meaning something violent in other contexts).
Maybe, but it's a bit weird to complain about connotations for "jab" when the US word is "shot" which surely has even more violent connotations,
> UK during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2021, when public health campaigns urged people to "get the jab."

Asked and answered, ty.

The term was popularized the US during the pandemic as well. It seemed like it was used by conservative media in the US to try to further politicize vaccination as something being inflicted on them.

Yep, often accompanied by an idiotic fake distinction between "jab/shot" and "vaccine", like "it's not a vaccine, it's a shot!"

True: There are shots which aren't vaccines, and vaccines which aren't shots.

False: "The COVID 'vaccine' isn't actually a vaccine! It's a jab!"

I got the covid vaccine (Pfizer) and I still get other vaccines, but it was 100% "inflicted" on everyone (especially with the Federal government requiring civil servants to get it). To believe otherwise is to succumb to the politicalization of it (from everyone other than the conservative media). The rush job was sketchy, which is why I went with the established brand when I volunteered with CERT at our vaccination POD to distribute vaccines to the public.

Edit: and the politicalization of it continues... sigh

> Asked and answered, ty.

Yes, the person I responded to asked, and yes, I was the only person who answered. You're welcome?