5 ms·

I think it's a direct consequence of media and government trying to remove free will from the equation and present taking the vaccine as the only choice people

I think it's a direct consequence of media and government trying to remove free will from the equation and present taking the vaccine as the only choice people have. If you're going to essentially force people to do it, a statistically meaningless side-effect becomes more important as reason for people to push back (and the media to drum up false fears). If you treat people like adults and let them consult their doctors and make their own decisions, the bar is much lower for safety (by lower I mean from impossibly high to reasonable). People willingly take much more risky medicines and treatments all the time and are fine with it. But if you try and force something in them, it's not surprising they push back on anything that isn't guaranteed to be perfect. (So my point is, I think demand would be higher and concerns lower if you just made it available and let people make their own choice. But the whole pandemic has been more about forcing people to do things than about trying to do things that actually solve the problem) [Edit- it's funny how any presence of giving people control over their bodies evaporates in a situation like this. And re the strawman that "nobody is forcing you" - if the consequence is severe limits on what you are allowed to do, that doesnt really hold up]

jdavis703 5y ago
No one is being forced to take vaccines. It’s already announced there will be no federal vaccine passport, and many states are banning passports.
- option 5y ago
  at least here, in California, you can not chose which one you get when making the appointment or when arriving at the vaccination site. Also CSU and UC will require vaccinations for return to on-campus. (Though I'm not sure that they will be able to do so until vaccines are under "emergency use" authorization, not a regular one)
  - void_mint 5y ago
    It's true that you can't choose, but lots of places are listing what vaccines they're doing on specific days. You can "choose" by booking an appointment at a location that has the one you want, or by avoiding locations that have ones you don't want. As an example, I booked my appointment specifically at a location that only carried Pfizer.
    - option 5y ago
      yeah, when I went (and got Moderna), I saw many people (who booked the appointment) asking staff "Is it Pfizer" and leaving when the answer was No.
      - void_mint 5y ago
        My personal take was just to avoid J&J in favor of mRNA vaccines, but only because of my vague obsessive anxiety.
        halfjoking 5y ago
        I have the opposite take. It seems it would be harder for the government to insert a "biological backdoor" into a viral vector vaccine than something that runs any RNA code as long as it's encoded in a special lipid delivery system (according to my limited understanding). 1 in 250k chance of blood clots is nothing... at least compared to the anxiety of the government having a switch in my biology that could melt my brain at anytime.
        void_mint 5y ago
        That's one take. Mine was more about efficacy. J&J IIRC was around 60%, while mRNA vaccines are around 90%. Big brain vaccine scientists tell me that 60% is fine but all I see is 30% less efficacy. I wouldn't be able to feel confident/safe even after getting J&J.
      - arsome 5y ago
        That seems like a really weird decision because both Moderna and Pfizer are using very similar technologies and haven't had much negative press coverage.
        option 5y ago
        yes, and a waste of appointment slot
        5y ago
  - tzs 5y ago
    Here in Western Washington, I've not seen any site mixing vaccines. One Walgreens might have Moderna and another Pfizer, but any given day any particular store will only have one of them. Most places say when you sign up which they will have for your appointment, but if they do not you can often tell by looking at the eligibility. If they are offering appointments to people age 16+, they are using Pfizer. If 18+, Moderna. Most places here also tell you on the signup form that your second appointment will be the same time and place exactly N weeks after the first. If N = 3, they are using Pfizer. If N = 4, Moderna.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Considering no ID was required to get a vaccine and the “proof” is nothing more than a date written on a card, I’m curious how they will enforce it.
- neither_color 5y ago
  Domestically that's the case but if you have(had) to travel abroad often for work or family reasons that won't be the case. I regularly(used to) visit and have family ties to a country that allows vaccine records in lieu of negative tests for entry. I'd say that's reasonable. https://www.traveloffpath.com/countries-open-for-vaccinated-tourists-the-complete-list/ https://www.traveloffpath.com/countries-open-for-vaccinated-...
  - void_mint 5y ago
    Right, but are you seeing how allowing vaccine records in lieu of other documentation is not the same as requiring vaccination?
    - neither_color 5y ago
      None of this has made sense for months I'm just going with the flow. We get x-ray scanned through our clothes every time we fly what's dignity? It's just another airport document as far as Im concerned.
      - void_mint 5y ago
        I'm sorry, I can't really tell how your comment is related to my comment? What does verifying that you took precaution to prevent the spread of covid have to do with dignity?
        neither_color 5y ago
        My mistake. I misread your response as requiring one or the other being the same as forcing. Some people find having to show a negative test or vaccination record for international travel as invasive, and to them I'd say that the real violation of privacy happens at the TSA line.
  - ForHackernews 5y ago
    You mean you'll have to fulfil certain legal requirements in order to be permitted entry to a foreign country? Surely that's unprecedented!
elliekelly 5y ago
> So my point is, I think demand would be higher and concerns lower if you just made it available and let people make their own choice. That's already how it works, though. Everyone is free to decide for themselves whether or not they'd like to be vaccinated.
- ibejoeb 5y ago
  To an extent. Presently, you won't be thrown in jail if you don't get it. But you can't go to NYU. You can't go to a wedding. You can't go to a concert, or a football game, you can't fly Qantas...
  - histriosum 5y ago
    Yes. You are free to make a choice, not free from the consequences of that choice.
    - kosievdmerwe 5y ago
      This is a meaningless statement. It pretty much makes the idea of "coercion" impossible. "The mugger didn't force you give him your money. You could have chosen to say no. You being killed is just you not being free of the consequences of your choice". Imposing consequences on people is coercing them to make the choice you want them to. None of the consequences mentioned are natural consequences, like getting sick from the disease, but additional consequences someone decided on.
      - arcticfox 5y ago
        IMO the position that someone should be free from all consequences is the meaningless idea. Someone not taking the vaccine is imposing consequences on everyone else around them and society at large, raising the risk of immune-escape variants, raising transmission risk to people that can't take it for medical reasons, raising the risk even for vaccine-protected people by defeating herd immunity (J&J gives 72% protection, so you're running a fair risk if the rest of society isn't vaccinated.) The consequences you complain of are pretty much just pricing in those externalities to the decision.

jdavis703 5y ago

No one is being forced to take vaccines. It’s already announced there will be no federal vaccine passport, and many states are banning passports.

option 5y ago
at least here, in California, you can not chose which one you get when making the appointment or when arriving at the vaccination site. Also CSU and UC will require vaccinations for return to on-campus. (Though I'm not sure that they will be able to do so until vaccines are under "emergency use" authorization, not a regular one)
- void_mint 5y ago
  It's true that you can't choose, but lots of places are listing what vaccines they're doing on specific days. You can "choose" by booking an appointment at a location that has the one you want, or by avoiding locations that have ones you don't want. As an example, I booked my appointment specifically at a location that only carried Pfizer.
  - option 5y ago
    yeah, when I went (and got Moderna), I saw many people (who booked the appointment) asking staff "Is it Pfizer" and leaving when the answer was No.
    - void_mint 5y ago
      My personal take was just to avoid J&J in favor of mRNA vaccines, but only because of my vague obsessive anxiety.
      - halfjoking 5y ago
        I have the opposite take. It seems it would be harder for the government to insert a "biological backdoor" into a viral vector vaccine than something that runs any RNA code as long as it's encoded in a special lipid delivery system (according to my limited understanding). 1 in 250k chance of blood clots is nothing... at least compared to the anxiety of the government having a switch in my biology that could melt my brain at anytime.
        void_mint 5y ago
        That's one take. Mine was more about efficacy. J&J IIRC was around 60%, while mRNA vaccines are around 90%. Big brain vaccine scientists tell me that 60% is fine but all I see is 30% less efficacy. I wouldn't be able to feel confident/safe even after getting J&J.
    - arsome 5y ago
      That seems like a really weird decision because both Moderna and Pfizer are using very similar technologies and haven't had much negative press coverage.
      - option 5y ago
        yes, and a waste of appointment slot
      - 5y ago
- tzs 5y ago
  Here in Western Washington, I've not seen any site mixing vaccines. One Walgreens might have Moderna and another Pfizer, but any given day any particular store will only have one of them. Most places say when you sign up which they will have for your appointment, but if they do not you can often tell by looking at the eligibility. If they are offering appointments to people age 16+, they are using Pfizer. If 18+, Moderna. Most places here also tell you on the signup form that your second appointment will be the same time and place exactly N weeks after the first. If N = 3, they are using Pfizer. If N = 4, Moderna.
- refurb 5y ago
  Considering no ID was required to get a vaccine and the “proof” is nothing more than a date written on a card, I’m curious how they will enforce it.
neither_color 5y ago
Domestically that's the case but if you have(had) to travel abroad often for work or family reasons that won't be the case. I regularly(used to) visit and have family ties to a country that allows vaccine records in lieu of negative tests for entry. I'd say that's reasonable. https://www.traveloffpath.com/countries-open-for-vaccinated-tourists-the-complete-list/ https://www.traveloffpath.com/countries-open-for-vaccinated-...
- void_mint 5y ago
  Right, but are you seeing how allowing vaccine records in lieu of other documentation is not the same as requiring vaccination?
  - neither_color 5y ago
    None of this has made sense for months I'm just going with the flow. We get x-ray scanned through our clothes every time we fly what's dignity? It's just another airport document as far as Im concerned.
    - void_mint 5y ago
      I'm sorry, I can't really tell how your comment is related to my comment? What does verifying that you took precaution to prevent the spread of covid have to do with dignity?
      - neither_color 5y ago
        My mistake. I misread your response as requiring one or the other being the same as forcing. Some people find having to show a negative test or vaccination record for international travel as invasive, and to them I'd say that the real violation of privacy happens at the TSA line.
- ForHackernews 5y ago
  You mean you'll have to fulfil certain legal requirements in order to be permitted entry to a foreign country? Surely that's unprecedented!

elliekelly 5y ago

> So my point is, I think demand would be higher and concerns lower if you just made it available and let people make their own choice. That's already how it works, though. Everyone is free to decide for themselves whether or not they'd like to be vaccinated.

ibejoeb 5y ago
To an extent. Presently, you won't be thrown in jail if you don't get it. But you can't go to NYU. You can't go to a wedding. You can't go to a concert, or a football game, you can't fly Qantas...
- histriosum 5y ago
  Yes. You are free to make a choice, not free from the consequences of that choice.
  - kosievdmerwe 5y ago
    This is a meaningless statement. It pretty much makes the idea of "coercion" impossible. "The mugger didn't force you give him your money. You could have chosen to say no. You being killed is just you not being free of the consequences of your choice". Imposing consequences on people is coercing them to make the choice you want them to. None of the consequences mentioned are natural consequences, like getting sick from the disease, but additional consequences someone decided on.
    - arcticfox 5y ago
      IMO the position that someone should be free from all consequences is the meaningless idea. Someone not taking the vaccine is imposing consequences on everyone else around them and society at large, raising the risk of immune-escape variants, raising transmission risk to people that can't take it for medical reasons, raising the risk even for vaccine-protected people by defeating herd immunity (J&J gives 72% protection, so you're running a fair risk if the rest of society isn't vaccinated.) The consequences you complain of are pretty much just pricing in those externalities to the decision.