5 ms·

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 g

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.

jensensbutton 5y ago
> violate their rights Citation needed.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> violate their rights Can you talk us through exactly which rights you think are being violated?
- efa 5y ago
  I assume he means the right to not have a substance injected into your body if you don't want it.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      > 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 5y ago
        > 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.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > 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.
  - titzer 5y ago
    > the left has been very vocal about "my body my right" Regarding abortion. Are pregnancies contagious now, creating a serious public health crisis?
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      Most of the time they happen due to contamination by foreign gene material. And historically they certainly have caused lot of mortality.
    - ekianjo 5y ago
      > 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 5y ago
        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”?
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > "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.
- ngngngng 5y ago
  The right to do whatever I feel like because that’s what “freedom” means /s
lb0 5y ago
> 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 5y ago
  > "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 5y ago
    > 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 5y ago
      > 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.
pwinnski 5y ago
Three separate errors in point 1. Point 2 is false. Point 3 is too vague to make any sense.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
titzer 5y ago
> and feel very smart. Careful now, very smart person, this blade has two very sharp edges.
nefitty 5y ago
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.
feikname 5y ago
> 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/ 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
dang 5y ago
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 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jensensbutton 5y ago

> violate their rights Citation needed.

chrisseaton 5y ago

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

efa 5y ago
I assume he means the right to not have a substance injected into your body if you don't want it.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    > 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 5y ago
      > 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.
ekianjo 5y ago
> 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.
- titzer 5y ago
  > the left has been very vocal about "my body my right" Regarding abortion. Are pregnancies contagious now, creating a serious public health crisis?
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Most of the time they happen due to contamination by foreign gene material. And historically they certainly have caused lot of mortality.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    > 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 5y ago
      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”?
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > "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.
ngngngng 5y ago
The right to do whatever I feel like because that’s what “freedom” means /s

lb0 5y ago

> 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 5y ago
> "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 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
    > 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.

pwinnski 5y ago

Three separate errors in point 1. Point 2 is false. Point 3 is too vague to make any sense.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

titzer 5y ago

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

nefitty 5y ago

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.

feikname 5y ago

> 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/ 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

dang 5y ago

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