Unfortunately for us, nature and evolution "solving problems" frequently involves us all just dying and/or Earth spending a long period of time as a magma ocean and then several aeons as a hot rock.

"The planet is fine. It's the people that're fucked!" -- Carlin

You do understand that nature/evolution's plan or 'solution' can be to eradicate you?

Should I cry that mother nature doesn't like me? It's not like I can do something about natural disaster(hurricane, flood, earthquake, volcano eruption etc.) killing me.

If a Cat 5 hurricane is heading directly towards you, would you stay and say "If nature wants to kill me it can. Nothing I can do", or would you idk... go somewhere else?

When the tide comes in while you're on the beach, do you stay and accept your fate? Or do you move?

So centuries of civil engineering advances by the Netherlands and Japan don't count as 'doing something'?

Doing as an individual not as a society. Of course I can go to engineering school and help build defense mechanisms but as an average Joe I can move the needle only so much. I was speaking about a life of an individual not of human society or human civilization.

You can choose to move away (although then you might have to deal with lightning and tornadoes and droughts), or you can choose to live in areas with better code compliance. Those are still in your control.

Yea I or you should evaluate risk factors but there is always a degree of randomness involved. There is no place on Earth you are 100% safe from natural disasters.

Yep, and that’s why I suggested things you can do in place, like new construction.

No but you should not assume that defaulting to the victim's mindset will help your chances of survival. Your initial comment implied that nature has your best interest in heart; and your child comment is contradicting it?

What's so hard about taking a cautious approach and proactively increase your chances of survival? I.e get to higher grounds (floods), evacuating(hurricanes), get vaccinated (covid + new diseases?), etc.

I don't have time to explain you anymore but I will say this. I'm liberal, pro God and pro Science. I don't have anything against God or nature taking my life away or improving it (evolution) and I don't have anything against defense mechanisms like natural disaster controls or public health measurements like vaccination but I want my freedom. Someone said vaccination is our evolution I agree maybe we are approaching singularity but nobody can forbid me to work or travel because of 1 pathogen. I took all vaccines prior to this but I will not take this one so I can laugh at COVID passport because I live in free Europe and not in Hitler's Europe anymore. If this pandemic is something nearly close to Spanish Flu or Black Plague which took hundreds of millions of lives I would be the first one to take vaccine but not like this.

WHO's dubious approach and dubious rhetoric only made me suspicious. I'm still waiting for their investigation on where and how pandemic originated.

Why do you think this pandemic isn’t worst than the previous? If you gauge by economic impact alone it can be the worst ever. The lower number of lives lost is because of quicker lockdowns, vaccines, advanced health care, and information networks

The "later" part is the problem so.

If you absolutely have to resort to trial and error, at least don’t be the error.

Natural Selection is as dumb as a box of rocks and slow as molasses; when it comes to achieving a goal we humans do far better, far faster.

There’s obviously the merest whiff of trolling here, but come on.

*Edited so as not to besmirch the good name of frogs.

I will (most likely) not have kids, but even if I’m weak I don’t see it as my duty to die in order to not dilute the species.

But if you're not "weak", you could inadvertently spread it to someone who is "weak", and they could spread it to many other "weak" people, and then they all die and don't pass on their genes. It's true that this is a form of eugenics and natural selection, but it's not the kind that's compatible with the values of most humans.

> I discussed months ago here on HN that looking legally causing someone's death without intent is not criminal because you had no intent of killing

Intentional killing is usually first degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter, depending on premeditation. Second (in some schemes third) degree murder (depraved indifference) and involuntary manslaughter, and negligent homicide all are crimes, and do not require intent to kill.

So, you are very, very wrong.

> I have no intent or knowledge that I'm going to harm anyone

The source you link notes that there are other levels of mens rea supporting criminal offenses (recklessness, negligence) as well as offenses which are not dependent on mental state at all (strict liability offenses.)

I understand what involuntary manslaughter is but does it apply to spreading a virus? I'm not a lawyer but if it does I will act accordingly and try not to commit involuntary manslaughter hypothetically speaking.

> I understand what involuntary manslaughter is but does it apply to spreading a virus?

Neither depraved heart murder nor involuntary manslaughter has an exception for viral-agent-as-mechanism on any jurisdiction I'm familiar with.

You better hope that the judge handling your case doesn't stumble upon this comment thread. Your lack of Mens Rea isn't going to fly if you're caught meta-discussing the whole thing.

Also, manslaughter?

> I have no INTENTION of HARMING anyone.

I feel the same way when I'm doing 150mph down the highway. And yet...

If you kill somebody you will be charged for involuntary manslaughter or constructive manslaughter depending on what speed limit was but if I sit next to you unvaccinated in a waiting room should I be charged as well?

Are you asking for an ethical opinion, or legal one? I am no lawyer, I have no idea if you could be on the hook for reckless endangerment. If you know that your choice is risky, and you fail to act, then there are circumstances when you could be criminally liable. But usually these are situations where the law prescribes a duty to act.

Are you comfortable endangering those around you because protecting them is an inconvenient imposition on your freedom? That's an entirely different issue.

I mean if you're against vaccines, the best public health measure since soap, perhaps you're the weakest link we're begging natural selection to act on. Hope you don't use glasses, take antibiotics, receive surgery, or benefit otherwise from the million and one things humans have invented so as to not deal with random selection dependent on changing external stimuli

>I mean if you're against vaccines, the best public health measure since soap, perhaps you're the weakest link we're begging natural selection to act on.

I'm not against vaccination I'm against mandatory vaccination and limiting my human rights if I don't vaccinate. Nobody will prevent you from visiting a country if you don't use glasses, take antibiotics or anything else you mentioned.

I never visited Africa but I heard there are some security measures regarding Malaria but c'mon forbidding someone to work or travel only because he or she didn't get vaccinated against 1 pathogen is over the top.

I guess you're against sovereignty of nations other than your own? Plus how are they going to buy your country's vaccine if you/your countrymen won't take it?

And btw I understand what manslaughter is but again I'm not a lawyer. Refer me to any case or cases where someone is guilty of spreading a virus without intent(Involuntary).

Laws adopted in the course of the HIV pandemic in many jurisdictions made various acts that were more likely to spread the virus criminal if you knew you were infected unless other people put at risk were informed of the fact and consented to the risk, whether or not you intended to cause harm.

First google result: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit.... It's not difficult to find more examples.

If you know or could reasonably suspect you have a lethal virus and still go out without taking proper precautions then that is absolutely something people have sued over many many times.

It is unclear whether defendant was aware of having a HIV. It seems like he had no intent of spreading a disease and had limited or no knowledge of having it.

"I didn’t really do it intentionally but when we were drunk it ended up happening”."

How the case ended?

Legality and ethics are two distinct things.

I know but legal system is based on ethics. E.g. not stealing or not killing etc.

and now we’re evolved enough to have brains capable of giving us a competitive advantage against diseases!

unless you think that brains somehow aren’t part of our biological machine.

How about IVF and that it becomes almost a necessity for all their children.

Or the increased necessity of glasses at a young age.

It's not the beneficiaries particular brain that gave the competitive edge ;)

This is only an issue if everyone wants or needs kids. Glasses are similarly not a big deal. I feel like you could have used better examples to argue in favor of eugenics but at the end of the day it's still eugenics? People should have access to any and all medical advancements, better to address the problem than ignore it with selective breeding

So, why don't you move to the wilderness and leaves the internet for us, the weak ones?

Natural selection gave us the social structures that allow you to buy your cold cuts and quietly hoard your wealth so that you don't have to face an ounce of real hardship in your life.

> I mean it is natural selection if I'm weak I will die if I'm not I will pass my genes to my kids.

That's not how natural selection works.

What strength is there in being able to resist COVID-19 specifically, which is just one arbitrary sickness out of many that can still arise? One that didn‘t even exist until recently?

Strength and weakness are completely dependent on the environment and we are shaping that environment, for example by vaccinating.

It’s not you dying that’s the problem with your statement so much as the other people you’re going to kill because of your choice not to get vaccinated.

That’s one step away from a family member of mine saying recently, “You all can live in fear but I choose to live my life in faith that God will take care of me.”

You augment your memory with Google searches and your running speed with cars, why not augment your natural immune system with vaccines.

Well, I am about to get vaccinated with astrazeneca in half an hour ... but my counter argument would be: relying on vaccination and sterilisation too much, causes the immune system to be weak, too. Immune system needs practice, too.

That's literally what the jab does?

I came to counter him with a joke, but the downvoters beat me to it. Anyways:

The vaccine is more like going to the gym. We could continue our ancestor's practice of trying to run from lions, which was possibly better adrenaline practice, and even mostly successful. We might not be scientifically certain of the long-term side-effects of going to the gym, but I'll just rely on the gym nonetheless. And good for you going to the gym too!

Agreed.

> relying on vaccination and sterilisation too much, causes the immune system to be weak

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the mechanism of vaccination.

I think I do, but do you?

Because the way I understand it, vaccination trains only a very specific part of the immune system. Which is then indeed effective against the very specific virus, but does not really increase your general immune system strength.

Huh, it's almost as if the vaccine is to innoculate me against a specific lethal pathogen that I don't want to risk training my immune system on

If you want a better overall immune system eat better and excercise, there is zero reason to avoid a vaccine unless you're immunocompromised or allergic

"there is zero reason to avoid a vaccine unless you're immunocompromised or allergic"

sigh did you really get all the vaccines, that exist?

I doubt so. I actually never heard anyone recomending that. Quite the contrary. The idea is to get vaccinated against diseases you are likely to get in contact with - and then you still have to think about it, if it is worth it. Because EVERY vaccination has potential negative side effects, some quite severe.

So now there is a great chance to get in contact with Covid - so yeah, it makes sense to take that vaccine. I think I said, I did today.

But taking every vaccination?!? Come on. Or provide a source that the WHO or alike do recommend it. That would surprise me, as I traveled quite a bit and therefore discussed various vaccines with various doctors before.

And also, I never implied that you should skip a vaccine to get training on that disease. I said if you rely too much on sterilisation and vaccines - it does not help your immune system overal. Counterclaims to that? I doubt it. I am a bit annoyed by that bite-reflex of the crowd here. Maybe save that for the anti-vaxxers?

Vaccines are immune system training on literal steroids. Overall I get your point so, as we see with increased allergies.

Antibiotics, maybe. But vaccines stimulate your immune system to produce antibodies.

Vaccine is the practice

Reply to all:

(you all missed the sterilisation part and the "relying too much")

And well yes, vaccination is training. And training is good. Thats why I just did it. But training is not a real fight. Real battle experience beats training experience by far. At least in martial arts.(and as far as I know with the immune system, too. the immune system is a little bit more sophisticated than "antibodies". And the vaccinations mostly train only one part of it - the antibodies)

Meaning when your body would be vaccinated against everything known in a sterilized environment - he would never have to fight for real. Just against cripled germs or parts of them. So chances would be, a great disadvantage when facing a new disease it did not train for. A disease that is actively attacking and not just providing dna to read and store.

And my immune system is in a quite good shape(I travelled a lot off grid), which is why I actually was indeed more sceptical to the vaccination than the actual disease. Because it is a new technology. And nobody can guarantee, that the side effects are not worse for me, than the disease would be. Especially in the long run. Autoimmune diseases are increasing a lot. I can only trust the developers that their genetically modified cure does not mess with my immune system. I recon chances are low, so I got the shot.

People should be free to make choices regarding their own body but the notion of "nature" as an anthromorphic problem solver and superiority of genes is pretty out of sync with our reality. There are many augmentations we use to help survive and vaccines are no different. Glasses for instance are not "natural" but I don't see many people arguing that we should only let those with 20/20 vision survive. Going down that route leads to a lot of toxic notions. Writing this during the 15 minutes cool down after getting the first vaccine shot. So I know where I stand.

> Glasses for instance are not "natural"

There is quite a bit of pseudoscience on the internet that people don't really need glasses, they can train their eyes to work without them. See, for instance, the so-called Bates method[0], which had been well-debunked already in the mid-20th-century but, like so many quack claims, got a new life from the web.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method

>Glasses for instance are not "natural" but I don't see many people arguing that we should only let those with 20/20 vision survive.

I agree with you. Glasses and vaccine are great achievements of human civilization but I raised questions about freedom, biology and moral.

I'm not against vaccination I took many of them as a child and I have glasses which help and enhance me significantly but I'm not for mandatory vaccination or COVID passports that my European Union wants to enforce and I'm not for European Union limiting my human rights. We are going back to the days of Hitler where it was more important who you are "biologically" than looking at the fact that we are all humans and that we all have equal rights.

>However, Covid would be able to cause an infection again once the cold had passed and the immune response calmed down.

>Dr Murcia said: "Vaccination, plus hygiene measures, plus the interactions between viruses could lower the incidence of Sars-CoV-2 heavily, but the maximum effect will come from vaccination."

Vaccines are an end product of nature and evolution, too, and are much more reliable than hoping you always happen to get infected with rhinovirus near the same time you're exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

>Vaccines are an end product of nature and evolution, too, and are much more reliable than hoping you always happen to get infected with rhinovirus near the same time you're exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

I agree with you but how safe is mRNA vaccine in the long term? I would rather take "classical" vaccine.

I'd love to hear that from you when you're going to die.

Evolution gaves us very powerful brains. Why not use it?

Tell that to the dinosaurs.

They grew wings and spread to every corner of the Earth? We call them "birds" now.

Pretty sure dinosaurs didn't die from Covid.

(But it's a good theory, who really knows, amirite?)

Humans are a part of nature and vaccines are an evolutionary adaptation

Well, I prefer to prove my fitness by having the sense to be vaccinated rather than trying to fight against drowning in mucus.

Talk about confirmation bias!

Not the GP, but I have a question for you: if the vaccine works, why would I be putting others in danger by not getting it? Can't they get vaccinated instead?

If they can't, doesn't that just mean the vaccine is defective? As far as I know, vaccines are meant for those who are weaker, so if they can't get it, it seems to me that the vaccine is defective.

Also, the CDC has admitted that the asymptomatic transmission rate is far less than previously thought. (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004e3.htm?s_cid=mm...)

With all of that put together, it seems to me that if I am healthy, it would be better for me to save the vaccines for those who want them and need them and let my immune system build my immunity.

If we have a significant population of unvaccinated people, that provides the breeding ground for the virus to multiply and mutate into new strains that may bypass the current vaccine induced immunity which would require yet another round of vaccines.

Vaccinated people are still breeding grounds for a virus; they can still be carriers. Vaccines just give people the antibodies to not be affected by a virus.

But they are vastly less likely to shed if they have been vaccinated, therefore less transmission.

https://theconversation.com/can-vaccinated-people-still-spre...

That article gave no numbers. It made a claim and didn't back it up.

There's links in the article to Scientific American which also had papers from October 2020.

Cool. Where does that dispute the fact that those who are vaccinated are still breeding grounds for new variants of the virus?

If they shed less then they are less transmissible, it's in the article. It isn't about completely erradicating tranmission but bringing it to a level where the problem receeds. It's statistics, not a binary thing.

Please get vaccinated, it's good for society and yourself.

Not the GP.

Because society has accepted liability for vaccine injury (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Inj... and https://www.medicallicenselawyers.com/blog/covid-19-vaccine-...), it seems to me that it would be good for society for me to make the best choice for myself about the vaccine. Since society will pay if I get hurt, it would be best for me to weigh that in the decision to get vaccinated.

I will if government requires it but it was not my free will.

That would still be your free will. You'd still be presented with a choice:

A) Don't do the thing you don't want to (Vaccination)

- or -

B) Don't do the thing that having a vaccination would let you do.

That's still freedom of choice - you're free to decide what you want more. Having constraints on you isn't removing your free will.

that’s barely freedom of choice. a robber pulling a gun on you and saying your money or your life isn’t what any reasonable person interprets as free will. free will would be not going to jail or being banned from society if you chose not to take the vaccine.

Is there any such discussion about being banned from society or going to jail? That seems incredibly hyperbolic. What I've heard is discussions of things like cruises and international travel to certain destination, which are entirely optional activities.

Funny, I’m the opposite. I would have no significant reservations if it wasn’t for the creepy fascist vibe oozing from beneath the facade of “science”.

As it stands, I’ll go to war today and die to guarantee my and your and everyone’s right to refuse, should TPTB actually try anything that stupid. Shouldn’t be a problem though, the people in favor seem to be mostly bullies making noise. They tend to shut up when you let them know that their only path forward is to start, and then try to win, a war.

"I believe the vaccine works and I'll die for your right not to take it" is one hell of a take, and I'm just happy there really aren't that many of you out there.

You may want to remove the link in your profile where you express skepticism that we'll hit millions of deaths worldwide, as it's going to make people question your already questionable viewpoints even more.

It's hardly a surprise that someone who believes strongly in personal freedom might fight to defend it for (what are supposedly) liberal societies, especially given that several very large wars of the 20th century (hot and cold) are often described as fights for freedom, and usual for the freedom of of others and of all.

This is basically the default position of every liberal (not in the misapplied American parlance) for at least 150 years now and surely far longer.

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.”

John Stuart Mill, 1862

https://www.bartleby.com/73/1934.html

That's my stance. I'll get vaccinated, I'd recommend it to others, but wouldn't want to live in a society where it was mandatory.

there are a lot of things that are mandatory in this country, some of which I think should not be, and some of which I think should be

I think vaccines are a good one to be mandatory

Which country are you talking about?

A wild bully appears!

> skepticism that we’ll hit millions of deaths worldwide

Here’s the exact quote from the blog, in case any bystanders suspect that this person might not be arguing in good faith:

“Personally I don’t think that millions of healthy people will ever drop dead from one of these diseases in the space of a year, like they once did from a flu in 1918.”

> I’m just happy there really aren’t that many of you out there.

Should it come to the point where “dying for rights” is a real thing again (in America), I guess you’ll find out.

Question- since there are plenty of vaccines that are already mandatory for various things in the US, shouldn't you already be dying for your rights?

Not the GP, but those laws are unconstitutional. If we don't assert our rights, we will lose them.

"Those who will give up liberty for security [from a virus] will lose both."

not only are you not the GP, you also didn't and can't answer my question

If you are not willing to die for them, you will lose them.

We are, in fact, losing them now, so yes, now is the time to be willing to die for them.

No one is holding people down and injecting them with a vaccine. Everyone has the right to refuse. But society also has a right (and an obligation) to ensure that externalities are costed appropriately. You refusing a vaccine is a choice, but it also negatively affects others around you.

Whether its in the form of tax penalties, barred admission from public services, vaccination "passport" campaigns, or what have you, there needs to be a cost to associated with the damage your personal decision does to our society. If refusing a vaccine is truly that important to you, you are welcome to pay the cost. But I suspect many anti-vaxxers are simply societal freeloaders whose "principles" will melt away when they actually cost them something.

I share your skepticism. Vaccines are a relatively new technology, with various buggy vaccines coming out that were actually more harmful than helpful. Time will tell if the mRNA "Vaccine" will be a net positive. I am totally okay with other people injecting whatever they want in their bodies, as long as they don't try to make me do it, too. I would rather die of natural causes than a rushed-to-market product.

What do you mean "Vaccines are a relatively new technology"?

We've had vaccines since 1796 [0] when Edward Jenner developed a vaccine for smallpox, a terrible disease that we fully eradicated thanks to vaccination. A disease that you and me don't have to worry about because of vaccines.

(Likewise for Cholera, Tetanus, Polio, Tuberculosis, Meningitis, etc)

Also, trains, cars, planes, cameras, lightbulbs and every invention of Edison are newer technologies than vaccines.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_vaccines

Maybe they mean "mRNA vaccines"? COVID vaccine is the first of this kind, so some side effects, especially long term ones, are still unknown. It's still unlikely that they would be very serious but we won't know for sure until 10 years from now.

In case people really have concerns about the newer mRNA vaccines, perhaps they can choose the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is a more traditional one.

Both are more or less new. The AZ method is only known from Ebola vaccines but they were not not used globally.