Not addressing the harm it might do to vaccinated people - don't we have some responsibility to encourage unvaccinated people to get the vaccine for their own good? It's all very well saying "if they want to take the risk, then that's their decision" but in reality many of them have been manipulated by mis and disinformation. Maybe not the hacker news types that are being skeptical and looking at the data and thinking logically, but the vast majority just don't understand the science and look to others for direction.

I understand your point, but saving others from themselves is paternalism writ large. It's not to be taken lightly.

Anyway, the COVID death rates right now are bellow diabetes, smoking [1], etc. On a purely "save people from themselves" COVID ranks really low right now.

You could argue that the vaccine is a small cost to save a person (vs. the cost of banning soda or smoking), but that's pretty paternalistic.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal...

> It appears to me that a pandemic of the unvaccinated harms the unvaccinated.

I'm vaccinated with two shots but I can't go on holidays because some people do not want to get vaccinated, I need to go out in mask, business of my friend has lower income now because of covid limitations. On next wave hospitals in my country will get overrun again which means a lot of other vaccinated people will die because of untreated medical issues, we will get another lockdown, which will hurt vaccinated people financially.

Those are really just issues with your government and their decision about what are the appropriate responses. It's not the unvaccinated that are hurting you here, but the government response to them. If the unvaccinated are fine dying and not killing those who fear COVID, why have all the restrictions?

Imagine if the government told you you can't wear a short skirt because a religious extremist might stab you. In what world does is this edict fair? And to make this comparison fair, this case, the religious extremist is also wearing a short skirt!

> Those are really just issues with your government and their decision about what are the appropriate responses.

Well, mandatory vaccinations then should not be a problem too, right? they would also be only issues with your government.

> If the unvaccinated are fine dying and not killing those who fear COVID, why have all the restrictions?

Because none of them is fine with dying. I guarantee you that 99.9% of the unvaccinated people when confrontend with death will NOT say "oh, I've covid just let me die" which means hospitals will be overrun again = affecting vaccinated people in every way that I mentioned in my previous response.

> Imagine if the government told you you can't wear a short skirt because a religious extremist might stab you.

Ruling by the European Court of Human Rights set the precedent that obligatory vaccinations do not contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. I don't know about the rest of the world, I live in Europe. In your example government would do something ridiculously against common sense and Convention on Human Rights. Maybe you should find better analogy.

EDIT: And let me ask you this as I see you have kids and you are unvaccinated, if you get sick and will be offered place and care in hospital that could save your life, will you choose to accept it? Or based on principles you will deny and let your kids live without father? I think we both know the answer to that question (unless you don't care about your kids). And now you are affecting vaccinated people by taking place in hospital/using hospital staff time that could be used for/on vaccinated people.

"Ruling by the European Court of Human Rights ..."

I care as much about the opinions of the ECHR (or any other court[1]) about as much as I care of the opinion of martians. They are not god-oracles of morality. I'm a thinking being I'll come to the conclusions myself. You're free to reproduce to me their arguments though.

"Well, mandatory vaccinations then should not be a problem too, right? they would also be only issues with your government."

What's your point? Obviously mandatory vaccinations are a problem between me and my sovereign. The problems you originally stated (unreasonable restrictions on your liberty given the realized effectiveness of the vaccines) were problems you have with your government, but you were putting them at the feet of the unvaccinated. Again, my original question was who are the unvaccinated hurting but themselves?

"Because none of them is fine with dying. I guarantee you that 99.9% of the unvaccinated people when confronted with death will NOT say "oh, I've covid just let me die" "

That's 1 in 1000 people. In my experience there is a huge variation of personalities among 1000 people [2] I'm curious what you assess your guarantee on. From my experience, given the group of people I like to befriend, you'd be lucky to get 80%.

But anyway this comment reeks of paternalism. Smoking, motorcycling, sugar, they all have a huge potential to kill me. I'm guess I'll be sad if any one of them does. So what?

" if you get sick and will be offered place and care in hospital that could save your life, will you choose to accept it? "

First I haven't said why I'm not vaccinated. I've only eluded to an auto-immune disease that I waiting to speak to my specialist about.

In fact the primary reasons why I'm not vaccinated are primarily moral. For example, I don't see why a healthy young adult should get a vaccine before an elderly South American just because he's from the North. I thought we'd agreed all lives are valuable, not just European ones.

Second, given that my objections are primarily moral, I signed up for a vaccine trial to get a vaccine while addressing my moral concerns.

Third, I've asked ppl not to be personal. I only mentioned that I also have kids because someone threw theirs in my face. But if you must know,

a. I don't think (given the reasons why I'm not vaccinated and that I in fact volunteered to their trials) I have an obligation not to go to a hospital

b. I don't see why an anti-vaxxer (I'm not one) should be denied hospital care. Do you believe, for example, that society shouldn't take care of those who, being able to, failed to save for retirement and blew their money on fun? How about smokers? Should they be denied cancer care?

c. Based on principles, yes, I would (or hope to have the courage to) make my kids father-less. But this is hardly the situation (see point a and b).

Why did you italicize "principles"? Are you nihilistically implying that principles are generally worthless in the face of material realities? Or are you implying that those who's principles are different than yours aren't worthy?

d. "Unless you don't care about your kids" - I'd regret your comment if it weren't so silly, I invite you to think about it more deeply. My best friend is a firefighter who literally walks into burning houses to save people's lives. He risks making his three boys orphans every day he goes to work. He choose his dangerous career, he could have studied law. Are you implying that he doesn't deserve his kids?

Malcom X, MLK, both had kids who did something greater than themselves and died for it. Are you saying they didn't love their kids? [3]

[1] I don't mean that I'm not bound to my country's highest court's decisions - that's what living in society entails. However, the ECHR is not the fount of moral certainty. Also there is a latent submissiveness in the comment. An unelected bureaucracy says something and its like gospel? Only your actions are bound to the ECHR, not your conscience.

[2] There might be observational bias - I pride myself in having relationships with as many walks of life as possible.

[3] I not drawing comparison between those who don't take the vaccines and these titans of the 20th century. I just mean to illustrate how thoughtless the comment that leaving my kids fatherless for principles implies that I don't love them.

In the end, though, your life journey is no one's but your own.

I want to thank all those who answered my questions politely. I'm pleased to say you appear to have been the majority.

Unfortunately, I'm still unconvinced that the unvaccinated are harming anyone other than themselves. This opens a good topic on the role of paternalism to force people to better themselves. But that'll be for another day.

unvaccinated people are two to three times more contagious than vaccinated people.

therefore they are spreaders.

please note I'm only repeating what I heard from the cbc.

the other arguments are mostly economics and logistics. e.g delaying surgeries

Unvaccinated people are not more contagious. Latest study shows they have about the same viral load.

> "Who are the unvaccinated hurting, exactly?"

My kids, who are too young to be vaccinated. I don't appreciate you being blase about their health.

My father, who is quite possibly immunocompromised, and may not have acquired a strong immunity from his vaccine.

I asked honestly, and seriously. I want to be taught, explained to. Not given lip.

I take (strong) exception to be characterized as "blase". My kids aren't eligible for vaccination either. I can assure you Im not "blase" about their health.

You might want to look at the actual statistics of the harm of COVID for under 12. If that frightens you, that's fine, but then I would encourage you to look at other daily behaviors and their risks.

As to your father, you're right, he may have not acquired a strong response. However, the vaccines are, rightly, praised for being very effective. Including among people who are immunocompromised. As a society we take "accept" hypothetical small risks and will continue to do so until we ban cars inside cities (which I'm in favor of, btw).

>> "Who are the unvaccinated hurting, exactly?"

> You might want to look at the actual statistics of the harm of COVID for under 12. If that frightens you, that's fine, but then I would encourage you to look at other daily behaviors and their risks.

It doesn't matter what the statistics are, it's a risk they're exposed to because of the unvaccinated, anti-maskers, and people looking for every fucking excuse they can think of to avoid addressing this infectious disease.

My only objection to your original post was your tone. Specifically dismissing my question as blase. Otherwise I thought your father's condition was the only good objection I've read so far. In fact, my wife being temporarily immunocompromised herself is why I signed up to a vaccine trial. But then you go off and swear at me on your subsequent post.

As to your italized "because of the vaccinated" your kids are at risk (irregardless the small risk): that's really no different than me having to walk in a city surrounded by texting motorists. The difference being that texting kills far more people and yet, despite laws to the contrary, nothing is done about it.

Seriously, let's mandate locking up phones that are moving more than 5mph. It'll save far more <12 year old lives than vaccinating everyone.

Mandate all pool areas be closed to children under the age of 12. It would also save far more <12 year old lives than vaccinating everyone.

Swimming and texting serve valid purposes which make life's quality better (communication/economics, RnR, preserving good physical condition etc). It can also indirectly save lives; the math of it would be hard to conduct on HN, but I guess no one will argue that it's an unreasonable argument.

While not getting vaccinated doesn't seem to serve any valid purpose - assuming loss of time, or v. small risk of adverse reactions are not big obstacles - then it has only benefits, both for you and others.

To sum up: closing swimming pools for <12 will save some lives and will cause loss of life (b/c poorer quality of life) - in the end it's a political decision based on what science can provide at the moment in terms of data. The vaccinating gain/loss equation is obvious.

"While not getting vaccinated doesn't seem to serve any valid purpose"

Well the "doesn't seem" is crux of the matter, isn't it? For whatever reason for those who don't want the vaccine, the vaccine does take something real away from them. Something they value more than the statistical benefit of getting jabbed. They might not be able to elucidate it well, but it's very real for them.

How is this the case, if getting vaccinated doesn't prevent you from being a carrier? It seems that your children are at roughly equal risk of catching covid from a vaccinated friend vs. an unvaccinated friend. No? At least this is what a lot of people are saying in these comments.

I don't mean to sound callous here, but I am completely unmoved by the idea that small children are somehow being put at risk. Children under 12 have a 99.995% chance of surviving covid, and the severity of symptoms they experience is similarly miniscule.

From a purely business perspective a COVID-19 infection is highly disruptive to business operations. If you're following CDC guidelines (and some businesses legally must) then a COVID-19 infection causes you to not only lose the infected employee for the duration of their illness, but you lose every other non-vaccinated employee who has had contact with that employee for two weeks. I know of at least five businesses near me that had to close down for two weeks in the fall/winter due to COVID-19 infection - they didn't have enough non-sick, non-quarantined employees to operate.

That's why an employer might mandate vaccinations for their employees.