I haven't spoken to an anti-vaxxer yet. Those that I've seen in the media have been completely irrational (5g/bill gates theories). So, I'm looking forward to learning from a rational person what their motivations are.

What are your reasons to refuse a vaccine? Weren't you vaccinated as a child for polio & chicken pox? Why is this vaccine a hill to die on? Thanks.

Not every anti-mandate person is a anti-vax. Government mandates are a political issue. Depending on the country and its laws, some believe mandates are illegal and constitute government tyranny. They may value rule by law or autonomy over their bodies. They may choose to receive vaccine but don't want to be 'forced to choose'.

Not every anti-covid-vax person is anti-other-vax. The mRNA vaccine is novel. Many believe its long-term safety profile is TBD. They think comparing vaccines with decades of safety data to ones with months is apples to oranges. They may also believe that Covid is not very dangerous to their demographic and don't like the risk/benefit calculation. They may also not trust the pharmaceutical industry and its influence on global health policy. The indemnifications of liability may give them pause to accept all the risk of side-effects. The censorship of contrary opinions on media may also affect their willingness to believe everything they are being told about the safety, efficacy, and necessity of the vaccines.

"Anti-vax" has become a convenient political weapon. It's important to unpack what it means and who is using it and why.

You articulated my sentiments way better than I could, thank you.

Thank you for sharing.

> some believe mandates are illegal and constitute government tyranny

This isn't a vaccine mandate. You are free to choose to be tested or vaccinated. Do you feel being forced to make this choice is tyranny, if so how bad do things have to get before the good of society becomes more important than your personal choice?

I ask you to put your thinking hat on and imagine other scenarios where compulsion is softened by indirection. The 'tested or vaccinated' choice is a temporary choice and unlikely to last. The pressure is firmly in the vaccinate or lose your job direction.

What is the 'good of society' and who decides it? In a pluralistic society there is valid disagreement about which are the goods (plural) of society. It seems you don't agree.

I'm still wondering if the saliva test meets the requirements? Anyone know?

I feel that forcing an uncomfortable nasal swab test is being used as a means of punishment, and not based on science. If it was just saliva I wouldn't feel that way.

Not who you're replying to, but the good of society never becomes more important than your personal choice.

Clearly the good of society is more important than some personal choices.

We don’t allow people to make personal choices to commit murder, or to drive drunk, or even to drive at all without licenses.

Laws against murder and drunk driving are to protect other individuals against having their rights violated by you. Society never comes into the calculation, only the self interest of other individuals.

You can drive without a license.

The agreed-upon surface area of 'the good of society' is smaller than you think. A disease that is %99.99 survivable and likely won't be resolved by non-sterilizing vaccine. is not comparable to the prohibition on murder.

I think it's larger than you think. In some regions ICUs are filled with covid patients and surgeries are being cancelled as a result.

> Not every anti-mandate person is a anti-vax. Government mandates are a political issue. Depending on the country and its laws, some believe mandates are illegal and constitute government tyranny. They may value rule by law or autonomy over their bodies. They may choose to receive vaccine but don't want to be 'forced to choose'.

This makes as much sense as a family member I have who wont wear his seat belt. He admits that seat belts save lives and greatly improve safety, but won't wear his out of spite because "the government shouldn't force me to do it". Imagine deliberately choosing to amplify the danger of driving, every time you drive, purely on principle to "Oppose Tyranny."

To a natural paternalist, the desire for autonomy doesn't make any sense. Regardless of the existential value of 'spite' to your family member, the issue of whether something is legal or not is bigger than 'spite' to those who value rule by law. They are not so ready to trade their legal standing for supposed safety. If you give up your rights so readily it shows how little value they have for you. Don't expect the government to care about them more than you do.

I’m vaccinated, but against this vaccine mandate. My proposed method is this:

1) If you want to get vaccinated, get vaccinated.

2) If you don’t, don’t.

3) If you go to the hospital with a COVID infection, your care is covered by insurance if you are vaccinated. If you are not, your care is not covered by insurance.

This allows people to make decisions about their bodies, while also fending off the two main arguments I see for why everyone should be vaccinated. Those arguments are:

1) Unvaccinated people are hosts for mutations which can break through vaccines. Since we are already going to be doing yearly updates to this vaccine a la flu vaccines, this is not a concern to those who want to be vaccinated as they will get fresh protection each year.

2) Hospital beds are being filled with COVID patients, thus blocking people with e.g. heart attacks, car crash injuries etc. from getting care. With my plan, the unvaccinated will be disincentivized to go to the hospital to get COVID care, thus freeing these beds up. Again, this respects personal choices.

But forcing people to do something to their body? Not cool with me. Also not logically consistent with being pro-choice, which most of my pro-mandate (anti-choice) friends are.

To quote our vice-president, "The right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is not negotiable. The right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is their decision, it is their body."

However, being pregnant does not cause other people to become pregnant against their will.

That doesn't address the core hypocrisy of the statement, which is that bodily autonomy is "non-negotiable" for some and non-existent for others. Either the government has authority over your body or they don't, regardless of justification.

I don't see the hypocrisy. Get vaccinated or get tested for covid weekly. It's your choice.

We need to get back to normal, continuing with our previous approach wasn't working, so we have to do something. This seems like a healthy compromise on personal choice and doing what's right for society. What would be a better balance?

The hypocrisy is quite obvious, you are choosing not to see it. If you argue that abortion is a right by virtue of people's bodies not being subject to government control, then you can't simultaneously argue in favor of government control of peoples bodies for some other reason. Be consistent. Either the government has the right to regulate your body or they don't, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to argue in favor of abortion then you need to start using a different slogan than "my body my choice", because clearly you don't sincerely believe in bodily autonomy.

I think I'm missing something. Where is the government trying to force vaccines? That's not my understanding of the announcement.

However, voluntarily ending pregnancy can cause fathers to-be to lose their child to-be against their will. We've decided that's OK, because the right of an individual over their body supersedes the rights of others with tangential impacts.

The right of woman to make the decision about injecting a substance into their body is apparently negotiable.

I am not aware of any law or order if you live alone in the desert/woods that would make substances being injected into my you.

There isn't any law or order yet, but seeing the trend in the US and other Western countries it is heading that way.

> With my plan, the unvaccinated will be disincentivized to go to the hospital to get COVID care, thus freeing these beds up. Again, this respects personal choices.

The fact that this sentiment already exists in America (via private insurance and out-of-network costs) is absolutely abhorrent.

Citizenry should never be disincentivized from seeking out healthcare.

Penalizing the unvaccinated is currently proposed to happen through their employer, with loss of employment (loss of being able to provide for one’s family) being the main incentive.

I am proposing a more direct penalty, which is only put into effect if:

1) you don’t get vaccinated

2) you get COVID

3) you get treatment at the hospital for COVID

The current penalty proposal (getting fired) happens at step 1. I do not agree with that.

In a socialized healthcare system, my penalty would be the same. Instead of your insurance company doling out the penalty (withholding payment), it would be your government, but the effect is the same.

I do not want to force people to do something they don’t want to do to their bodies, and I do not want others to suffer for the unvaccinated’s choices. Therefore, if you decide not to get vaccinated, you pay for your own healthcare if you go to the hospital for COVID treatment.

Personal choice comes with personal responsibility. But personal choice should still be allowed.

The problem is that unvaccinated people still take resources up, insurance or no. People who need surgery for cancer or need an ICU bed.

Undocumented immigrants take resources up. (If fact they may be uninsured and unvaccinated, too.) You should favor refusing medical care to them (and education to their children) based on this argument from resources. Do you?

Undocumented immigrants actually don’t take resources up statistically because if they did their undocumented status would be more easily uncovered, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. Trying to swap one population for another and arguing it’s the same thing, when only one population is causing the problem, isn’t logical. Please address my concerns as they are.

He (or she) isn't saying they're the same thing, they're just demonstrating that the "takes resources up" argument carries no weight whatsoever.

Those vaccines were properly tested. These vaccines were developed hastily. In Europe they are still treated as test vaccines, so you have to sign a paper and take the full responsibility for any side effects. I've gotten this far without infection although I was exposed. I have decided I just don't wan't to risk it. Also I am prepared to give up my access to ICU if that is what it takes for gov to leave me alone, as far as I see, taking up beds is the biggest issue.

There are some other reasons, but those are purely related to political situation in my homeland.

> In Europe they are still treated as test vaccines, so you have to sign a paper and take the full responsibility for any side effects.

This is not true. They got emergency authorization, but had to go through the same test phases as with normal authorization and will eventually get full authorization. This is not really different than in the USA and does not make it a 'test vaccine'.

Also I was vaccinated in the EU and I did not have to sign any papers or 'take full responsibility for any side effects' in any way, nor did anyone else I know that was vaccinated in the EU. This may be the case in your country (I'd be interested to know which country that is), but it is certainly not a EU wide requirement.

I consider myself rational (at least enough to work in software). Here's a copy/paste of a comment I made before why I refuse the RNA vaxx...

- I already had long covid (lasted 14 months), and don't want the vaccine to cause a relapse. It did exactly that to a family member who also had long covid, and she's still not better. It's just anecdotal but I've seen on longcovid forums multiple people claiming the vaccine CAUSED their longcovid.

- I don't believe CDC recommendation that increasing antibody titers through vaccination offers better protection against the virus than convalescent immunity through prior infection. Antibody titers are just one aspect of immunity and BCells make antibodies when exposed to a virus again. Actually I'd be worried about training my immune system with only one part of the virus, it's possible that would hurt my robust immunity against variants, not help it.

- CDC is dishonest with numbers by not tracking mild/non-hospitalized breakthrough cases. There is no reason not to track them. From the UK Gov on Page 12... 37 of 73 deaths from Delta variant are vaccinated: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... According to the CDC and media such numbers of deaths among vaccinated would be statistically impossible.

- FDA not approving an inactive virus vaccine is BS. It's a monumental failure of the US government if they want a high % of people vaccinated to only offer DNA/RNA vaccines that are nothing like traditional vaccines people receive as children. China's Sinopharm works at preventing death and is just inactive virus. If required to take a vaccine I'd travel to another country to take that. Actually I'd even pay $10k to have an inactive virus vaccine imported if it prevented me from being discriminated against.

- If there was such a thing as "misinformation" then it should be openly mocked, ridiculed and contested with facts. What's happening now with censorship is unprecedented - we even need a dedicated news site to keep track of it: https://reclaimthenet.org/ . Organizations like the EFF should be presenting legal challenges for many of these things but it seems like everyone has gotten on the "misinformation" bandwagon. Doing that will lead to authoritarianism. Health policy should not be political, but opposing forced medical procedures is a fundamental human right, no exceptions.

Also, since you mentioned Polio and chicken pox, I don't consider those the same because they are not RNA vaccines. All my issues with taking a covid vaxx would be solved if only the FDA approved Sinopharm/Sinovac so I could take an inactive virus vaccine. Instead I'm losing my job soon.

Come on, quit fetishizing. Get vaccinated if you're medically able and let's get on with normalcy.

People need to stop thinking critically and accept what they're told so they can get back to a normal that is not at all normal but actually the 'new normal.'

In this case, as with most conspiracy theories regarding COVID, QANON, JFK, and more, "critical thinking" that supports the conspiratorial narrative has diminishing returns to scale.

Have you gotten your swine flu vaccine yet? Fauci says it's completely safe. If you trust the government you should rush out and get it for yourself and any children you know.

Also, the fda has a perfect track record for only approving safe treatments, so why worry?

Look, let's look at the human side here. I understand your fear of the vaccine and possibly rage at people encouraging, exhorting, or even possibly looking down on you for your desire for safety. PM me if you want a safe person to speak with. Whether or not you want to reach out, know that I encourage you to be vaccinated and that the data supports that it is quite safe. The medical tradeoff of myocarditis (the largest observed side effect) is 16 COVID deaths prevented for every case (minor or major).[0]

[0] https://youtu.be/mfFeocgSKvU

Every side is the 'human side'.

Can you tell me the medical side effects that could pop up after 1 year, 5 years and 10 years? Thanks.

I assume your request is in good faith.

Within one year there appears to be myocarditis at a rate of 16 COVID deaths per 1 myocarditis case. To my understanding this rare side effect appears to occur within be first two weeks post shot, while the body metabolizes the mRNA and other components of the vaccine. Myocarditis also occurs with some other viral infections, and is concerning though not as concerning as the effects of COVID.

After that time period, you have immune response to the spike components. If that is associated with long term side effects, one would anticipate similar immune responses after the virus itself.

I am aware there is a claim that everyone with the vaccine dies in two years, based on rodent studies.(rodents live 18 months). Beyond that I'm not sure what information is out there regarding longevity. I would be happy to review sources you may suggest.

> Within one year there appears to be myocarditis at a rate of 16 COVID deaths per 1 myocarditis case.

Is that age stratified? E.g. in 18-29y/o males where myo/pericarditis risk is highest? With and w/o commodities would be helpful in the risk benefit calculus as well.

Thanks for the response.

Do you have the numbers on the other side effects as well? Also do you have the myocarditis cases and other side effects past 1 year?

Just to be clear, I don't think everyone is going to die in a couple years.

I don't off hand (my focus and research has been in the population health & dynamics for COVID versus vaccine side effects). There was a recent review by the CDC here: https://youtu.be/mfFeocgSKvU

I think you missed my point. I would like to know something you cannot know. We have some good data for the effects after a year, but do not have any data for 5 or 10 years since these vaccines have not been out that long.

Just so you know hn doesn’t have any pm functionality, you also don’t have any contact info in your hn bio, which is how most ppl connect outside of hn.

I will say, however, you’ve been incredibly dismissive and condescending, at times even insulting throughout this entire thread, up and down the page, even as someone who is pro-vaccine, I wouldn’t consider you “safe”. So your offers comes off as more gaslighting than anything else.

I'm not sure what you're reading as dismissive. Perhaps telling someone who hopes for a brutal civil war that they are fetishizing, but that's simply a tongue in cheek response to someone who clearly hasn't considered the outcomes to such events.

Otherwise, my message is consistent. Vaccination is a civic duty and one that is good for society. We need to be vaccinated. If a person wishes to reach out to me, I do not judge them based on differences of opinions.

You’re being dismissive right now.

I appreciate honest dialogue, and again, I’m vaccinated and believe overall the medical community is a net positive for society, but you are neither being genuine nor non-judgmental. You’re so far in your own ideology and echo chamber that you don’t even realize how far apart you are from those who don’t see everything through the same lenses you do.

Interesting. If I had more time, I would love to review what you are considering as dismissive. Introspection is an essential part of growth.

Regardless, thanks for the input, and have a good weekend.