"Yes, you should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19 because:
* Research has not yet shown how long you are protected from getting COVID-19 again after you recover from COVID-19.
* Vaccination helps protect you even if you’ve already had COVID-19.
Evidence is emerging that people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID-19. One study showed that unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 are more than 2 times as likely than fully vaccinated people to get COVID-19 again."
Does it matter when people were infected? Does it matter if you got the shot after being infected? Hint: it probably does because you probably have more antibodies right after getting the shot.
In fact, they should do a study of uninfected vaccinated people who get infected. Do they have higher antibody counts after getting infected? They probably would. Does that mean that every vaccinated person should get infected too?
It would be a better argument to say that they've tested positive for covid-19 antibodies - but that's not what's going on here.
They're just anti-vax.
Would you expect healthcare workers to be vaccinated against those ? Or should they wait to get the natural antibodies?
The burden of proof should be on the agency forcing vaccinations upon people to work.
https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/cold-guide/common_cold_ca...
Here on HN there was an article about how people who got through Covid were much more resistant to catching it again, compared to those who got a vaccine. It's almost as if their immune systems actually work!
I despair for the people who got surprised by this, as if our immune systems became a thing only during the last 2 years. And this forum is supposed to be full of educated people.
All this virtue signaling around having to take experimental vaccines is becoming very tiring.
We've already vaccinated nearly 90% of group #1, and continuing to gain ground.
We've heard nothing but crickets about group #2. Why? I don't know. Maybe letting people die of hypoxia is better than hurting their feelings. What I do know is that "folks like you" have absolutely no interest in actually solving problems or saving lives, because if you were, you'd actually look at the god damned reality of who is dying once in a while.
People keep screaming about climbing deaths but I am still not seeing it anywhere around me. At the entrance of the mall, everybody just sighs annoyed and puts on their mask, that's all that I observe and that's all that most of the populace observes as well.
I have seen barely any disruption except, of course, some local businesses closing down forever. The normal folk just kept going.
That's the problem with this pandemic: it became a religious war above anything else. Everyone just chose to believe a camp and went on to happily scream at the "other team" afterwards.
We need an actually informed and neutral party on these matters. A lot of the agents of this system have a vested economical interest for the lockdowns to continue -- and for people to get subjected multiple times to an experimental vaccine.
I got through Covid twice -- before the news even broke out (Dec 2019 and Jan 2020). And I wore a mask ever since and still do. But I have some heart problems and reading the same sources that you do -- about how almost healthy people died in a lot of pain after taking the vaccine -- I think I'll wait for a little bit, thank you very much.
I am not endangering anyone and I am tired of hearing that I do. No. I really don't endanger anyone. I just don't want to be an experimental lab rat and hold on to my life for a while longer.
Same goes for many others.
(And btw calling people anti-vax is super flamey. This is not what's happening here at all.)
That's the difference.
If we had a plague as bad as the Black Death, then yes, it would be deadly.
People will use the death numbers as counter-arguments, yet most deaths (94%-ish last I heard) are from people who had comorbidities, like obesity and such.
Until there is the same logic being applied to obese people as to the unvaccinated, as well as counting previous infections, especially for healthcare workers, I personally will not apply the same logic of smoking and drunk driving either.
Obese people do affect my health if they take a hospital bed that I could have used when I need it. Isn't that one of the same arguments applied to the unvaccinated?
If we didn't have so many obese people, would the hospitals be overloaded? Would we have a shortage of healthcare workers?
I am repeating them because repeating works. See the Parable of the Widow and the Unjust Judge. It is also what the others are doing, by repeating the same "tired" lines over and over about how the unvaccinated are killing grandmas.
By the way, I'm not trolling. I'm serious. HN guidelines ask that you assume good faith.
I don't know what to tell you if I look like a good competitor to you.
The Delta variant has a case fatality rate in the US of 0.1% for the general population, and 2% for those over 50.
That's not nothing. There are a LOT of people over 50 in a hospital.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
There is no reliable evidence of a higher IFR for the Delta variant.
That seems like the appropriate peaceable response by a society to someone choosing to become a potential walking threat to all those around them.
Anyway, if the vaccines protects you, then you're not threatened about the unvaccinated. I don't really understand the fuss about it.
Is is state-mandated or private-company-mandated?
> informed
Yeah you're going to have to work a little harder in order to get that one accepted.
> Strangers
They are people who are in constant contact with very vulnerable group. Personal liberty ends where other person's liberty begins.
The problem with that argument is that it's disingenuous.
Sure, unvaccinated workers could spread the virus, but so can vaccinated workers. "It's less likely!" How much so? Where do we draw the line? Also, unvaccinated workers are more likely to know they are sick and stay home, which could very well make it less likely that they spread the virus. There are too many variables.
Also, there are many cases where the liberty of others is only taken into account if it is proven that someone's actions affected others. If an action that someone takes does not affect others in an appreciable way, we tend to ignore it. Say, for example, if someone buys almost all of an item from a store, preventing others from doing so. Or banks lending out more money than they have. Or a parent getting distracted by kids while driving.
In all of those cases, we ignore the potential that doing those things may infringe on others' rights, such as the parent causing an accident or the bank being unable to cover all of the withdrawals they have one day because inflation is rising, which causes a run on the bank.
So why don't we do that here? Why is it so important to prevent something that might happen rather than being okay with fixing what does happen?
Say that some people at a hospital get sick of COVID. The hospital has both vaccinated and unvaccinated workers. The hospital decides that it's going to hold the unvaccinated workers responsible for it. The workers complain and ask for proof they were responsible. So the hospital tests everyone, and the only people with COVID at the time were vaccinated. What does the hospital do then?
tl;dr: Personal liberty does end where another's begins, but what people forget is that the victim needs to prove that their rights were infringed before they get relief.
2. According to the article, 20 of the 30 were employed in "clinical positions like nurses, therapists and technicians". These are literally healthcare professionals.
3. I agree: mandatory (including coerced) vaccinations are hideously immoral.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas...
Probability doesn't work that way. That's like saying I should buy lottery tickets instead of index funds, because with lottery there's a 100% chance of getting a chance of getting the first prize.
0% times 100% is 0%
There is not a 0% chance of complications from vaccines. If you believe that, you need to look at the CDC's own data, as well as data from other countries.
It would be like saying all women have stopped eating pineapple because there's a viral Facebook post going around telling people that pineapples cause infertility.