>The reason being is most unvaccinated people don’t believe it isn’t effective, they don’t like being forced to protect themselves by a bunch of moral busybodies.

I think this is something that's very understated in public discussion around COVID-19, I got vaccinated because I weighed up the odds and thought it made sense from both a social and a personal cost/benefit perspective. I didn't get vaccinated because I was gaslit into it by the government's "nudges", nor did I get it because I was nagged or shamed into it by those who can't keep their noses out of other people's business. There's few things I dislike more in a person than a Puritan wagging finger, yet all the messaging around the pandemic was nothing but wagging fingers.

People don't like being manipulated, even if it's "for their own good" or even "for the greater good". People aren't stupid either, they know when authority figures aren't being entirely upfront with them. As well-intentioned as the measures were, the institutions who imposed them have burned up a lot of public trust in the process with the use of fear and coercion as a tool to manage the pandemic as well as being a bit economical with the truth instead of just saying "we don't know" where appropriate. I think the unfortunate persistence of the anti-vax movement is partially down to this instinct for authoritarianism and shaming people rather than extending an olive branch.

I do wonder if "vaccines mean we can permanently rid ourselves of masks, distancing, and other authoritarian restrictions" would have been more effective as a campaign than "get the vaccine or you're a horrible selfish piece of crap who probably wants to bump off grandma for her inheritence". Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference, but I think it would.

> vaccines mean we can permanently rid ourselves of masks, distancing, and other authoritarian restrictions

They said that, and it turned out to also be a lie. I got the vaccine because I was threatened with loss of employment if I didn't, and enticed by a promise that frequent testing, social distancing, and mask-wearing would not be required for the vaccinated. They pretty quickly reneged on that. To say that I am infuriated is putting it mildly. I obviously cannot undo the vaccine that I didn't want and was forced/coerced into taking.

They have destroyed any faith I had in their promises. I will most certainly now refuse any further demands along these lines, whether for flu shots, boosters, or whatever. Fool me once, shame on you.

They didn't mean that the restrictions would go away if YOU personally got vaxxed, only if a respectable number in the US did. And that still hasn't happened because people are stubborn and selfish.

No, my employer specifically stated that the vaccinated would not need to mask or distance at work. Then they walked it back.

The parent comment was talking about public discussion of how vax would allow a faster return to normal life. Your employer is perfectly entitled to tell you to mask or distance, or where a pink jumpsuit.

With people getting fake vax cards, etc, I can see some employers deciding to err on the side of caution. Especially since some workers can't get vaxxed at all due to medical conditions.

Except they made a big deal about the no mask, no distancing promise. It was a central theme of their "get the vaccine" campaign. Oh and also you won't get fired.

Then they reneged.

Thus, they have destroyed any credibility they may have had for future similar promises.

People are stupid. As a species, we've survived despite this, but as Carlin used to say; "“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

People hold irrational beliefs (JFK Jr. is still alive), the earth is flat, on and on.

And America in many respects can be incredibly anti-intellectual. Being smart is often a negative in a lot of environments.

That quote never sit well with me. How about "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize there is a 50/50 chance you are stupider than that."

Your version is less accurate in reasonable contexts. People at a Carlin show or on HN are not the average person.

Nice story.

Meanwhile at least 5 million are dead - 750,000 in the US alone.

How does your story help their families?

I don’t think it helps their families. You know what does though, vaccines and this new anti-viral.

So can I live my life and worry about own family and not someone’s I don’t know?

> So can I live my life and worry about own family and not someone’s I don’t know?

Unfortunately, no. We live in a society where sometimes we have to take collective action to prevent collective harm. Taking personally inconvenient measures to help fight an epidemic is a prime example.

Oh so you’re the one who insists we keep taking shoes off at the airport, and throw our toothpaste that might be a bomb into the trash receptacle next to the crowd of people.

Yes there are collective actions we take, and the first two weeks of covid response might’ve been justified. But nothing since then. Maybe having to get tested to get on a plane.

Natural immunity does lower your chances, but you’re saying nope for the collective good (the good you’ve decided on) you must do xyz.

Bull crap. The emperor has no clothes.

And when you give a central authority permission to dictate these "inconvenient measures" to the population, what is the recourse when those authorities act in a contradictory, dishonest, or incompetent manner?

In a democracy, voting.

In the two party system in the US, this isn't really a viable option. It's a strange place where you're not allowed to be both pro-choice and against intrusive government. It makes an even stronger case for reigning in the centralized power of federal and state bureaucrats because they're even less accountable.

Help me understand the limiting principle in that logic. What prevents particularly egregious abuses of personal liberty using this as a pretext?

For example, people might get struck by lightning walking by your house, so we must force you to install a lightening rod on your house to protect the collective.

Where does it stop, and how do you make that determination?

The lightning example isn't really analogous. Sure, one or two people might get struck by lightning, but they're not then going to continue spreading lightning strikes once they leave my house. Moreso, those (non-existent) spreadable lightning strikes aren't going to mutate to get worse as they propagate.

There isn't an easy or obvious answer to where it stops and how to determine that, but that goes both ways. We can't just have zero laws for fear that the laws might overextend themselves.

Unfortunately, we have to deal with nuance either way.

Except, no.

Two important considerations:

1. The vaccine is extraordinarily effective at mitigating risk of hospitalization and death.

2. No current COVID vaccines are sterilizing. Vaccination confers only marginal reduction in ability to carry and transmit the virus (and even this, mainly due to duration, not due to viral load).

Taken together, the "get vaccinated to protect me" canard is insane. I don't care if other people are vaccinated or not, because I am. Any other position is political, not scientific.

There is a minor argument to be had over the (tiny) immunocompromised population, but it's important to bear in mind that this population already does conduct their lives with isolation, antiviral, antibacterial, and other safety protocols regardless of COVID. They did it before the pandemic, and they will after. Nothing changes for them regardless of vaccine uptake rates.

Important question:

Did they die from COVID-19 or did they with COVID-19?

Italy just revised their numbers and it’s quite a significant difference.

It's better to look at excess deaths since testing is so haphazard in much of the world. Current estimates are between 10-15m excess deaths world wide.

Excess deaths are not an anomaly to begin with. Year 2000 saw excess deaths, so did 2014.

Also, when you have deliberatly forced an additional 150 million people into extreme poverty to keep them healthy ( as it were ), you are bound to see a spike in deaths.

Frankly I am surprised the death toll of the brutal restrictions toward marginalized populations is not higher.

I suspect we will soon reap the dubious benefits of undoing 35 years of 3rd world progress in 22 months.

6 months ago I still cared. Now I am just numb.

Reduced from human being with rights, to a piece of diseased flesh that must be muffled, silenced, tested, regularily injected with one experimental drug after the other and preferably locked up for eternity.

To add to it, I must feel a sende of pride in partaking in this. Because it is the holy science.

My very existence is inconvenient to the experts.

Must be hard keeping your head up when you're swimming in such deep drama. You don't appear to understand what excess deaths mean; it means deaths over what previous trends would predict.

Here are some links to challenge your statements:

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-066768

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-...

I would post more, but I'm sure that you're capable of using Google.

150m pushed into extreme poverty? If you mean the US, your facts are wrong. And then you pivot to the "death toll of brutal restrictions"? What is this nonsense?

You've been muffled - Oh wow, wearing a mask is just torture.

You've been silenced - Hmm, not sure what this nonsense is about.

Tested - Yup. As part of an ongoing pandemic, yup. If you can't live in civil society and agree to give up some small freedoms, buy land in Alaska and live in a cabin.

"regularily injected" - A) the drug wasn't experimental, and B) it was primarily two doses. That's not regularly...

"preferably locked up for eternity" - wow, that's exactly what my daughter said when I grounded her last week.

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds to people? How absolutely childish and selfish? This is why a huge portion of the US is just fed up with anti-vaxxers.