In that case you also probably think that everyone on HN who reads your post owes you compensation for your opinion on this matter, even though it was unasked for, you provided it for -your- own benefit, no terms were set and agreed to, and this isn't a context that normally is paid for.

In short, no.

Then, the restaurant should compensate anyone who doesn’t like the smell.

Or the restaurant should be fined for letting it’s smell escape the confines of its kitchen.

Economic theory says, more or less, that the restaurant should try to avoid the smell escaping, and if they don't do it they are really not that interested.

The OP history is the same tune: if you want your light and your wifi just for you, just install blinds and harden you router. And then try reach an agreement with your neighbor.

A restaurant could certainly invest in avoiding the smell escaping. But for most people smelling it, it's advertising, not a beneficial service. (Hey, just like some services you can either pay for -or- have ads when using! LOL)

Moreover, preventing the smell from escaping from a restaurant might be difficult in areas or times where A/C isn't as common...

Free grazing was a thing in the USA until the invention of barbed wire. If you can't avoid free riders because costs of doing it are too high, you'll have to bear with them, at least until you find a cost efficient solution. Don't ask for others to subsidize you (i.e. making people who doesn't benefit from the smell pay for it).

In which case, I demand compensation from you for the inconvenience of reading this post. Negative externality.

i.e. in another story, the neighbor could have hated the smell of the restaurant, and demanded compensation for the restaurant, and compensation was the sound of jingling coins.

The sound of money is pleasant to hear, hence he is compensated.

Kinda similar to mandatory union dues for non-members :p

> Kind of like how when you get vaccinated you provide value to your community by reducing the chance that you’ll become a disease vector. So getting the vaccine improves the health of everyone around you. If we didn’t subsidize vaccines, fewer people would get them, and we’d all be worse off.

This was a story told to us in the beginning of widespread vaccination, but is disproven since we have evidence that vaccinated people can carry and spread the virus. The story changed to we are less likely to spread it, but there is also evidence for similar amounts of virus in vaccinated people, so I take it with a grain of salt given the history. (multiple reputable sources readily available on Google)

It's important to know and spread this information as it means that even though vaccinated people protect themselves from harsh symptoms they still have to be careful not to spread the virus.

This is only half the story. Compared to the unvaccinated, how likely are vaccinated individuals to have detectable virus in the first place?

That might very well be true and as a vaccinated person myself I hope it is true.

But how does that affect my conclusion that the vaccinated still have to be careful and herd immunity is unlikely to be a thing? A false sense of security is a problem in itself.

You seem to be making a few assumptions. The other half of the story could easily be that vaccinated individuals are equally likely to harbor detectable virus, I'm just pointing out that there is a big other factor to consider before we know how important vaccination is with regards to herd immunity and benefit (or risk) to one's community.

> similar amounts of virus in vaccinated people

Yeah right, gonna have to see a reference for that. Is it 'some vaccinated people have been found with equivalent amounts of virus' or 'on average they have the same amount of virus'. Because they're vastly different scenarios.

? This is quite wide-spread and old news, and trivial to look up yourself before getting snarky.

> For people infected with the Delta variant, similar amounts of viral genetic material have been found among both unvaccinated and fully vaccinated people.

- https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-var...

Being vaccinated reduces the chance of getting infected in the first place. This is true even for the delta variant (although much more so for earlier variants)

https://els-jbs-prod-cdn.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/pb-assets/La...

That doesn't take away from the truth of what I said - in fact it's covered at length in the very same link I posted. Sigh

Your link contained a speculation about the length of time for which vaccinated people are infectious. Mine is a study demonstrating that the chance of transmission to contacts is reduced.

Surely probability of transmission is the key factor determining whether vaccination reduces the spread of the disease?

Its well documented that unvaccinated or vaccinated spread the virus in similar percentages. Go look in google scholar, why do you want to be spoon fed

It's not for their benefit, it's for yours.

Do you want to be known as the sort of person who claims "it's in the literature" but never provides cites?

Or do you want to be known as the sort of person who says "it's at this link"?

Unless you have gained name recognition, HN is a series of games in which you can decide to play or not in any given round, has limited but real downside (in terms of fake internet points), and not very limited upside.

So you can get away with being a defector on occasion, but it's much better to be a cooperator.

The whole citing business has become more of googling your viewpoint and providing the top 10 links rather than actual research. It has been my long standing opinion that this is pretty much the same as replacing your doctor with webmd. Sadly experts can’t be replaced by YouTube education.

Anyway - my first google link - https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/no-vacc...

Some data for the opposite:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/10/12/1044553...

"If you actually isolate virus from people who are getting a secondary infection after being vaccinated, that virus is less good at infecting cells,"

"all 37 case patients for whom data were available regarding the source of infection, the suspected source was an unvaccinated person."

I am skeptical of this association between the term "data" and the quoted qualifier "suspected".