Please keep tedious generic flamewar off this site. It's repetitive and usually turns nasty. No one does it out of curiosity, therefore it's off topic here - see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29758737.

It's amazing that the unvaccinated are being blamed for the vaccine not working.

I mean, look at BC in Canada where the most at-risk people have a vaxx rate of 99%+ and overall rate of ~90% for the rest of the eligible population, the government still saw fit to shut it all down 3 days before Christmas. Compliance doesn't ensure freedom.

That's because hospitals are still too full. If my grandmother has a heart attack, or your brother gets hit by a drunk driver around New Years, that person will need healthcare.

And while ~80% of the eligible population has been vaccinated, the 18% of the population that's unvaccinated is responsible for 67% of hospitalizations, and nearly 80% of ICU admissions [0]. Note for the source - while it's fun to play with and look around, I'm sourcing my numbers from the Doughnut Charts section

[0] http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/data-reports/covid-...

Violating NAP requires taking some action, you can't just "aggress" by not doing anything.

good thing we don't run our society based on the NAP

No, NAP is pretty clear. It's just some people treat it as a silver bullet, when it's only a fundamental building block. Libertarians are not against having contractual jurisdictions which would mandate being vaccinated on a certain territory, as long as you can quit that jurisdiction at any time.

It's not clear that getting vaccinated would stop you from spreading the virus though.

> as long as you can quit that jurisdiction at any time.

Nobody is going door to door and arresting unvaccinated people. It’s not like the anti-choice law in Texas that criminalizes two people working together to stop a woman from being pregnant against her will. You still have your freedom under the NAP. But as soon as you present a threat to infect other people by being unvaccinated, there are reasonable restrictions in place.

Edit: I’m seeing replies saying the NAP is strictly about physical violence.

To that I ask, are bioweapons fine to use in libertarianland? Can I hold a city hostage with weaponized anthrax because the libertarianism is, at its root, a cover for voting Republican and not a coherent political philosophy?

NAP is about physical violence. The problem with your way of thinking is that it lets you interpret whatever you feel like as "violence".

Should infecting others with a flu also be considered violence? What about blasphemy? What about just being mean?

People have very varying opinions on whether spreading COVID should be considered violence, hence contractual jurisdictions.

> Should infecting others with a flu also be considered violence?

How is it not violence to infect others with a serious disease? It causes bodily harm.

It is assault to knowingly expose others to a communicable disease.

However, using the flu as an example isn’t very good as spreading the common cold doesn’t carry criminal consequences. If you are referring to Covid as a “flu” then it’s another matter.

If I meant COVID I'd say COVID. When I say flu I mean flu.

Why should spreading "flu" not be considered violence? Not deadly enough? Then who is going to decide where is the line drawn?

The libertarian answer to protecting yourself from viruses is private discrimination, not redefining NAP however you see fit.

The NAP is very basic and fundamental (in stark contrast to all the laws we have on book). And in order to be so and not open to too-much interpretation, it has a very narrow and explicit scope that has emergent properties. If you expand it you're back into "government" and "interpretation" territory and have made the NAP meaningless.

Just look at this thread and all the disagreement about vaccine policy; even without the NAP at play and with supposed "social contract" and "laws" and "constitutions" and "UN Declaration of human rights" we still can't agree how to coexist and deal with this pandemic. Meanwhile, the authoritarian CCP/Chinese government is handling it just fine, and probably laughing their asses off right now at the rest of the world's inability to deal with this. The rules are currently stacked in favor of bullies, whether that's an overreaching government like Canada in this case, China and international law that allows it to not be punished for this world-scale disaster, or everyday bullies that are effectively victim-blaming people who are discriminated against because of their medical choices.

so tiring to see vaccinated people not understanding the science and the fact that they transmit the virus just as well. low information comments.

> just as well

citation needed for the full cycle: healthy -> contracted -> transmitted

My current understanding is that at least the first step is hindered. See e.g. https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiOTAzYzY0NjktMWYwNC0... shows approximately 4.5x reduction of the chances to contract (and therefore to spread further).

you will have to explain how high vaccination countries suddenly get huge outbreaks of infections.

Will I? Show me the data for high vaccination outbreak size == low vaccination outbreak size. I think your opinion is based on unrelated data.

You can't do a comparison like that because there are absolutely no 2 countries like each other and how they count cases is also different so that data does not exist.

You can however look at what's happening in a single country despite the vaccination: Portugal, with close to 90% vaccination rate, is getting the highest rates of infection ever as we speak. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/portugal/

For a vaccine that's supposed to slow or stop the spread, sorry but that kind of trend is not very convincing.

This argument is scientifically (which you wanted) void: since you are not making a comparison with a low vaccination country, it does not make any sense. Try harder.

I'll give you an example: Russia with relatively low vaccination rates has close to the highest number of excess deaths per capita. Portugal you mentioned is not even close.

> are absolutely no 2 countries like each other

fortunately there are like 200+ of them, so one should be able to see a trend. Even the 50 US states would work.

From what I see you are the one not understanding science and ignoring facts here. You just dismissed my first link based on an irrelevant claim that countries with high vaccination rates still have outbreaks (duh).

> You just dismissed my first link based on an irrelevant claim that countries with high vaccination rates still have outbreaks (duh).

you mentioned the first step is hindered. Which is completely not proven by the fact that countries with high vaccination rates should effectively have a R trending towards zero if the vaccines even worked half as well as they should. Instead you see major outbreaks which completely contradicts the "hindrance" you refer to.

> From what I see you are the one not understanding science and ignoring facts here.

Ad-hominem attacks won't get you points here.

You started with an ad-hominem attack.

And you just made a new claim with 0 backing in numbers.

I don't know if you are arguing in good faith here, but definitely in low quality. Show us the numbers supporting your point. You just implied R is not affected by vaccination status, but you have provided 1 data to back this.

Whereas I provided a cumulative of thousands of cases, that directly support my point.

> You started with an ad-hominem attack.

Where?

> And you just made a new claim with 0 backing in numbers.

which claim?

> Where?

"vaccinated people not understanding the science"

> which claim?

"the fact that countries with high vaccination rates should effectively have a R trending towards zero if the vaccines even worked half as well as they should" (implying they do not have R trending to 0 vs unvaxxed).

>> they transmit the virus just as well

Then we do not have a vaccine, by the pre-vaccine definition of vaccine.

yeah, vaccine is marketing-speak. We should call these shots something else, because that's not what people typically understand by the word "vaccine". But that ship to fight on the name has sailed for a long time.

or spooks?

welcome to HN, please read the guidelines.

Pretty arrogant of you to assume that liberals aren't arming themselves to protect against people that have been threatening violence and advocating for coups to overturn democratic results.

Flamewar comments like this will get you banned here. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it.

As part of that, please make sure you're using HN primarily for intellectual curiosity, not primarily for political or ideological battle. Those things are disjoint and we need accounts to stay on the curiosity side of the line. The pattern of your last several comments is on the wrong side of the line; if you'd please correct this, we'd appreciate it.

More explanation here:

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Pretty arrogant of you to think jumping on the bandwagon at the last second would help.

Fortnite is not great training material chump. It's rich to see the same people crying about taking people's guns now want guns. Better to think liberals gun owners that have never used a gun talk about life long gun owners whose kids could even smoke you. Lol. Rookie.

Flamewar comments and personal attacks will get you banned here. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it.

Edit: It looks like your account has been doing this a lot, and also using HN primarily for ideological battle. We need you to stop doing those things if you don't want to get banned here. They're not what this site is for, and they destroy what it is for.

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Except literally everyone who interacts with the outside will get coronavirus regardless of whether 100% of us are vaccinated or not.

So no, it doesn't. You may as well say that exhaling CO2 is causing global warming.