Please don't post flamewar comments like this. It just takes threads further into flamewar hell—exactly what we don't want here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29758995.)

Then how about you practice your own damn rules? This one in particular

  Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

In the strongest possible interpretation (had you assumed good faith) my comment is NOT inflamatory.

I am pointing out that pandemics are a PvE (Player vs Environment) game, not PvP (Player vs Player) game. And I am stating the ovious: the E in PvE doesn't care about your rights.

Interpretations can differ, obviously, but I wouldn't say that was a borderline call. Your comment was snarky and aggressive on a divisive topic. That's a flamewar comment.

There's an interesting phenomenon where, in responding to moderation comments, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would have been much better to say in the first place. It seems to me you did that here:

> pandemics are a PvE (Player vs Environment) game, not PvP (Player vs Player) game.

That's an interesting observation which could have formed the nucleus of a thoughtful comment. However, you didn't post anything like that in the GP. The trouble is that you (I don't mean you personally, but all of us) have your meaning in your head, but the rest of us don't have access to that, so if it's to come across, you need to explain it explicitly. Making a snarky comment that somehow presupposes your meaning doesn't do this. That is, it does it for the person speaking (who has access to the implicit meaning) but for everyone else, only the snark comes across, not the argument. For best results, you should include the argument and drop the snark. That's what the site guidelines are trying to get at.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>There's an interesting phenomenon where, in responding to moderation comments, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would have been much better to say in the first place.

I am surprised tha this surprises you. It is generally true that in responding to any evolving dialogue, people often explain what they originally meant in a form that would've been much better to say in the first place.

Because that's how dialogue works, and that's what dialogue is for. Elucidating meaning.

What is baffling me in this interaction is that you seem perfectly aware of the fact that my meaning is in my head, but then you also expected to find it in my words without any dialogue.

Perhaps this will be clearer: (1) don't post snarky, low-information comments to HN; (2) do say something thoughtful and substantive.

Having something substantive in your head does not justify posting a snarky low-information comment. You need to make the substantive comment explicitly, and without the snark.

Perhaps this will be clearer: (1) Don't interpret my post as snarky (2) don't judge my comment as thoughtless and non-substantive when a thoughtful and substantive interpretation to my laconic comment exists (as you have become aware).

I heard you have a rule about that. Maybe you could lead by example.

  >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Taking the current COVID vaccines won't end any pandemics, either.

Do you have a better strategy, or are you just practicing fallacies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

I am responding to your comment - you say that asserting your rights by not taking the vaccine won't end the pandemic, while I am saying that taking it won't end it either.

Almost as if reducing mortality/hospitalization is an irrelevant metric to you.

Almost as if an abstract social construct as “rights” is more important to you than actual health.

Yes, personal freedom is to me infinitely more important than the health of others.

Is your freedom primary?

Like if a group of people banded together and said that they didn't want to associate with unvaccinated people, should they have the freedom to do that without interference from the unvaccinated?

And our personal freedoms are worth enough to us to justify limiting our exposure to people like you. You have no right to impose yourself on us.

If that were true, and you were willing to allow me the same level of freedom as you demand for yourself then surely my freedom to harm you trumps your well-being?

Your freedom to attack me physically? No, because you don't have to do anything not to attack me - you just don't.

Your freedom not to get vaccinated? Evidently, since getting vaccinated is a medical procedure. I can't force you to go through it.

Freedom *noun* the power to act, think and speak as one wants.

I can physically attack you if I want to and in your very own words my freedom is infinitely more important than your health.

What is confusing you?

I suppose you also think Typhoid Mary got a raw deal?

What on earth makes you think your personal freedom is more important than the health of others?

You have no right to harm others.

You seem to misunderstand the entire reason the U.S. was created.

Don't like it, leave. Seriously.

Note that the Supreme Court validated Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, supporting the right of the government to mandate vaccines (remember, George Washington mandated vaccines for his troops) and showing that the power of the state ultimately trumps the freedoms of people.

Honestly, you're making arguments (in multiple comments) that make you look petulant, rather than providing a reasonable argument againt vaccine mandates.

The Supreme Court also validated slavery and other actions that proved to be incredibly damaging to the society.

As for George Washington, if you are attempting to make the argument that the government has a right to inoculate it’s military soldiers during war time against a disease, so be it, there is your precedent to argue upon. Furthermore, Washington has a habit of requiring many things, including the Militia Acts which required every able bodied male to own a military firearm. I don’t currently see an argument to enforce that idea. Pick and choose.

But using his small pox inoculation program from the 1700’s and a tiny military of rag tag farmer soldiers as a basis to go after an entire free and educated society of hundreds of millions in the 2000’s for an experimental vaccine, you are stretching this further than it could go.

The information is out there for people to make decisions now. They’ve made it, make a better argument.

If you're referring Dred Scott, I agree the Supreme Court validated slavery (this is at least one of the causes of the Civil War). That is, the decision had such consequence that the nation was nearly split, and after the war, several amendments were added that overrode the Court.

I don't see anybody gearing up to have a civil war over vaccines, just a bunch of "make a better argument for why you have the right to tell me I have to do this, with economic or social consequences if I don't" responses. The military already exited folks who didn't comply with COVID vaccines, and the Biden administration has already requested that the SC officially rule on workplace mandates (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21A244/206997/2021...).

The penalty in the case is irrelevant to the nature of the government's power. Also equating vaccines to apartheid is unrealistic and in poor taste.

No, it is very much relevant. And, systematic denial of employment, education, access to government services etc to a group based on a medical condition very much is apartheid. It is in poor taste to deny it, but I guess the apologists in South Africa were legalistically talking about “nature of the government’s power” too.

As it happens I am a naturalized South African - married to a black woman who had to endure apartheid.

I recited your argument to her and I am quoting her response in saying… “you are a f-ing idiot - I had no choice in being born black and I had no way of becoming white to avoid the consequences of apartheid. The unvaccinated have a choice - they are just choosing not to exercise it.”

You have falsely equated the two scenarios by abstracting away the thing which matters most: the choice to improve your situation.

If discrimination is only wrong because of lack of choice of the discriminated trait, then why is it wrong to discriminate based on people's religion? Or would you say that it isn't?

I would say that there is not a single non-religious human being on this planet.

Human rights are a religion - they don’t exist. We made them up so we can coexist; and so that we can improve the quality of our lives.

What makes discrimination wrong is that it diminishes the well-being of the discriminated against.

So you are welcome to insist that your well-being is being diminished by vaccine mandates but it would be a peculiar argument since most people are choosing to vaccinate because it improves their well-being.

You seem to be struggling with the fact that objective morality is a social construct.

It's not about WHO makes the decision. It's about the inherent quality of the decision being made irrespective of who makes it.

Of course it's your choice to drive your car into a wall at 200km/h, but in the way society uses the word "objectively" and "true" it is objectively true that driving into a wall at 200km/h is detrimental to your well-being. And it is objectively true that in doing so you are making a bad decision.

In the same way that is objectively true that seatbelts save lives, it is objectively true that vaccines save lives. Therefore not doing what's conducive to your well-being is a bad choice.

The metrics, measurements and methods used to arrive at these conclusions are as objective as empiricism allows for.

>Those who don't want to vaccinate also choose to do so because it improves their well-being

Yes. They using the exact same words. Are you convinced by their arguments? I am not.

What I am convinced of is how intellectually dishonest they are in parroting words without bringing evidence to the table.

The reality of the situation seems to be that we have all decided upon the proper collective course of action and you are the one who is in denial.

You are the one who seems to have no clue why nations form, why this particular nation came into being, and what demands it has made over and over upon its citizens for the benefit of their fellow Americans. If you do not like it then you are the one who should leave. We, the many, are happy to show you the door and will help you pack your bags. Seriously.

“We, the many, believe so much in the narrative that these vaccines are effective, despite the consistent spread of the disease it was aimed to stop, so much so that we will kick anyone out of society that does not agree with the collective mob. Most of which who are scientifically illiterate and get their news from talking heads and the revolving door of medical officials/pharma execs.”

Is this what you’re saying?

Galileo is rolling over in his grave.

Edit: also you didn’t decide shit.

Why do you keep pretending that any intervention/strategy for dealing with the pandemic which isn't 100% effective is 0% effective?

In my proffessional experience faux-perfectionists tend to be rather incompetent pragmatists.

You seem to misunderstand the entire reason humans form societies.

Strength in numbers. Economies of scale. Division of labour.

The collective well-being of individuals.

If you don’t like all the social perks and safety nets you are enjoying - go be a hermit.

"We must do something. This is something."

Covid is now endemic - that is the scientific consensus.

Are you suggesting that we permanently give up our right to decide what medications to take?

Taking a vaccine is a forced medical procedure for the benefit of someone other than the individual. I'm fully vaccinated and boosted, but I recognize that effectively forcing this upon people by denying them fundamental rights and services, is not ethical, and sets an intolerable precedent.

Several vaccines are already mandated for a variety of travel to countries, jobs etc.

Covid is not new in that regard and all this nonsense about an “intolerable precedent” is ridiculous. The precedent has been around with us for a long time and we’ve been fine with it. The only reason this comes up now is because of increased visibility on it.

This vaccine is different in that it is only partially effective, and unless you are in a high risk group, taking it is primarily for the benefit of others, not you.

Also, prior to covid, only students were required to take vaccines - all for illnesses that were much more severe than covid. There were few or none for adults - aside from a small number of countries requiring foreigners to vaccinate for illnesses they were attempting to eradicate.

That's all very different than requiring it for your own citizens so that they can work, travel, and receive government services.

The issue is much more nuanced.

I will gladly take an FDA approved vaccine like any other for such reasons.

None of the available ones right now are. Yes even Pfizer isn’t as the approved Pfizer vax (Comirnaty) is not the same exact vaccine as the one currently available/being used.

Edit: In short, many of us fear that the regulatory processes that govern our healthcare have been hijacked by corporate interest. We all know this leads to corners being cut as that’s inevitably how businesses are run.

Why do you think specifically this has to do with corporate interests?

Doesn’t Occam’s razor say that it’s just the fact the pandemic is destroying society and there is immense pressure from everywhere to accelerate usually very slow and bureaucratic processes because the risk reward ratio is completely different than the one for a vaccine for more contained diseases?

Yes, this virus is brutal and highly dangerous, which is why we need to do everything we can to stop it, not just somethings that are highly lucrative.

Why hasn’t the news or our medical governance brought up the fact that a small intranasal injection can greatly prevent transmission?

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8026810/

We're having trouble since the beginning of the pandemic getting people to wear a simple cloth mask. You want them to inject stuff up their nose on a regular basis now?

When you say "why isn't x happening" I'd like to invite you to think about what x would look like, in practice, and what it is you actually are expecting.

This has nothing to do with how lucrative it is. Just how practical. Note the author doesn't even say this measure can replace PPE and other preventative measures.. just add to them.

The masking is an odd one because they told us not to do it, then to do it.

I’ve also read claims that these respiratory viruses are on the order of microns and most masks are pointless, unless specifically designed for this.