Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

At this point in time, children have experienced an infection rate, and complications that are near zero, statistically. To date, no child has received a vaccination.

Why would we punish the vaccinated, and children, for a minority unvaccinated population? A population that largely (entirely?) puts their own self at risk and no other individual that has taken steps to protect themselves from the virus.

Vaccines (in the US at least) are free to anyone that wants one at this point. It's been that way for months. If someone doesn't have a vaccine, it's because they chose to not get one - and therefore take on the risk of becoming ill or death. That's their problem... not children's problem or vaccinated people's problem.

We're doing all this to protect a population that's actively resisting your protection.

With all that said, let's get back to normal here. People who don't want vaccines aren't going to get them even if you made it the law... be realistic.



If I'm interpreting this page (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/COV...) correctly, children less than 5 provide 2.4% of cases of COVID in California; they are 5.8% of the population so they seem to have a lower infection rate (although those 75-79 provide 1.6% of cases from 2.7% of the population). Children between 5 and 17 provide 10.7% of cases from 16.7% of the population.

Children have a very non-zero infection rate while they do have effectively a zero death rate (no actual information on "complications").


The data is listed weird, because someone over the age of 12 can get the vaccine. A 17 year old has a lot more social opportunity to catch the virus, etc.

Regardless, the people who do get sick, typically get only midly-so, and rarely (statistically 0) experience serious complications or death.

Therefore, my initial conclusion that the risk for children is near zero stands.


I'm not saying we punish children. I'm saying it's more important to allow public education to proceed in whatever way works than to allow restaurant- and gym-going to proceed willy-nilly.

I don't like restrictions in general, but I do prioritize these two things in a certain way.


Why don't we let it all go forward, was the point I was making.

We're trying to protect people that don't want protection. Time to move on and get back to normal.


"Normal" is being vaccinated. This isn't the world's first pandemic, nor is it the world's first widespread vaccination campaign.

The fear, paranoia and mistrust around vaccinations against COVID is not normal. "Just let nature take its course" isn't normal, at least not in the modern history of civil societies.


Regardless of your personal definition of normal, you will not convince the unvaccinated people to get vaccinated. You've tried, and failed.

Short of going door-to-door with guys with guns and body armor, forcefully pinning down people and jabbing them with vaccine - nothing you (or anyone) does will convince people to get a vaccine if they've decided at this point they do not want it for whatever their reasons may be.

So... go about your business as usual. Stop trying to protect people that refuse your protection. It's wasted effort, and hurts everyone else that is already vaccinated.


You can do a lot of things to compel people to get vaccinated, short of going door to door with guns.

You can deny people entry to various places contingent on vaccination, which is what a lot of places are doing now. You may not be able to convince people to get vaccinated for their own sake or the sake of the health of their neighbors, but way more people will choose being able to go to work, school or the bar over staying unvaccinated.

I chose "getting a student loan" over "not registering for the draft" and I was both terrified of getting drafted and morally opposed to killing, as much as any 18 year old can be.

No guns, no goonsquads, just pile on the headaches and most people will find themselves to get vaccinated regardless of their own doubts, beliefs or prior declarations.


And what happens when you still don't have enough people voluntarily vaccinating? Or businesses refusing to refuse business?

Not to mention turning every business into some sort of citizen police is a very weird concept in the US.


Bars already check licenses before serving alcohol.

Schools already check vaccination status for other diseases during enrollment.

Workplaces already check immigration status for all employees.

There will always be non-compliance; there are always a few bars that don't check IDs or accept obvious fakes. But most won't risk losing their liquor licenses.

There are a lot of "what if"s in the world, and in public policy in particular. What if no one pays their taxes? What if a state legislature overrides the popular vote of their electorate in a Presidential election? What if the President orders a nuclear first strike and the military doesn't follow the order?

While all of these questions are interesting, for the most part we can get by without having any answers to them. Why borrow trouble worrying about something that may never happen?

What if workplaces mandate vaccines, what if schools, if bars and ballparks and theaters, and we still don't reach the 90-95% thresholds needed to contain the more virulent viruses?

Well, something else will happen. Maybe we give up. Maybe we try other coercions. Maybe the combination of vaccination rates and post-infection immunity will be high enough that the entire question is moot.


Or we don't do any of these extreme, totalitarian measures because it doesn't matter anyway?

Because doing so is a one way road to more extreme, totalitarian measures next time there's a disagreement about public policy (and next time, perhaps you find yourself on the "wrong side").

Because covid won't be a thing forever, and sacrificing core values of your nation for temporary gain is foolhardy.

Because, again, the people you're trying to protect with these extreme, totalitarian measures don't want your protection and statistically will turn out just fine anyway.


>Short of going door-to-door with guys with guns and body armor, forcefully pinning down people and jabbing them with vaccine

Even this would not work (at least in America), because there's a heavy overlap between the unvaccinated and gun owners, and they vastly outnumber whatever police force would be attempting to enforce the vaccination.


>So... go about your business as usual. Stop trying to protect people that refuse your protection. It's wasted effort, and hurts everyone else that is already vaccinated.

Umm... no. They spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (and COVID) at every opportunity, they consider themselves on a crusade against vaccination and the vaccinated. Society is under no obligation to let dangerous fools remain comfortable in their foolishness.


> They spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (and COVID) at every opportunity

Except they don't. The people who are vaccinated aren't afraid, uncertain or in any doubt. Nor can they contract COVID from unvaccinated people - otherwise what would be the point of the vaccine anyway?

> they consider themselves on a crusade

Who cares? Why do you care what some other people think? If you're vaccinated, their choices literally have zero impact on you.

> Society is under no obligation to let dangerous fools remain comfortable in their foolishness

Last I checked, we were talking about the US... so ya, they are allowed to be foolish, particularly since the only people they are potentially harming is themselves.

So... what is your plan? Are we storming people's houses with armed men to forcefully vaccinate people that don't want it? Or are we just sitting on some high horse?

I'll tell you who's spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt - it's the very same people making these arguments. Get a vaccine - or else! But you'll still need to wear a mask - or two - and quarantine at home and be careful who you're around because the COVID will get you regardless.

It's complete poppycock. Given those choices, why would someone want to vaccinate if literally nothing about their life improves afterwards?

I think what we have here is an intolerance for other people's choices... and a desire to compel people into submission of what some other people believe is the "right way". Both sides are guilty of willfully ignoring facts when convenient... so who's right? Good thing we're in the US and don't have to care - both can be wrong and go about their business without bothering each other.


Sorry but their choices do affect others, from the nurses who have to treat them to the hospitals turning away patients if they are overwhelmed or delaying surgeries.


None of that is happening. You're drumming up the very irrational fears you previously stated you despise.


previously stated I despise? where?

It's not now, but it was as i know people who suffered from delayed treatment. As well my aunts a nurse and covid was hell for her, i'd rather she not go through that again because people think they are too good to get the vaccine and turn it into a political issue.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: