Hacker News Reader

> Seems like a question of reciprocity and solidarity.

I have to disagree here. There is neither reciprocity nor solidarity involved, because you gain/lose nothing by them having or not having additional freedoms.

Don't get me wrong I understand OP's frustration and that he/she feels treated unfairly. But OP's frustration is not rational. As harsh as it sounds OP's feelings are driven by envy.

View on HN

I don't see that anything in your comment precludes reciprocation of unnecessarily conservative limitations on one's life.

It could be argued that keeping everyone home instead of just those at risk was irrational.

That's a completely different discussion whether the strategy was the right strategy in the first place, and unrelated to my argument.

What I'm saying is that given the current situation, player A (OP) loses nothing while player B (the vaccinated) gains something (also called a Pareto improvement). It is not rational for player A to oppose this new situation where B gains something.

Problem with rationality is how it is defined. And yes, of course it is rational to be angry about it. It is also rational for humans to sometimes project this anger at wrong targets. It is still rational behavior because it fulfills a need, although it is classically defined differently of course.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com