Hacker News Reader

Comment by noduerme | Hacker News Reader

You know, Israel was the first country to require a vaccine passport to go to the gym. However they simply made it so difficult to avoid vaccination that everyone did it. I'm pretty sure the Israeli government is not in the business of sterilizing Jews, so, I would say it's probably safe. Take the vaccine and get the passport and go out. It's a benefit of living in a first world country.

View on HN

Everyone did it? According to the NYTimes 64% of Israeli’s have had one shot, while many countries like Canada are 72%.

Israel seems behind?

canada is over 81% of the eligible

> canada is over 81% of the eligible

Cries in American.

Sounds more like autocracy to me. Whether or not you want to have a vaccine or not is irrelevant to the fact that wanting a government to coerce people into a medical treatment is a Pandora's box I'm not sure we should really be so keen on.

You can't assess these things (or anything in real world) alone, but in context of what's going on in the whole world (and what isn't). After that, its on everybody how they view their personal freedom and themselves vs the averaged good of the whole nation/civilization.

Who gets to define the greater good? We had share morals at one time with religion but that's been tore down relentless so what are those shared ideals now.

The fact of the matter is that eradication is impossible so what are we actually trying to achieve here. Reduce impact on health care? Maybe we should ban smoking and alcohol then or maybe MacDonalds, where is the line?

> Who gets to define the greater good?

One answer is the voters and the government they choose (if it's an okay functioning democracy)

Well that's certain an answer. Voters and non-voters alike are, of course, free to define "the greater good" for themselves provided they refrain from harming others while putting their definition into practice, but what moral justification do the winners of an election have to enforce their definition on anyone else or harm others to implement it just because they were backed by an arbitrarily small majority of the voters? Which is a subset of the eligible voting population, and (perhaps more importantly) an even smaller subset of those who will be affected?

> The fact of the matter is that eradication is impossible

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

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

And in-progress:

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

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

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

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

Your claim is empirically false.

Sorry none of those are corona virus, that's what covid is in case you were not aware, so your empirical evidence is nonsense.

Religion should be torn down given its history of violence and support of ignorance and general attitude towards reality and science. Not violently of course but through education and critical thinking skills because it cannot survive under the light of the actual truth about the reality of things.

Requiring a vaccine isn't a "Pandora's box", if that were true we would have been a dictatorship decades ago when other vaccines were required. People have no perspective on anything these days or general knowledge about history.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com