Hacker News Reader

Comment by zer00eyz | Hacker News Reader

MRNA's for aggressive cancers are going to do some amazing things. This is one example of "death sentence" cancer being stopped cold. To that end, the trade offs for MRNA's make complete sense. It's a great place to do long terms studies and see what happens down stream.

What covid did prove out is that there IS risk. https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/advice-...

Biologics (what vaccines are) are weird. The FDA should be stepping back from restricting the use of these on INFORMED patients who have limited other choices and mandating the long term study that we need for this class of treatments. IF were extending peoples lives and finding those secondary a tertiary risks in patents who would have otherwise died we will all benefit in the long run.

Between Pro and Anti vax camps it is dam near impossible to have a rational conversation about the topic. One more thing that has been polarized into the abyss... sigh!

View on HN

The AstraZeneca vaccine mentioned in your link is not mRNA based.

> What covid did prove out is that there IS risk.

Not an mRNA vaccine and vaccine risk regardless of vaccine type was known and acknowledged for many decades before COVID.

We had a nice discussion here, you had your arguments, got the few mistakes pointed out, all factual, civilized and nice. Nobody called you sheep, antiamerican, or puppet of the global government. So let's not bring the anti-vax "polarization" into this, because the two camps are simply not the same. Edit: I have yet to see such a rational discussion with an anti-vax. Won't say it cannot happen, but to me it's like bigfoot.

If the were able to have that kind of discussion with you on the pros and cons of vaccines, would you still perceive them as antivax?

Interesting point! Anti vaccines yes obviously, but I wouldn't call them "antivax" (anymore) as it seems I reserved in my mind that name for the wild mob - for better or for worse. Because there's no good thing without downsides and discussing downsides is just as important, regardless how one prioritizes them. We are all different organisms and what works for one won't necessarily work the same for the other, and we need solutions for all.

Thing is that people used to label you as anti vax during that time period even when you thought vaccines as a whole were a good thing, but in certain situations they did more damage and in other situations it was possible that risks vs benefits calculation wasn't clear.

That's because the anti-vax people are sometimes an actual threat to other people's lives.

Especially during the pandemic every argument was had ad nauseam and a (similarity to) certain narrative wasn't perceived as coming from good faith anymore. People were tired of explaining the difference between DNA and RNA, between relative risks of the vaccines and infection, herd immunity, ... . At some point you never knew, if the person you are debating will go full conspiracy nut. Even genuinely skeptical people were often worried because of opportunistic clout chasers were spreading misinformation.

See the comment above where the AstraZeneca vaccine got conflated with mRNA vaccines. Bad start...

There were no vaccination mandates. However, "anti-vaxxers" were offended people decided to keep them out of their groups, shops, communities, ... by vaccination status. They want to have the cake and eat it too. Their idea of discrimination is overreaching and entitled.

> There were no vaccination mandates.

"Get the vaccine or lose your job" absolutely is a mandate. This really was a thing.

A private de facto "mandate", not a governmental one.

Well, yes, that's what I was getting at: Freedom cuts both ways here. If you choose to not get vaccinated, others should be allowed to, at the very least, choose not to have you around. Immunity is not a private belief, but has severe, sometimes existential implications for other people.

I assume, it's pretty much the same with guns in the US. You are allowed to own them, carry them, but not allowed to bring them everywhere, if someone's ruling within private jurisdiction forbids it.

> not a governmental one.

Only because it was struck down by courts. The US government did attempt it, and even told employers to abide by it while they appealed (before it was struck down again).

Can you link me a source?

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/13/supreme-court-ruling-biden-c...

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/589657-biden-cal...

I didn't know that. Thanks. This does in fact invalidate my point above.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com