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

If asking people to take a specific step that has a good chance of protecting them from disease or even death is “virtue signaling” and therefore evil, the concept has lost any meaning it may or may not have had.

Labeling something “virtue signaling” implies acceptance that the action in question is beneficial. So you agree that getting vaccinated is a good idea, but somehow manage to still take issue with people saying as much in a slightly more direct manner?

Yes, the group of unvaccinated people, making up 99.5% of recent US deaths even though they only represent about 40% of the population is, almost tautologically, in need of protection. Considering the US has, once again, managed to neatly divide into the same ideological camps as on any other issue, there is no obvious selfish motive for people of the one group to care for the other. This leaves the latter group stumped, because they can’t think of any non-selfish motives, forcing them come up with I’ll-defined terms such as “safetyism”.

The term you’re grasping for is “altruism”, by the way. Although I’ll freely admit, limited to me, personally, that it’s supply is running low and I mostly want people to get vaccinated to finally get this over with.



"If asking people to take a specific step that has a good chance of protecting them from disease or even death"

Most people under the age of about 65 are being asked to take a vaccine for a disease that is extremely unlikely to hurt them, and the vaccine itself can have severe side effects, with deaths and injuries from these vaccines now greatly exceeding the deaths and injuries from every other vaccine programme in the last 10 years combined.

Over-simplifying this situation down to "people need to be protected [from themselves]" is exactly the sort of misinformation that Facebook believes it's fighting.

"This leaves the latter group stumped, because they can’t think of any non-selfish motives"

Non selfish motives? Their demands are incredibly selfish. They've convinced themselves, against all actual data and biological theory, that the unvaccinated people are dangerous to themselves, the vaccinated, and thus individual choice over people's own bodies must be removed by force. There is no basis for this belief but they apparently want to reach this conclusion via any means, fair or foul. Despite that they are the same people who are usually insistent that women be given choice over 'their own bodies' in abortion debates.


"There are three deaths that appear to be linked to blood clots that occurred after people got the J&J vaccine."

https://covid-101.org/science/how-many-people-have-died-from...

Yes, that's probably more than "all vaccine programmes in the last 10 years combined" because, contrary to popular believe, vaccines are incredibly save.

It's also 1/100th of daily COVID deaths, or about 15 minutes' worth.


Look at the graph of post-vaccine deaths. It's vertical:

https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality


Wow, this whole issue so low...

In the years before, how often were you vaccinated? Exactly: you probably weren't. Millions of vaccinations were given ib the last few months, orders of magnitude more than usual. And while most are usually given to toddlers, now the 60 to 95 year-olds got most of the vaccinations.

You know what happens a lot to 80 year olds in the six months after they are vaccinated? They die.

You know what happens a lot to 80 year olds in the six months after eating ice cream? They die.

Also, as has been reported plenty of times, read by you (in, for example, the article above), and ignored because it doesn't fit your worldview, is that VAERS is, as the URL says, "open". It's a relic from a time where people tended to be sane, and wouldn't just submit all sorts of imaginary things to a medical database.

The article cited above summarises what the people collecting that data have concluded from it. How can you make an argument about the data they collect and publish, implying that you trust them, and then, in the very next breath ignore them and, I assume, next accuse them of being either too stupid or corrupt to say anything about that data?


> If asking people to take a specific step that has a good chance of protecting them from disease or even death is “virtue signaling” and therefore evil, the concept has lost any meaning it may or may not have had.

At this point it's not even so much about protecting them anymore as it is about protecting them from continuing to mutate and spread a virus that kills people. The "anti-vaxxer" folk are choosing to not only be a danger to themselves but to potentially anyone they come in contact with. What's worse is that they're actively trying to spread their ignorance about vaccines to other people, thereby growing the danger and the problem.


[flagged]


That's nonsense, or, more likely, wilful misrepresentation.

You're referring to this story: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/health/covid-cdc-delta-ma...

Quote: "Infections in vaccinated Americans also may be as transmissible as those in unvaccinated people."

That doesn't mean that vaccinated people are spreading the disease as much as the unvaccinated. Only the infected vaccinated people do.

But, as happens with vaccinations, infections are, while possible, far less common among vaccinated people. Even the worst numbers put vaccine efficiency at 65%+ for infection. (85%+ for hospitalisation, 95%+ for death).


By the way, for everyone else who - like me - doesn't have a NYT subscription and thus don't know what the above comment is talking about, the Washington Post has what looks like an equivalent version of the same story:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/29/cdc-mask-gu...

Internal CDC documents have leaked. Here are some quotes from the report:

"It cites a combination of recently obtained, still-unpublished data from outbreak investigations and outside studies showing that vaccinated individuals infected with delta may be able to transmit the virus as easily as those who are unvaccinated. Vaccinated people infected with delta have measurable viral loads similar to those who are unvaccinated and infected with the variant."

"The breakthrough cases are to be expected, the CDC briefing states, and will probably rise as a proportion of all cases because there are so many more people vaccinated now. This echoes data seen from studies in other countries, including highly vaccinated Singapore, where 75 percent of new infections reportedly occur in people who are partially and fully vaccinated."

"The presentation highlights the daunting task the CDC faces. It must continue to emphasize the proven efficacy of the vaccines at preventing severe illness and death while acknowledging milder breakthrough infections may not be so rare after all, and that vaccinated individuals are transmitting the virus. The agency must move the goal posts of success in full public view."

There are some other points worth noting from the presentation:

1. The frequent and very US specific claim that "99% of hospitalizations are in the unvaccinated" isn't true. CDC stats show 15% of hospitalizations are from vaccinated people and the number is growing. Why are they claiming otherwise in public?

2. The confidential data is not really surprising, because it brings the USA into line with what every other country is seeing.

There's a good summary of some of the latest non-US data from UK and Israel here. Efficacy against infection and "mild illness" keeps falling:

https://swprs.org/covid-vaccines-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/


That's not correct. Why assume I read the NYT? I'm referring to data from places with very high vaccination rates but summer waves of equal/greater size to prior waves, like Iceland. The only way that's possible is if vaccination doesn't slow down transmission at all.

See for yourself. Google [iceland covid] and look at the graph. Cases go near vertical starting 16th July and are now the biggest wave they've ever had. Then click through to the vaccinations tab. They had vaccinated 70-75% of their population by that date (depending on whether you count first dose or second).

If 75% of the population are vaccinated yet case curves are bigger than before, the vaccination is not stopping transmission.

Edit: Also, recent data from the UK suggests effectiveness against infection has fallen to <20% in the over 50s. The calculations based on PHE data can be found here:

https://dailysceptic.org/2021/07/25/phe-data-shows-vaccine-e...

By the way, are you flagging all my posts? Do you realize that's against the rules? Nothing in my last three posts is a flaggable offence yet suddenly they are all flagged. Do you want me to do the same to you if so?




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

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

Search: