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

Not happening, recent polls suggest that in Germany, 55% percent of the population is willing to get the vaccine.

That isn't enough for herd immunity (at around 60%) and real vaccination rate will be even lower.

There is also no chance in hell that Germans will allow a government-mandated vaccine. It's unconstitutional and there is heavy opposition to government-mandated anything throughout all of society.

So we will be stuck with this virus. But you're free to get the vaccine yourself for your own protection.



Well, the rest will become immune the natural way fairly quickly: By contracting the virus.

Once a vaccine is available and a large share of the population either has been vaccinated or has the opportunity to be vaccinated maintaining the current measures can't be justified anymore.


Nooooooo - how are people still saying this. There is little evidence at this stage that immunity can be gained in this way, for this particular virus.


There absolutely is evidence of this. It's just not "immunity for life", which is what people commonly seem to think of when they're talking about immunity.

When you've had an infection with one of those rather harmless yet still pesky other coronaviruses - otherwise known as the common cold - you're also immune, for a limited period of time, that is.


There are plenty of cases of people being reinfected quite quickly and frequency of exposure also seems to correlate with serious illness ... the science is still very much “out” on this.


The fastest reinfections known so far have occurred after about 6 months and those cases are still mostly anecdotal (also due to a lack of data).


There is no anecdotal data for immunity either.


“We conclude that neutralizing antibodies are stably produced for at least 5-7 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the team of researchers, lead by Deepta Bhattacharya, an immunobiologist at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, wrote in their report."

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-long-does-immunit...


Interesting. This research is apparently just a few weeks old. I look forward to seeing it corroborated and replicated!

EDIT no mention of it in Nature's covid roundup [0]. They must be censoring the research. I've tried googling the author and he seems to be some form of contrarian.

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w


If they get over the virus then they developed an immune response that won’t go away immediately.

The question is how long does it last? Even if it lasts only 6 months, that’s still 6 months of protection.


Yes, and that is not what people think of when you say “immunity”


Really? All immunity is limited in time. That’s why we give booster shots.


Well obviously. I’m saying there is little evidence for even this level of immunity.

You can get the disease, recover, and then catch it again.

There are other factors such as frequency of exposure and viral load.

It’s not like the flu where you catch it and you develop a resistance.


Unfortunately and with COVID-19 in particular, many aspects seem to have become a matter of all-or-nothing propositions:

"The pandemic will only ever be over once the disease has been eliminated and there are no COVID19-related deaths or long-term effects anymore."

"Either the vaccine works in 100 per cent of cases or it doesn't work at all."

"It's either complete immunity for life or no immunity at all."


It seems likely that percentage will increase as more people are vaccinated and do not have adverse side effects, so people gain trust in the vaccine.

The same is true for other vaccines. See for example [the figure on this page](https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/qa-ola-rosling-gapminder): in this survey, in Germany, 13% said they believe vaccines are not safe in general, but only 3% of babies are not getting the measles vaccination.

So let's hope many of the people that currently are not planning to get the vaccine, will change their mind and actually do so in the end. I think good information campaigns in the media and testimonies of friends that have received the vaccine will do a lot to mitigate this problem.


That problem will solve itself then.


>That problem will solve itself then.

At a considerable cost. There's a large number of people for whom the vaccine won't work when it has been taken correctly or who cannot take the vaccine because it will react very badly with their chemotherapy or whatever.

This "let Darwin deal with the anti-vaxers" solution, though initially attractive, ends up being sociopathic when you dig into it.


I'm not saying it is attractive. Just that that will be the consequence, it is not sociopathic on my end, it is on theirs. By not taking the vaccine they are also risking the lives of others who do take it and for whom it isn't effective or who can't take it.


Sociopathic is saying “leave it to individual responsibility”



Good link, well done.


What percentage of the population needs to be vulnerable for the entire population to be forcibly inconvenienced for their needs? When is it the responsibility of the vulnerable to protect themselves vs forcing society at large to protect the vulnerable? Certainly there is some threshold, considering that we didn't shut down society in the past for the tiny percentage of bubbleboys with no immune system. To call people sociopathic is to close your mind and not see the real gray areas. So to ask again, what percentage of society needs to be vulnerable in order for it to be ethical to coerce everyone to do something?


> Certainly there is some threshold, considering that we didn't shut down society in the past for the tiny percentage of bubbleboys with no immune system.

Well, thankfully we haven't done this today either. This virus appears to affect more than just those that die from it, and that group of victims already includes more than a "tiny percentage of bubbleboys."


The virus kills on the order of 1% of people who contract it, and can cause serious illness or death even for healthy people, so anyone who is able to get the vaccine should get the vaccine. It's not like you're being asked to give up an organ or something; you're being asked to protect yourself, and protect those unfortunate enough not to be able to get the vaccine themselves as well. Rather than quibbling over percentages, why not ask yourself what ethical foundation a healthy person could have to not get the vaccine once it's been proven safe and effective.


And the alternative is...?


The alternative is to make vaccination a precondition for a lot of government services, particularly public education. Also there needs to be a heavy advertising campaign advocating for vaccination.


Mandate it, just like the US does currently for child immunizations.


The US, as a union or the states individually, generally does not mandate child immunizations.

Many states make them (usually with fairly broad exemptions, often including belief-based) requirements for public schools, though.


They should mandate it across the board with only exceptions based in medical science.


German Democratic Republic did this, with a resulting 99% vaccination rate.


No thanks?

Bodily autonomy is arguably the most important human right.


Are you okay with people defecating in public? Just curious.


No, but neither is that an issue of bodily autonomy.

Bodily autonomy is about being in control of what happens to your body — it does not mean you have carte blanche to do whatever you want with your body.


So, logically the solution is not to mandate the vaccine, but to restrict what unvaccinated people can do, where necessary to protect others. For example, if not vaccinated, you should continue to wear a mask while indoors in public (as long as local virus cases are above a given threshold), as well as avoiding large gatherings.


Yeah, this is what I was getting at. It's not about bodily autonomy if it affects other bodies too.


You could make that argument without needing a vaccine.


No, that would be a different argument. If a vaccine does not exist, no one has the choice to get it, which is a very different situation.


Yes, everything is the same without context.


Leave it as a choice, but don’t allow unvaccinated people (without a medical excuse) to go anywhere public where there could be vulnerable people.

No bars, no restaurants, no concerts or sporting events, no public transport, no airports, no religious gatherings, no hospitals, etcetera.


That's clearly no choice at all. It either is a choice or it is not, and restrictions that severe clearly indicate that no, it would not be a choice. You realise how transparent that is, right?




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

Search: