<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>timr</author><text>&amp;gt; we should have. Tolerating disease spread and threats to vulnerable populations when vaccines are available that are practically risk-free (or the risk being magnitudes smaller than the payoff) is ridiculous. Maybe this finally shakes people awake and puts public health and safety to the top of the agenda rather than people throwing tantrums like children about government incursion.&lt;p&gt;You can certainly go down this path, and dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as &amp;quot;children&amp;quot;, but what you value is not the same as what everyone else values.&lt;p&gt;I am willing to balance the risk of never having a normal life again with an overall risk of illness and death that is on par with &lt;i&gt;every other year I have been alive.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Eventually, I too will become old and frail, and become vulnerable to some virus or another. If I ever become so afraid of death that I demand that other people give up their basic human rights to &amp;quot;keep me safe&amp;quot;, then I hope that illness takes me quickly after that. I don&amp;#x27;t want to live in the world you propose.</text><parent_chain><item><author>Barrin92</author><text>&amp;gt; if you are fully vaccinated, you are at essentially no risk of serious illness from SARS-CoV2.&lt;p&gt;Terrible first order logic. The threat from the virus is not only immediate risk to the individual, it is also further transmissions increasing the risk of creating new breakthrough variants. Every infected person is a gamble that risks nullifying the effectiveness of vaccines, so the goal must be to bring down infections as strongly as possible.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;We have never before justified such intrusive government policies based on the risks faced by these individuals&lt;p&gt;we should have. Tolerating disease spread and threats to vulnerable populations when vaccines are available that are practically risk-free (or the risk being magnitudes smaller than the payoff) is ridiculous. Maybe this finally shakes people awake and puts public health and safety to the top of the agenda rather than people throwing tantrums like children about government incursion.&lt;p&gt;edit: and another point I forgot, with such a significant unvaccinated population we will very likely see surges in admissions in winter again. Public health resources are limited. Unnecessary Covid hospitalizations cause immense opportunity cost in the form of crowding out care and driving costs. Which in many cases other sick people and the public will have to carry.</text></item><item><author>timr</author><text>I am pro-vaccine (and fully vaccinated), but I don&amp;#x27;t support this policy at all.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t believe this will have much of a net effect on vaccination rate, I believe it will disproportionately negatively impact poor and minority populations in NYC who &lt;i&gt;already&lt;/i&gt; have a bad&amp;#x2F;mistrustful relationship with health care and government, and it is obviously a huge new governmental intrusion into our daily lives. It might well lead to anger and violence (as similar moves have across Europe).&lt;p&gt;These are my opinions, but I think the strongest arguments against it are facts: if you are fully vaccinated, &lt;i&gt;you are at essentially no risk of serious illness from SARS-CoV2&lt;/i&gt;. And literally anyone who wants a vaccine can get one. Those who choose not to get vaccinated are making a risk calculation; they are making a &lt;i&gt;choice&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;p&gt;This policy comes from an almost hysterical fixation on &amp;quot;cases&amp;quot;, which are not a metric of any meaning. SARS-CoV2 is not going away. We should be reacting rationally to rates of hospitalization and deaths -- and right now, those are barely changed in NYC, thanks to the very high vaccination rate amongst the vulnerable population:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www1.nyc.gov&amp;#x2F;site&amp;#x2F;doh&amp;#x2F;covid&amp;#x2F;covid-19-data-trends.page&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www1.nyc.gov&amp;#x2F;site&amp;#x2F;doh&amp;#x2F;covid&amp;#x2F;covid-19-data-trends.pag...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;One can certainly argue that there exist small groups of people for whom the vaccine is not perfect protection. This is true, but it&amp;#x27;s no different than &lt;i&gt;all other viruses&lt;/i&gt;, which have threatened immunocompromised people forever. We have never before justified such intrusive government policies based on the risks faced by these individuals. So while I empathize with them, this still seems like over-reach to me.</text></item><item><author>alecst</author><text>Pretty dismal discussion in here at the time of writing. Largely complaints about tyranny. Makes me sad that we can&amp;#x27;t have a calm discussion about the merits of the policy.&lt;p&gt;From what I can tell, you might be opposed to this policy if:&lt;p&gt;1. You have fears about getting a vaccine, moreso than for coronavirus. If this is you, do you prefer a mask mandate? And if so, how do you enforce this in a restaurant, where anyone eating takes off their mask right away?&lt;p&gt;2. You have fears about the privacy implications. If so, what are those fears? Perhaps your vaccination status can lead people to make inferences about your health?&lt;p&gt;3. You are not particularly concerned about the community spread of coronavirus (and the implications of that)&lt;p&gt;There aren&amp;#x27;t a lot of choices. You can 1) avoid high-risk areas and escape infection&amp;#x2F;spreading disease, in which case, this policy doesn&amp;#x27;t really directly affect you. Or 2) you can take your chances with coronavirus, which you will get sooner or later, and spread it. Or 3) you can &amp;quot;take your chances&amp;quot; with the vaccine which, statistically and biologically, is safer than getting coronavirus and reduces spread.&lt;p&gt;This policy allows people to choose from 1) and 3) but not 2), which is in all ways the worst decision. Unless, of course, you think that the vaccine is more dangerous than coronavirus. And then I don&amp;#x27;t really know what to say.&lt;p&gt;(lightly edited for clarification)</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>NYC to mandate proof of vaccination for many indoor settings</title><url>https://nypost.com/2021/08/03/nyc-to-mandate-proof-of-vaccination-for-many-indoor-settings/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>acituan</author><text>&amp;gt; The threat from the virus is not only immediate risk to the individual, it is also further transmissions increasing the risk of creating new breakthrough variants&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Tolerating disease spread and threats to vulnerable populations when vaccines are available that are practically risk-free (or the risk being magnitudes smaller than the payoff) is ridiculous&lt;p&gt;Those are very different justifications with very different policy implications, it is best not to conflate the two.&lt;p&gt;If breakthrough variants was the major concern (and it should have been) vaccine rollout should have been &lt;i&gt;fast&lt;/i&gt; in addition to very high percentages, and vaccinated&amp;#x2F;unvaccinated population mix should have been minimized with policy. Anything less gives the perfect arena for evolutionary algorithm to learn its way around the vaccine immunity.&lt;p&gt;Second issue is the fading immunity of current vaccines in comparison to natural immunity. Vaccines got disproportionate attention and funding at the expense of covid &lt;i&gt;treatment&lt;/i&gt; bets, which would have helped with developing higher natural immunity levels. To what degree conflicts of interests due to EUA play in this, we don’t know. But once booster shots enter the “mandatory” territory, that will cause an additional drop in compliance. How many boosters can we really mandate, for how many years?</text><parent_chain><item><author>Barrin92</author><text>&amp;gt; if you are fully vaccinated, you are at essentially no risk of serious illness from SARS-CoV2.&lt;p&gt;Terrible first order logic. The threat from the virus is not only immediate risk to the individual, it is also further transmissions increasing the risk of creating new breakthrough variants. Every infected person is a gamble that risks nullifying the effectiveness of vaccines, so the goal must be to bring down infections as strongly as possible.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;We have never before justified such intrusive government policies based on the risks faced by these individuals&lt;p&gt;we should have. Tolerating disease spread and threats to vulnerable populations when vaccines are available that are practically risk-free (or the risk being magnitudes smaller than the payoff) is ridiculous. Maybe this finally shakes people awake and puts public health and safety to the top of the agenda rather than people throwing tantrums like children about government incursion.&lt;p&gt;edit: and another point I forgot, with such a significant unvaccinated population we will very likely see surges in admissions in winter again. Public health resources are limited. Unnecessary Covid hospitalizations cause immense opportunity cost in the form of crowding out care and driving costs. Which in many cases other sick people and the public will have to carry.</text></item><item><author>timr</author><text>I am pro-vaccine (and fully vaccinated), but I don&amp;#x27;t support this policy at all.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t believe this will have much of a net effect on vaccination rate, I believe it will disproportionately negatively impact poor and minority populations in NYC who &lt;i&gt;already&lt;/i&gt; have a bad&amp;#x2F;mistrustful relationship with health care and government, and it is obviously a huge new governmental intrusion into our daily lives. It might well lead to anger and violence (as similar moves have across Europe).&lt;p&gt;These are my opinions, but I think the strongest arguments against it are facts: if you are fully vaccinated, &lt;i&gt;you are at essentially no risk of serious illness from SARS-CoV2&lt;/i&gt;. And literally anyone who wants a vaccine can get one. Those who choose not to get vaccinated are making a risk calculation; they are making a &lt;i&gt;choice&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;p&gt;This policy comes from an almost hysterical fixation on &amp;quot;cases&amp;quot;, which are not a metric of any meaning. SARS-CoV2 is not going away. We should be reacting rationally to rates of hospitalization and deaths -- and right now, those are barely changed in NYC, thanks to the very high vaccination rate amongst the vulnerable population:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www1.nyc.gov&amp;#x2F;site&amp;#x2F;doh&amp;#x2F;covid&amp;#x2F;covid-19-data-trends.page&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www1.nyc.gov&amp;#x2F;site&amp;#x2F;doh&amp;#x2F;covid&amp;#x2F;covid-19-data-trends.pag...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;One can certainly argue that there exist small groups of people for whom the vaccine is not perfect protection. This is true, but it&amp;#x27;s no different than &lt;i&gt;all other viruses&lt;/i&gt;, which have threatened immunocompromised people forever. We have never before justified such intrusive government policies based on the risks faced by these individuals. So while I empathize with them, this still seems like over-reach to me.</text></item><item><author>alecst</author><text>Pretty dismal discussion in here at the time of writing. Largely complaints about tyranny. Makes me sad that we can&amp;#x27;t have a calm discussion about the merits of the policy.&lt;p&gt;From what I can tell, you might be opposed to this policy if:&lt;p&gt;1. You have fears about getting a vaccine, moreso than for coronavirus. If this is you, do you prefer a mask mandate? And if so, how do you enforce this in a restaurant, where anyone eating takes off their mask right away?&lt;p&gt;2. You have fears about the privacy implications. If so, what are those fears? Perhaps your vaccination status can lead people to make inferences about your health?&lt;p&gt;3. You are not particularly concerned about the community spread of coronavirus (and the implications of that)&lt;p&gt;There aren&amp;#x27;t a lot of choices. You can 1) avoid high-risk areas and escape infection&amp;#x2F;spreading disease, in which case, this policy doesn&amp;#x27;t really directly affect you. Or 2) you can take your chances with coronavirus, which you will get sooner or later, and spread it. Or 3) you can &amp;quot;take your chances&amp;quot; with the vaccine which, statistically and biologically, is safer than getting coronavirus and reduces spread.&lt;p&gt;This policy allows people to choose from 1) and 3) but not 2), which is in all ways the worst decision. Unless, of course, you think that the vaccine is more dangerous than coronavirus. And then I don&amp;#x27;t really know what to say.&lt;p&gt;(lightly edited for clarification)</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>NYC to mandate proof of vaccination for many indoor settings</title><url>https://nypost.com/2021/08/03/nyc-to-mandate-proof-of-vaccination-for-many-indoor-settings/</url></story>