561–570 of 717 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No its not fine because not everyone reacts well to these vaccines. I know numerous people, including myself, that have had crippling heart inflammation after their second dose. I can apply for an exemption but ultimately that does little for what rights I am afforded. People are being left behind, and its not okay.
And I know people who died from Covid, who'd be alive today if they'd took the vaccine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Get a booster when you can, it is worth it. If you are under 65 and not immune compromised, there's essentially no evidence for this claim. If you are either of those things, there's some evidence that it takes your risk of severe illness (already low after vaccination), and divides it by another factor of ~20 [0]. That's great, but it's a tiny absolute effect, and we shouldn't over-sell it. If you're under 65, the…
If you are in that group (under 65 and no co-morbids) two shots should be fine. Getting infected, using early treatments (even controversial ones) and recovering with a dose of natural immunity is probably better as the SA study from yesterday showed.
Citation needed, as you appear to be saying that a COVID infection is preferable to a vaccination, and that is an extraordinary claim. Bonus points for using " natural immunity", a loaded term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Remain obsessed" with transmission of a highly contagious virus that has shown significant ability to mutate at scale? That sure seems worth being obsessed about. When it mutates to spread past all current defenses then consistently kill because we failed to stop current spread it will indeed be "depressing".
There is absolutely no way to stop the spread forever. Just suggesting it is crazy. It is an option you have to forget about. Stalling the spread is useless as well - we have already had two major mutations in less than two years.
There's a significant difference between COVID-19/SARS-COV-2 become endemic, and it continuing as a pandemic that threatens public health systems due to caseload density. Yes, we're unlikely to get beyond it being endemic, which means that like influenza, it will continue to be an issue, but we can certainly get a point where it is "just endemic", which would be a huge improvement over the current situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason why people are obsessed with case numbers and not deaths is that case numbers control the case numbers in the insufficiently immunized which predicts death toll 3 weeks ahead of time. Why would you want to control a system with 2-3 weeks of additional lag in your input data when case numbers (a thing that is somewhat easy to measure) correlates so well future deaths? Ideally politician would have some fami…
> Why would you want to control a system with 2-3 weeks of additional lag in your input data when case numbers (a thing that is somewhat easy to measure) correlates so well future deaths? Because case numbers are actually not easy to measure. I'm basing this of my personal experience working in a German healthcare company, we took up testing during the pandemic; All the tests we do are on unvaccinated people. That's…
There is little control theoretic relevance of the Dunkelziffer smoothly varying between 2 and 6 as long as that doesn't make the controller overlook a wave (it doesn't). The sign of the policy should still be the same and if measures don't work, harder measures are imposed means we basically got a PI(D) controller and can achieve stationary solutions even if the Dunkelziffer changes smoothly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you believe this is what parent was referring to? I must assume not because they used the word “authoritarian”, which implies they’re complaining about minority groups imposing their will on the majority. Do you believe that Tyranny of the Majority is a valid concern with the vaccine mandates? Which minority groups are being oppressed?
I can't speak for parent, I'll leave that to them. I just meant to show evidence that because something is approved by the majority doesn't disqualify it from being tyrannical. Personally, I don't see why it wouldn't be a concern with the mandates, but I think this conversation has already been repeated by others ad nauseum: I say bodily autonomy, you might say we mandate all sorts of vaccines, I say these aren't tho…
It’s strange to me that the arguments against vaccines are all self-centered, about personal risk, and the arguments in favor are all addressing net social benefit. I kinda want the bodily autonomy to not get infected by someone refusing to take any social precautions over political beliefs.
We have more than enough data already, enough people have died from COVID, to prove the vaccine is a net benefit to society, and enough data and solid evidence to know that the personal risk is much lower than the risks that come from getting COVID.
> because something is approved by the majority doesn’t disqualify it from being tyrannical
We’re talking about something specific, not vague platitudes. Tyranny is defined as being oppressive, arbitrary or cruel assertions of power. None of that is true for the COVID vaccine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would you want to control a system with 2-3 weeks of additional lag in your input data when case numbers (a thing that is somewhat easy to measure) correlates so well future deaths? Because case numbers are actually not easy to measure. I'm basing this of my personal experience working in a German healthcare company, we took up testing during the pandemic; All the tests we do are on unvaccinated people. That's…
The obvious solution to this problem is to do actual random sampling: pick members of the public in as close to a random fashion as possible, test them for Covid regardless of vaccination status or symptoms, and you should be able to get a reasonably unbiased estimate of actual infection levels in the community. The UK has been doing this since about spring 2020, but weirdly no-one else seems to even though it's obvi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is absolutely no way to stop the spread forever. Well, there is, we just don't want to pay for it: vaccinating poor countries, where effectively the mutations are being created by high infection rates.
I don't understand: every single study out there says that vaccinated people do still catch the virus and can still spread it. Why would the current crop of vaccines be able to stop the virus, even if applied worldwide, seen that they don't prevent infection?
The evidence is still not solid on whether or not it does this, as far as I am aware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you ignore the context and the multifaceted consequences of lockdowns etc., then yes, you are correct and we should be obsessed with the transmission rates. However, we don't have the same level of obsessions about other viruses present in humans (say, HSV-1 which unlike SARS-CoV-2 will live inside you until you die), and even other coronaviruses. Why? Because what matters most is how dangerous the virus is. Fortu…
> Omicron deaths are still at zero Omicron hasn't been around long enough to expect many deaths yet. Even the optimists need to wait a few more weeks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No its not fine because not everyone reacts well to these vaccines. I know numerous people, including myself, that have had crippling heart inflammation after their second dose. I can apply for an exemption but ultimately that does little for what rights I am afforded. People are being left behind, and its not okay.
And I know people who died from Covid, who'd be alive today if they'd took the vaccine.
Personally im holding out for Novavax now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except for many cohorts, the overwhelming — near certain — odds are that they’d be fine after contracting COVID.
Why draw a deadly roulette ticket?