4 ms·

The article and your wondering doesn't provide enough evidence that we should go counter to not trying to spread the virus in the first place. Social distancing

by Klinky 6y ago

The article and your wondering doesn't provide enough evidence that we should go counter to not trying to spread the virus in the first place. Social distancing, hygiene and a vaccine are much more definitive ways to combat a severe second wave than hoping magically some people have built-in immunity or some unknown environmental trigger results in a similar immune response.

yomly 6y ago
The parent never suggested anything anti-lockdown. At face value it is merely questioning the existence of a possible trade off of lockdown. As you've not provided evidence or anecdotal stories to refute the question I'm still in no better position to consider the parent's question with more information. I mean if we really want to start projecting our own agendas or anti agendas, the whole notion of "evidence" leaves a bad taste in my mouth given the WHO went on record saying "there is no evidence of human transmission". And I am saying this as a scientist! Our obsession with evidence and data is important (as what are we without empiricism) but boy has it seemed more like a curse rather than a blessing at various stages throughout this pandemic. I am definitely team Bayes on these matters, common sense and experience do hold some value sometimes.
- Klinky 6y ago
  Germ theory and the science around vaccines is well established. Winging it because maybe some unknown might protect us sounds absurd. To get to the point where the existence of this unknown can be proven yes/no will take longer than it will to develop a vaccine.
  - yomly 6y ago
    I never questioned germ theory nor the science of vaccines. I do raise an eyebrow however when there's so much rigmarole around "evidence" and mask wearing. Just like there was rigmarole around hand washing when Semmelweis promoted it. What a bizarre hill people have made to die on. And how slow the WHO were to declare the dangers of covid in its early stages.

by Klinky 6y ago

yomly 6y ago

The parent never suggested anything anti-lockdown. At face value it is merely questioning the existence of a possible trade off of lockdown. As you've not provided evidence or anecdotal stories to refute the question I'm still in no better position to consider the parent's question with more information. I mean if we really want to start projecting our own agendas or anti agendas, the whole notion of "evidence" leaves a bad taste in my mouth given the WHO went on record saying "there is no evidence of human transmission". And I am saying this as a scientist! Our obsession with evidence and data is important (as what are we without empiricism) but boy has it seemed more like a curse rather than a blessing at various stages throughout this pandemic. I am definitely team Bayes on these matters, common sense and experience do hold some value sometimes.

Klinky 6y ago
Germ theory and the science around vaccines is well established. Winging it because maybe some unknown might protect us sounds absurd. To get to the point where the existence of this unknown can be proven yes/no will take longer than it will to develop a vaccine.
- yomly 6y ago
  I never questioned germ theory nor the science of vaccines. I do raise an eyebrow however when there's so much rigmarole around "evidence" and mask wearing. Just like there was rigmarole around hand washing when Semmelweis promoted it. What a bizarre hill people have made to die on. And how slow the WHO were to declare the dangers of covid in its early stages.