7 ms·

> There's a difference between people who don't think vaccines are good as a whole...and people who question a rushed vaccine developed with no FDA oversight or

> There's a difference between people who don't think vaccines are good as a whole...and people who question a rushed vaccine developed with no FDA oversight or testing by companies who have absolutely no liability if things go wrong for a disease that has 99.99% survival rate for most people. > > And then there are questions about it even WORKING fully and one still has to wear a mask and you can still be contagious and it may not protect against other strains! Yes, there's a difference between people who question vaccines as a whole and... a fabricated reality/false narrative. The survival rate is not 99.99%, and the outcomes for "survivors" are all too often debilitating. The demand on our healthcare infrastructure is potentially crippling, as we've seen. There has been FDA oversight... indeed the vast majority of the time from development to release of the vaccines in the US has been getting clearance from the FDA (you may recall the J&J vaccine was even paused by the FDA). ...and the liability shield is due to the never-ending unjustified legal claims that companies are invariably subjected to when they operate in this space. There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your bell rung. ;-)

nickthemagicman 5y ago
> Covid chance of death in general population (Deaths / US population): 100 - (600000/350 million) = 99.9982857143% survival rate > "Currently, no coronavirus vaccine is fully approved by the FDA, but three were given emergency use authorization by the agency" https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/coronavirus/are-covid-vaccines-fda-approved-heres-how-the-process-works-2/2524845/ https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/coronavirus/are-covid-vaccin... > The demand on our healthcare infrastructure is potentially crippling, as we've seen Completely false. Not a single hospital was crippled. Most of what you said is false information and the idea of a 'having my bell rung' appears to be a subtle violent threat! Such a rational critical thinking person you seem to be and the others like you! Best wishes sweetie!
- cbsmith 5y ago
  > 100 - (600000/350 million) = 99.9982857143% survival rate Right... so that's how many people are still alive right now with most people never getting infected, many still hospitalized, vaccinations, mitigation measures, etc., etc. Disease survival rates are computed based on how many people survive long term as a percentage of people who develop the disease. But you knew that. What's amazing though is your case for NOT doing a thing is based on stats that are optimistic even if one DOES do the thing. Go ahead and compute the mortality numbers if everyone in the country gets infected. Then compute the rates of people who need long term medical care. Take a look at those numbers and then figure out how you make a society function under those circumstances. > Most of what you said is false information and the idea of a 'having my bell rung' appears to be a subtle violent threat! It was not a threat. It was a reference to pre-existing "critical thinking bells" in your brain. It was a subtle implication that perhaps you weren't thinking straight because you'd been hit in the head, and that was the bells ringing in your head. Clearly I didn't phrase it well. I'm sure you feel that I'm wrong about everything. It's even possible I am wrong. Consider the possibility that you might be wrong; I mean, you were wrong about the "having your bell rung", so anything is possible right?
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    You're telling me that I'm wrong for believing the collectively agreed up English language definition of the term 'ring your bell' that has been around for hundreds of years... in favor of your brand new definition? "To strike someone with a violent blow to the head, especially as might stun or concuss." https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/ring+your+bell https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/ring+your+bell I find your argument un-appealing, bordering on orwellian newspeak, and disengenous.
    - cbsmith 5y ago
      No. I'm agreeing with you about the "ring your bell" definition. What you clearly misunderstood (and I'll take the blame for not wording it well if that helps you) was the time of the "ringing of the bell". I was suggesting that your bell had already been rung, and it was impacting your thinking. I also didn't say I'd "ring your bell", I referred to having had "your bell rung" (which would mean to have had your head struck, not necessarily by any person). There was no implication of any action on my or anyone else's part at all. To me you were talking about critical thinking you'd already done in the past, and that others should have done in the past, not the future. Consequently, saying that what had happened in the past wasn't critical thinking but rather impaired thinking. Obviously, I really failed to convey the message well and I'll totally take the blame for that, but I really was not making a threat. I'm very sorry that you felt threatened. That was not at all what I was trying to convey.
      - nickthemagicman 5y ago
        So what you're saying.... is that instead of violently threatening me.... you were baselessly calling me stupid?? Even though I posted numerous references while your ideas were unsourced false fear mongering information? You should be banned from this site forever for posting Facebook science and attacking people.
        cbsmith 5y ago
        > you were baselessly calling me stupid?? No, I was saying your thinking on the matter was flawed; "baselessly" is in the eyes of the beholder, but even if I am wrong I think I had a pretty good basis for saying so. As I said in my original comment, I feel you were presenting a false narrative. > Even though I posted numerous references while your ideas were unsourced false fear mongering information? Maybe you posted references elsewhere, but the comment I was responding to (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27518146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27518146) did not contain any references. As I felt I was responding to a Gish Gallop, I didn't provide any references either, though I made references to facts that are easily verifiable from a number of sources. Is there something specific I said that you cannot verify? Now you are claiming the information I provided in my response was false, but you haven't made any specific claims about a statement I made that was false. The closest you came to such a statement would be be your reiteration about the disease's survival rate (and if you're looking for a citation on how disease survival rate is computed: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/disease-specific-survival-rate https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-term...). In general, "unsourced false fear mongering information" feels like a case of projection. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying we should be fearful of the vaccines by making unsourced statements that at the most charitable could be described as misleading? > You should be banned from this site forever for posting Facebook science and attacking people. Again, this feels like projection, but I'm not sure what "Facebook science" is. Can you define it and provide an example of something I've posted that is "Facebook science"? Again, I made a comment I shouldn't have, and I understand you read it as a personal attack. It was a derogatory statement (which again, I should not have done), but it was derogatory towards the comments you made, and not you personally. If anything, I was assuming you to be a reasonable and good person who had fallen prey to faulty reasoning and misinformation.
- dang 5y ago
  We've had to ask you multiple times before not to break the site guidelines like this. You've been posting lots of flamewar comments lately. I don't want to ban you but you're not making this easy. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this?
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    Dude had an implication with a threat to 'ring my bell' which is an actual violent threat..they get no warning...and you're telling me I'm in the wrong? Life is not fair. Just ban me already then.
    - dang 5y ago
      It was certainly a lame thing to put in an HN comment but (a) you're misquoting it and (b) I don't think most people would read it as "an actual violent threat".
      - cbsmith 5y ago
        Yeah, I think I screwed up big time. I'm really at a loss for how it came across as any kind of suggestion about something that might happen in the future (a key perquisite for anything to be a threat). Even that aside, for it to be a threat, that would somehow mean the original statement it was referring to was threatening people with critical thinking bells... that seems nonsensical to me. So again: I definitely screwed up here, and I'm horribly embarrassed by it all, but I'm at a loss to see how this could have been interpreted as a threat of any kind. I'm really sorry that it was.
        nickthemagicman 5y ago
        Your quote: """There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your bell rung. ;-)""" This is essentially your argument: """ There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your brains blown out with a critical thinking shotgun and some eight gauge ideas and buried in an unmarked grave of introspection! Can't IMAGINE how you could interpret that in a negative way! """ You're either calling me stupid.... or implying that you're going to violently attack me. You are correct, you did screw up...what you said is flamebait bannable offense and you deserve to be permanently banned immediately for violent threats to others or insulting others baselessly. Please ban this person immediately @dang. There should be ZERO tolerance for violence or insults.

nickthemagicman 5y ago

> Covid chance of death in general population (Deaths / US population): 100 - (600000/350 million) = 99.9982857143% survival rate > "Currently, no coronavirus vaccine is fully approved by the FDA, but three were given emergency use authorization by the agency" https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/coronavirus/are-covid-vaccines-fda-approved-heres-how-the-process-works-2/2524845/ https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/coronavirus/are-covid-vaccin... > The demand on our healthcare infrastructure is potentially crippling, as we've seen Completely false. Not a single hospital was crippled. Most of what you said is false information and the idea of a 'having my bell rung' appears to be a subtle violent threat! Such a rational critical thinking person you seem to be and the others like you! Best wishes sweetie!

cbsmith 5y ago
> 100 - (600000/350 million) = 99.9982857143% survival rate Right... so that's how many people are still alive right now with most people never getting infected, many still hospitalized, vaccinations, mitigation measures, etc., etc. Disease survival rates are computed based on how many people survive long term as a percentage of people who develop the disease. But you knew that. What's amazing though is your case for NOT doing a thing is based on stats that are optimistic even if one DOES do the thing. Go ahead and compute the mortality numbers if everyone in the country gets infected. Then compute the rates of people who need long term medical care. Take a look at those numbers and then figure out how you make a society function under those circumstances. > Most of what you said is false information and the idea of a 'having my bell rung' appears to be a subtle violent threat! It was not a threat. It was a reference to pre-existing "critical thinking bells" in your brain. It was a subtle implication that perhaps you weren't thinking straight because you'd been hit in the head, and that was the bells ringing in your head. Clearly I didn't phrase it well. I'm sure you feel that I'm wrong about everything. It's even possible I am wrong. Consider the possibility that you might be wrong; I mean, you were wrong about the "having your bell rung", so anything is possible right?
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  You're telling me that I'm wrong for believing the collectively agreed up English language definition of the term 'ring your bell' that has been around for hundreds of years... in favor of your brand new definition? "To strike someone with a violent blow to the head, especially as might stun or concuss." https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/ring+your+bell https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/ring+your+bell I find your argument un-appealing, bordering on orwellian newspeak, and disengenous.
  - cbsmith 5y ago
    No. I'm agreeing with you about the "ring your bell" definition. What you clearly misunderstood (and I'll take the blame for not wording it well if that helps you) was the time of the "ringing of the bell". I was suggesting that your bell had already been rung, and it was impacting your thinking. I also didn't say I'd "ring your bell", I referred to having had "your bell rung" (which would mean to have had your head struck, not necessarily by any person). There was no implication of any action on my or anyone else's part at all. To me you were talking about critical thinking you'd already done in the past, and that others should have done in the past, not the future. Consequently, saying that what had happened in the past wasn't critical thinking but rather impaired thinking. Obviously, I really failed to convey the message well and I'll totally take the blame for that, but I really was not making a threat. I'm very sorry that you felt threatened. That was not at all what I was trying to convey.
    - nickthemagicman 5y ago
      So what you're saying.... is that instead of violently threatening me.... you were baselessly calling me stupid?? Even though I posted numerous references while your ideas were unsourced false fear mongering information? You should be banned from this site forever for posting Facebook science and attacking people.
      - cbsmith 5y ago
        > you were baselessly calling me stupid?? No, I was saying your thinking on the matter was flawed; "baselessly" is in the eyes of the beholder, but even if I am wrong I think I had a pretty good basis for saying so. As I said in my original comment, I feel you were presenting a false narrative. > Even though I posted numerous references while your ideas were unsourced false fear mongering information? Maybe you posted references elsewhere, but the comment I was responding to (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27518146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27518146) did not contain any references. As I felt I was responding to a Gish Gallop, I didn't provide any references either, though I made references to facts that are easily verifiable from a number of sources. Is there something specific I said that you cannot verify? Now you are claiming the information I provided in my response was false, but you haven't made any specific claims about a statement I made that was false. The closest you came to such a statement would be be your reiteration about the disease's survival rate (and if you're looking for a citation on how disease survival rate is computed: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/disease-specific-survival-rate https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-term...). In general, "unsourced false fear mongering information" feels like a case of projection. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying we should be fearful of the vaccines by making unsourced statements that at the most charitable could be described as misleading? > You should be banned from this site forever for posting Facebook science and attacking people. Again, this feels like projection, but I'm not sure what "Facebook science" is. Can you define it and provide an example of something I've posted that is "Facebook science"? Again, I made a comment I shouldn't have, and I understand you read it as a personal attack. It was a derogatory statement (which again, I should not have done), but it was derogatory towards the comments you made, and not you personally. If anything, I was assuming you to be a reasonable and good person who had fallen prey to faulty reasoning and misinformation.
dang 5y ago
We've had to ask you multiple times before not to break the site guidelines like this. You've been posting lots of flamewar comments lately. I don't want to ban you but you're not making this easy. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this?
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  Dude had an implication with a threat to 'ring my bell' which is an actual violent threat..they get no warning...and you're telling me I'm in the wrong? Life is not fair. Just ban me already then.
  - dang 5y ago
    It was certainly a lame thing to put in an HN comment but (a) you're misquoting it and (b) I don't think most people would read it as "an actual violent threat".
    - cbsmith 5y ago
      Yeah, I think I screwed up big time. I'm really at a loss for how it came across as any kind of suggestion about something that might happen in the future (a key perquisite for anything to be a threat). Even that aside, for it to be a threat, that would somehow mean the original statement it was referring to was threatening people with critical thinking bells... that seems nonsensical to me. So again: I definitely screwed up here, and I'm horribly embarrassed by it all, but I'm at a loss to see how this could have been interpreted as a threat of any kind. I'm really sorry that it was.
      - nickthemagicman 5y ago
        Your quote: """There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your bell rung. ;-)""" This is essentially your argument: """ There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your brains blown out with a critical thinking shotgun and some eight gauge ideas and buried in an unmarked grave of introspection! Can't IMAGINE how you could interpret that in a negative way! """ You're either calling me stupid.... or implying that you're going to violently attack me. You are correct, you did screw up...what you said is flamebait bannable offense and you deserve to be permanently banned immediately for violent threats to others or insulting others baselessly. Please ban this person immediately @dang. There should be ZERO tolerance for violence or insults.