11 ms·

It's not hard to reliably verify previous infection at all. A past positive Covid test or a positive antibody test will reliably verify immunity just as well as

It's not hard to reliably verify previous infection at all. A past positive Covid test or a positive antibody test will reliably verify immunity just as well as a vaccination record. Go check my profile all you want. The science is crystal clear, and you don't even have an argument against it aside from trying to attack me as an anti-vaxxer (which I am certainly not).

willmadden 5y ago
Please do not use the term "anti-vaxxer". There are countless vaccines with varying safety profiles, unknowns, and underlying risks for the diseases they prevent. People who make informed decisions about specific vaccines based on the risk/reward (and unknowns) are not "anti-vaxxers". It is not an all-or-nothing proposition.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  In theory this is true but in reality half of the US population just isn't smart enough to evaluate such a question and those who are hesitant are virtually exclusively drawn from this portion. This is well highlighted by the fact that the societal and individual risks of avoiding vaccination are so insanely high while the risk of vaccination is virtually insignificant. If I offered you a chance to skip rope or play Russian roulette with revolver with a bullet in one chamber and you opined about the danger of breaking your hip while skipping rope I would strong suspect you didn't understand the question.
  - willmadden 5y ago
    >those who are hesitant are virtually exclusively drawn from this portion. Well, that's complete BS. The list of people expressing concerns about the mRNA / spike protein based injections includes the inventor of the PCR test (Nobel Prize winner), the guy who invented Ivermectin (Nobel Prize winner), the guy credited with inventing mRNA vaccines, the guy who discovered that HIV causes AIDS (another Nobel Prize winner), and countless other famous researchers. These people are typically pro-vaccine in general, but have reservations about the new spike protein based mRNA vaccines. They are anything but "not smart enough to evaluate such a question". Here, give this a read: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      Links to scientific research by those fellows or research cited by them. Virtually doesn't mean entirely. You can find strict creationist biologists too if you ask enough despite it being a crank view that inherently discredits it's holder. It doesn't mean biologists give substantial credence to creationism. 99.9% of vaccine hesitant are intellectually limited or letting their politics overrule their intellect. 0.1% are people with relevant expertise who are wrong. If you want to know what experts of a particular stripe think about a technical topic you identify the most qualified via their peers and accomplishments and synthesize a theory of how the world appears to work from the points of contention and consensus. What you do not do is cherry pick from the minority who support your pre chosen view and declare your prior bias justified. You might as well have skipped a step and just patted yourself on the back and put in earplugs as it would leave you more time to recline in the shade.
    - raphlinus 5y ago
      I'll quote the expression of concern, in case people don't click through your link and see it: The journal is issuing this expression of concern to alert readers to significant concerns regarding the paper cited above [1]. Serious concerns have been raised about misinterpretation of the data and the conclusions. The major concern is the misrepresentation of the COVID-19 vaccination efforts and misrepresentation of the data, e.g., Abstract: “For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination”. Stating that these deaths linked to vaccination efforts is incorrect and distorted. We will provide an update following the conclusion of our investigation. The authors have been notified about this Expression of Concern.
      - willmadden 5y ago
        I'm not sure why it's worth quoting that "expression of concern" rather than addressing the study directly. I'll list my "expression of concern" about their "expression of concern": their "expression of concern" contains no evidence refuting the study. In fact, it contains no substance at all, other than being a political statement. View the full text here and see for yourself: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/705/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/705/htm "The journal is issuing this expression of concern to alert readers to significant concerns regarding the paper cited above [1]. Serious concerns have been raised about misinterpretation of the data and the conclusions. The major concern is the misrepresentation of the COVID-19 vaccination efforts and misrepresentation of the data, e.g., Abstract: “For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination”. Stating that these deaths linked to vaccination efforts is incorrect and distorted. We will provide an update following the conclusion of our investigation. The authors have been notified about this Expression of Concern."

willmadden 5y ago

Please do not use the term "anti-vaxxer". There are countless vaccines with varying safety profiles, unknowns, and underlying risks for the diseases they prevent. People who make informed decisions about specific vaccines based on the risk/reward (and unknowns) are not "anti-vaxxers". It is not an all-or-nothing proposition.

michaelmrose 5y ago
In theory this is true but in reality half of the US population just isn't smart enough to evaluate such a question and those who are hesitant are virtually exclusively drawn from this portion. This is well highlighted by the fact that the societal and individual risks of avoiding vaccination are so insanely high while the risk of vaccination is virtually insignificant. If I offered you a chance to skip rope or play Russian roulette with revolver with a bullet in one chamber and you opined about the danger of breaking your hip while skipping rope I would strong suspect you didn't understand the question.
- willmadden 5y ago
  >those who are hesitant are virtually exclusively drawn from this portion. Well, that's complete BS. The list of people expressing concerns about the mRNA / spike protein based injections includes the inventor of the PCR test (Nobel Prize winner), the guy who invented Ivermectin (Nobel Prize winner), the guy credited with inventing mRNA vaccines, the guy who discovered that HIV causes AIDS (another Nobel Prize winner), and countless other famous researchers. These people are typically pro-vaccine in general, but have reservations about the new spike protein based mRNA vaccines. They are anything but "not smart enough to evaluate such a question". Here, give this a read: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Links to scientific research by those fellows or research cited by them. Virtually doesn't mean entirely. You can find strict creationist biologists too if you ask enough despite it being a crank view that inherently discredits it's holder. It doesn't mean biologists give substantial credence to creationism. 99.9% of vaccine hesitant are intellectually limited or letting their politics overrule their intellect. 0.1% are people with relevant expertise who are wrong. If you want to know what experts of a particular stripe think about a technical topic you identify the most qualified via their peers and accomplishments and synthesize a theory of how the world appears to work from the points of contention and consensus. What you do not do is cherry pick from the minority who support your pre chosen view and declare your prior bias justified. You might as well have skipped a step and just patted yourself on the back and put in earplugs as it would leave you more time to recline in the shade.
  - raphlinus 5y ago
    I'll quote the expression of concern, in case people don't click through your link and see it: The journal is issuing this expression of concern to alert readers to significant concerns regarding the paper cited above [1]. Serious concerns have been raised about misinterpretation of the data and the conclusions. The major concern is the misrepresentation of the COVID-19 vaccination efforts and misrepresentation of the data, e.g., Abstract: “For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination”. Stating that these deaths linked to vaccination efforts is incorrect and distorted. We will provide an update following the conclusion of our investigation. The authors have been notified about this Expression of Concern.
    - willmadden 5y ago
      I'm not sure why it's worth quoting that "expression of concern" rather than addressing the study directly. I'll list my "expression of concern" about their "expression of concern": their "expression of concern" contains no evidence refuting the study. In fact, it contains no substance at all, other than being a political statement. View the full text here and see for yourself: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/705/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/705/htm "The journal is issuing this expression of concern to alert readers to significant concerns regarding the paper cited above [1]. Serious concerns have been raised about misinterpretation of the data and the conclusions. The major concern is the misrepresentation of the COVID-19 vaccination efforts and misrepresentation of the data, e.g., Abstract: “For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination”. Stating that these deaths linked to vaccination efforts is incorrect and distorted. We will provide an update following the conclusion of our investigation. The authors have been notified about this Expression of Concern."