3 ms·

> Regardless, you're still wrong. It isn't the case that more protection is always better. We know that there are circumstances where a vaccine can make a disea

by croon 5y ago

> Regardless, you're still wrong. It isn't the case that more protection is always better. We know that there are circumstances where a vaccine can make a disease worse. And we don't know what future variants of the coronavirus will do. I'm still wrong because I point out based on facts that I'm correct? The covid vaccines are much better than no vaccines. I'll throw in another point: "For every 10 million people who receive the first dose of AstraZeneca, about 66 more will suffer from a blood-clotting syndrome than during normal circumstances, according to the study published in the British Medical Journal. This figure compares with 12,614 more incidences recorded in 10 million people who have tested positive for Covid-19." [0] > On the diesel; yeah, it causes deaths from air pollution. Lots of things do. Life is not without risk. Is your freedom not impeding on other peoples freedoms (to live)? > I mean; it is kinda obvious that COVID isn't going away. And you can tell from the case numbers that it is mostly vaccinated people getting it, because there aren't enough deaths for it to be raging through an unvaccinated population. > It isn't misleading, it is just facts. "Prevalence in those aged 5-49 was 2.5 times higher at 0.20% (0.16%, 0.26%) compared with those aged 50 years and above at 0.08% (0.06%, 0.11%)." [1] It would've been nicer with more exact data, but older were vaccinated earlier, and ages 5-12 have 0 vaccinations yet. Your "facts" seem based on simple reasoning that I can't reconcile with what I consider facts to be, nor do I agree with the reasoning to begin with. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-26/blood-clot-risk-much-higher-from-covid-19-than-with-vaccines https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-26/blood-clo... [1] https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/89629 https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/89629

roenxi 5y ago
> I'm still wrong because I point out based on facts that I'm correct? No, you're wrong because you said "more protection is always better". That isn't true - sometimes the protection turns out to be worse than nothing. > Is your freedom not impeding on other peoples freedoms (to live)? There isn't a freedom "to live", it doesn't mean anything. Everybody dies in the end no matter what. Nobody has ever had a "freedom" not to catch diseases, if I had that one I'd have exercised it a few times in the past; I don't like throwing up. > "Prevalence in those aged 5-49 was 2.5 times higher at 0.20% (0.16%, 0.26%) compared with those aged 50 years and above at 0.08% (0.06%, 0.11%)." [1] They only opened up vaccinations to people aged under 40 in May, and it takes a few months to get both doses of the vaccine and that paper was issued in mid June. I'm not sure that tells us anything. Obviously if the majority of a population is vaccinated then unvaccinated people will be the majority of cases, that isn't in question. > Your "facts" seem based on simple reasoning that I can't reconcile with what I consider facts to be, nor do I agree with the reasoning to begin with. We're not disagreeing on any numbers here. I doubt you consider your reasoning to be superior due to excessive complexity.
- croon 5y ago
  > No, you're wrong because you said "more protection is always better". That isn't true - sometimes the protection turns out to be worse than nothing. You're arguing the semantics of "always" while ignoring the context provided. You're trying to win an argument, regardless if it's relevant to the topic. The protection against covid (the vaccine/s) isn't worse than nothing. That is a fact, and what I'm arguing. You're stating I'm wrong, by carefully navigating around that into something entirely pointless. > There isn't a freedom "to live", it doesn't mean anything. Everybody dies in the end no matter what. Nobody has ever had a "freedom" not to catch diseases, if I had that one I'd have exercised it a few times in the past; I don't like throwing up. So does that mean that I have complete freedom to endanger others with my actions? I assume you don't think so, so there's obviously a line somewhere. > They only opened up vaccinations to people aged under 40 in May, and it takes a few months to get both doses of the vaccine and that paper was issued in mid June. I'm not sure that tells us anything. Obviously if the majority of a population is vaccinated then unvaccinated people will be the majority of cases, that isn't in question. That is exactly the point. The prevalence is 2.5 times higher in a group with much fewer vaccinations.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    > You're trying to win an argument, regardless if it's relevant to the topic. Are you not trying to make an argument? I would suggest you challenge yourself about why you are arguing so much if you don't want to. You have the option of stating your opinion then leaving it at that. > The protection against covid (the vaccine/s) isn't worse than nothing. That is a fact, and what I'm arguing. If you don't mean "always" then you should take the easy path and say "Well, you're right it isn't always better, but it is different words". Some people got vaccinated and then died from it - it is pretty clear that is worse than nothing. It is hard for the outcome of a vaccination to be worse than death. It is most certainly not an unalloyed good, there are risks even assuming the manufacturers don't stuff it up. > So does that mean that I have complete freedom to endanger others with my actions? I assume you don't think so, so there's obviously a line somewhere. Sure, but people being unvaccinated isn't the biggest risk, particularly since something like 30% of them have probably already had COVID and developed antibodies the natural way - and the diesease may well burn through the unvacced population before the authorities manage to strap them down and force-vaccinate them. If you go down the list of risks from biggest to smallest, the larger chance is getting COVID from someone who is vaccinated and never had the original disease. I was talking to a doctor friend of mine who was emphatic that the vaccines didn't stop the spread at all, and I didn't understand why at the time but I've since learned it was probably because the vaccines didn't target the mucosal immune system. So it doesn't make sense to forcing people to do something they don't want to do, for a not-that-meaningful gain (everyone is still going to be exposed to coronavirus sooner or later, vaccines or no).

by croon 5y ago

roenxi 5y ago

> I'm still wrong because I point out based on facts that I'm correct? No, you're wrong because you said "more protection is always better". That isn't true - sometimes the protection turns out to be worse than nothing. > Is your freedom not impeding on other peoples freedoms (to live)? There isn't a freedom "to live", it doesn't mean anything. Everybody dies in the end no matter what. Nobody has ever had a "freedom" not to catch diseases, if I had that one I'd have exercised it a few times in the past; I don't like throwing up. > "Prevalence in those aged 5-49 was 2.5 times higher at 0.20% (0.16%, 0.26%) compared with those aged 50 years and above at 0.08% (0.06%, 0.11%)." [1] They only opened up vaccinations to people aged under 40 in May, and it takes a few months to get both doses of the vaccine and that paper was issued in mid June. I'm not sure that tells us anything. Obviously if the majority of a population is vaccinated then unvaccinated people will be the majority of cases, that isn't in question. > Your "facts" seem based on simple reasoning that I can't reconcile with what I consider facts to be, nor do I agree with the reasoning to begin with. We're not disagreeing on any numbers here. I doubt you consider your reasoning to be superior due to excessive complexity.

croon 5y ago
> No, you're wrong because you said "more protection is always better". That isn't true - sometimes the protection turns out to be worse than nothing. You're arguing the semantics of "always" while ignoring the context provided. You're trying to win an argument, regardless if it's relevant to the topic. The protection against covid (the vaccine/s) isn't worse than nothing. That is a fact, and what I'm arguing. You're stating I'm wrong, by carefully navigating around that into something entirely pointless. > There isn't a freedom "to live", it doesn't mean anything. Everybody dies in the end no matter what. Nobody has ever had a "freedom" not to catch diseases, if I had that one I'd have exercised it a few times in the past; I don't like throwing up. So does that mean that I have complete freedom to endanger others with my actions? I assume you don't think so, so there's obviously a line somewhere. > They only opened up vaccinations to people aged under 40 in May, and it takes a few months to get both doses of the vaccine and that paper was issued in mid June. I'm not sure that tells us anything. Obviously if the majority of a population is vaccinated then unvaccinated people will be the majority of cases, that isn't in question. That is exactly the point. The prevalence is 2.5 times higher in a group with much fewer vaccinations.
- roenxi 5y ago
  > You're trying to win an argument, regardless if it's relevant to the topic. Are you not trying to make an argument? I would suggest you challenge yourself about why you are arguing so much if you don't want to. You have the option of stating your opinion then leaving it at that. > The protection against covid (the vaccine/s) isn't worse than nothing. That is a fact, and what I'm arguing. If you don't mean "always" then you should take the easy path and say "Well, you're right it isn't always better, but it is different words". Some people got vaccinated and then died from it - it is pretty clear that is worse than nothing. It is hard for the outcome of a vaccination to be worse than death. It is most certainly not an unalloyed good, there are risks even assuming the manufacturers don't stuff it up. > So does that mean that I have complete freedom to endanger others with my actions? I assume you don't think so, so there's obviously a line somewhere. Sure, but people being unvaccinated isn't the biggest risk, particularly since something like 30% of them have probably already had COVID and developed antibodies the natural way - and the diesease may well burn through the unvacced population before the authorities manage to strap them down and force-vaccinate them. If you go down the list of risks from biggest to smallest, the larger chance is getting COVID from someone who is vaccinated and never had the original disease. I was talking to a doctor friend of mine who was emphatic that the vaccines didn't stop the spread at all, and I didn't understand why at the time but I've since learned it was probably because the vaccines didn't target the mucosal immune system. So it doesn't make sense to forcing people to do something they don't want to do, for a not-that-meaningful gain (everyone is still going to be exposed to coronavirus sooner or later, vaccines or no).