3 ms·

> 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 a

by 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

> 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).