3 ms·

Of course! Now how is it logical to not allow person A, who has X*1.6 chance of infecting someone else, into a bar without a test, but do allow person B, who ha

Of course! Now how is it logical to not allow person A, who has X*1.6 chance of infecting someone else, into a bar without a test, but do allow person B, who has X chance of infecting someone else? Is X chance not a problem, but X*1.6 is? And why is that? Just because the blessed action results in a chance of X? edit by the way the magical number for how effective the popular vaccines are against getting infected and being able to infect others, is not 95%. It’s 42% and dropping for the Pfizer vaccine.

jmull 5y ago
Your 42% Pfizer number appears to come from a study that suggests we (1) use Moderna, which is 76% effective, and (2) get boosters, not to not bother with the Vaccines. Also, it's a single study, preprint, and not yet reviewed, so not that appropriate for setting public policy. It looks like your X*1.6 formula is made-up nonsense.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  Feel free to show a different study. Whatever the exact number it’s clear that it’s nowhere near 100% (just like 76% is not), and whatever booster scheme you fantasize about has to be accounted for in these vaccine passport schemes, which, surprise surprise, typically is not the case. As long as you did the blessed dance of 2 Pfizer or Moderna shots you’re clear to go.
  - jmull 5y ago
    We’re back to nobody said the vaccines are 100% effective. You also don’t address the arguments raised and instead argue against things that aren’t being argued, like “booster scheme” fantasies. I think you’re just trolling. It’s weird, because to the extent you are able to convince anyone, you can, at best, get some people killed. What even is the point of that? Worse, your mealy arguments could only work on the poorest critical thinkers, so you’re picking on the weak — the very people who need a hand. IDK, I couldn’t feel good about myself, doing what you’re doing.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      Yeah we’re back to you claiming that 42 is 100. Sorry, I don’t think this is going anywhere.

jmull 5y ago

Your 42% Pfizer number appears to come from a study that suggests we (1) use Moderna, which is 76% effective, and (2) get boosters, not to not bother with the Vaccines. Also, it's a single study, preprint, and not yet reviewed, so not that appropriate for setting public policy. It looks like your X*1.6 formula is made-up nonsense.

tinus_hn 5y ago
Feel free to show a different study. Whatever the exact number it’s clear that it’s nowhere near 100% (just like 76% is not), and whatever booster scheme you fantasize about has to be accounted for in these vaccine passport schemes, which, surprise surprise, typically is not the case. As long as you did the blessed dance of 2 Pfizer or Moderna shots you’re clear to go.
- jmull 5y ago
  We’re back to nobody said the vaccines are 100% effective. You also don’t address the arguments raised and instead argue against things that aren’t being argued, like “booster scheme” fantasies. I think you’re just trolling. It’s weird, because to the extent you are able to convince anyone, you can, at best, get some people killed. What even is the point of that? Worse, your mealy arguments could only work on the poorest critical thinkers, so you’re picking on the weak — the very people who need a hand. IDK, I couldn’t feel good about myself, doing what you’re doing.
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    Yeah we’re back to you claiming that 42 is 100. Sorry, I don’t think this is going anywhere.