4 ms·

It's ironic (or maybe not?) that the comments section here is filled with exactly the kind of anti-vax misinformation that YouTube is trying to take down. To r

by jlebar 5y ago

It's ironic (or maybe not?) that the comments section here is filled with exactly the kind of anti-vax misinformation that YouTube is trying to take down. To respond to one point I keep reading in here over and over: Getting and recovering from covid does not necessarily give you better protection from disease than getting the vaccine. 1/3 of people who get covid develop no antibodies at all, as compared to 0% of (non-immunocompromised) people who get the vaccine. https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/574284-natural-covid-19-immunity-is-powerful-but-kind-of-irrelevant https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/574284-natural-covid-... Also, of course, if you get covid...you got covid which was kind of the thing that we were trying to avoid. Not just for ourselves, but for our communities. Another point I keep reading is, we don't know the long-term effects of these vaccines. And, it's undeniably true that we don't know with the certainty of evidence what will happen in ten years. But: - 2.5 billion people have gotten at least one covid shot. This is one of the most-studied medical interventions in the history of medical interventions. - There is no known and plausible mechanism by which the shot suddenly has bad effects years down the line. Historically, any side effects from vaccines show up within a few weeks, https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19-vaccine-wont-have-long-term-side-effects https://www.muhealth.org/our-stories/how-do-we-know-covid-19... - We also don't know what will happen in ten years to people who caught long covid, and we do know that people who die from covid will not be alive in ten years. Stay safe, everyone.

colordrops 5y ago
Ironic indeed. How about referencing scientific sources rather than opinion pieces from political news sites. It's less than 2%, not 1/3, that don't develop antibodies. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24622-7#Sec2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24622-7#Sec2 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf4063 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf4063 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9
- jlebar 5y ago
  > How about referencing scientific sources rather than opinion pieces from political news sites. The dude is a MD PhD who's been on NPR, NYT, etc. He's literally a scientist who is a source -- a scientific source. But sure, we can talk journal articles. Where is your "less than 2%" number coming from? I see this in the first Nature article: > Of the 125 subjects exposed to SARS-CoV-2 according to the baseline ground truth definition, 101 (80.8%) participated to the May serosurvey. Among them, 93.5% (86 out of 92, 95% CI 86.3–97.6%), 84.2% (85 out of 101, 95% CI 75.5–90.7%), and 100% (92 out of 92, 95% CI 96.1–100%) had a positive result for Abbott, DiaSorin and Roche, respectively, whereas 44.9% (44 out of 98, 95% CI 34.8–55.3%) had a neutralising titre greater than 1:40 (1/dil). In November, 86 subjects (68.8%) were tested again, all of them except one (98.8%) tested positive to at least one serological assay. They're saying that 44.9% of people infected had neutralizing antibodies at the level they recognize, right? They re-tested the same people six months later, and >98% of them tested positive for one assay. This doesn't speak to the 98% number you cite above. Maybe you're looking elsewhere. I'm not going to be sealioned into going through studies if you can't point me to the section that supports your point. Anyway for the article's 1/3 number, he also cites a study by the CDC, a fact which I guess you've chosen to ignore? https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article
heartbreak 5y ago
This community thrives on contrarianism.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  The comment was also technically wrong. Let us not fall to a level were we ascribe character values to others.
im3w1l 5y ago
That's why this thread is at 2000 comments and counting. The censorship is no longer affecting some nebolous "other people". It's coming close. People can tell that they are next in line. That they will have to start practice serious self-censorship or get banned from FAANG-land, isolating them from friends, family and potential love interests.
- jlebar 5y ago
  > they will have to start practice serious self-censorship or get banned from FAANG-land, isolating them from friends, family and potential love interests. You mean, there could be consequences for our words and actions?
  - mbg721 5y ago
    Punishing consequences imposed by someone who is actively hostile to our worldview and values, yes. That is the source of the concern.
    - jlebar 5y ago
      If you lose friends, family, and love interests because of your position on covid vaccines, I hate to break it to you, but this consequence was not imposed by a corporation. It was imposed by your friends, family, and love interests, who, yes, probably find your stance hurtful. You don't have a right to a relationship with anyone.
      - mbg721 5y ago
        The scenario is "or get banned from FAANG-land, isolating them". Friends and family are totally fine with what you'd say, but they don't get to hear you because the algorithm found it hurtful.
cblconfederate 5y ago
Ironic how this is devolving into literally a youtube comment section. My contribution is: there is an actual study from israel that shows that recovered persons were much more (13 times more) protected than vaccinated individuals, and this is direct evidence, not inferences from antibody counts. We also don't know what the effect of vaccine is going to be as the virus mutates (ADE?). In particular, the vaccination of kids is a very contentious issue that requires debate, as kids are not in danger from Covid, thus it presents a major ethical challenge for societies. Anyway my other contribution is that access to information should not be hindered. However youtube's problem is that it is a medium of manipulation , not a library. It would be against their interest to stop it from being so, therefore they are making the grave error of making themselves arbiters of science.
raxxorrax 5y ago
If you recover from Covid it isn't really important how many antibodies you have. The important part is what indications the disease triggered. You have shifted this on antibody count without necessity. That is misinformation. We are talking about immunity, which can also mean that you do not need antibodies at all. On the contrary, Covid was healed with the first line of immune defense. > the thing that we were trying to avoid I think we need to be more precise now because of the shift: We do not want it to be dangerous. You are spreading misinformation or at least medically incorrect information. Ironic indeed.

by jlebar 5y ago

colordrops 5y ago

Ironic indeed. How about referencing scientific sources rather than opinion pieces from political news sites. It's less than 2%, not 1/3, that don't develop antibodies. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24622-7#Sec2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24622-7#Sec2 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf4063 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf4063 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9

jlebar 5y ago
> How about referencing scientific sources rather than opinion pieces from political news sites. The dude is a MD PhD who's been on NPR, NYT, etc. He's literally a scientist who is a source -- a scientific source. But sure, we can talk journal articles. Where is your "less than 2%" number coming from? I see this in the first Nature article: > Of the 125 subjects exposed to SARS-CoV-2 according to the baseline ground truth definition, 101 (80.8%) participated to the May serosurvey. Among them, 93.5% (86 out of 92, 95% CI 86.3–97.6%), 84.2% (85 out of 101, 95% CI 75.5–90.7%), and 100% (92 out of 92, 95% CI 96.1–100%) had a positive result for Abbott, DiaSorin and Roche, respectively, whereas 44.9% (44 out of 98, 95% CI 34.8–55.3%) had a neutralising titre greater than 1:40 (1/dil). In November, 86 subjects (68.8%) were tested again, all of them except one (98.8%) tested positive to at least one serological assay. They're saying that 44.9% of people infected had neutralizing antibodies at the level they recognize, right? They re-tested the same people six months later, and >98% of them tested positive for one assay. This doesn't speak to the 98% number you cite above. Maybe you're looking elsewhere. I'm not going to be sealioned into going through studies if you can't point me to the section that supports your point. Anyway for the article's 1/3 number, he also cites a study by the CDC, a fact which I guess you've chosen to ignore? https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article

heartbreak 5y ago

This community thrives on contrarianism.

raxxorrax 5y ago
The comment was also technically wrong. Let us not fall to a level were we ascribe character values to others.

im3w1l 5y ago

That's why this thread is at 2000 comments and counting. The censorship is no longer affecting some nebolous "other people". It's coming close. People can tell that they are next in line. That they will have to start practice serious self-censorship or get banned from FAANG-land, isolating them from friends, family and potential love interests.

jlebar 5y ago
> they will have to start practice serious self-censorship or get banned from FAANG-land, isolating them from friends, family and potential love interests. You mean, there could be consequences for our words and actions?
- mbg721 5y ago
  Punishing consequences imposed by someone who is actively hostile to our worldview and values, yes. That is the source of the concern.
  - jlebar 5y ago
    If you lose friends, family, and love interests because of your position on covid vaccines, I hate to break it to you, but this consequence was not imposed by a corporation. It was imposed by your friends, family, and love interests, who, yes, probably find your stance hurtful. You don't have a right to a relationship with anyone.
    - mbg721 5y ago
      The scenario is "or get banned from FAANG-land, isolating them". Friends and family are totally fine with what you'd say, but they don't get to hear you because the algorithm found it hurtful.

cblconfederate 5y ago

Ironic how this is devolving into literally a youtube comment section. My contribution is: there is an actual study from israel that shows that recovered persons were much more (13 times more) protected than vaccinated individuals, and this is direct evidence, not inferences from antibody counts. We also don't know what the effect of vaccine is going to be as the virus mutates (ADE?). In particular, the vaccination of kids is a very contentious issue that requires debate, as kids are not in danger from Covid, thus it presents a major ethical challenge for societies. Anyway my other contribution is that access to information should not be hindered. However youtube's problem is that it is a medium of manipulation , not a library. It would be against their interest to stop it from being so, therefore they are making the grave error of making themselves arbiters of science.

raxxorrax 5y ago

If you recover from Covid it isn't really important how many antibodies you have. The important part is what indications the disease triggered. You have shifted this on antibody count without necessity. That is misinformation. We are talking about immunity, which can also mean that you do not need antibodies at all. On the contrary, Covid was healed with the first line of immune defense. > the thing that we were trying to avoid I think we need to be more precise now because of the shift: We do not want it to be dangerous. You are spreading misinformation or at least medically incorrect information. Ironic indeed.