4 ms·

That's not really true, and furthermore, the virus-induced immunity is far more dangerous than vaccine-induced immunity.

jacquesm 5y ago
This person believes the pandemic is a lie. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27975053 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27975053
- jojo2000 5y ago
  yes, there are different opinions than what the mainstream thinks on this planet. You'll thank me later.
  - dang 5y ago
    Could you please stop posting flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments to HN? We're trying for a different kind of site than that, and you've unfortunately been doing a lot of it. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
    - jojo2000 5y ago
      Hello Dang, I'm not responsible for flamebait by expressing my opinion. Maybe the moderation system is to be overhauled to account for more diverse opinions ? I observed when I tell things half the time I get points half the time I get downvoted. Are one-sided debates more fun ? Yes, if you want a reflexion of yourself in a mirror. In any case I don't try to be this way intentionnally. Is free speech still a thing ? In any case if my opinion is not needed here I will go spend energy elsewhere. Community can be toxic and it's becoming the case here. Re-reading all my comments I stand firm, no aggression there, just opinions. Best regards, I know your work is very hard !
      - dang 5y ago
        > I'm not responsible for flamebait by expressing my opinion. We're trying to be a specific kind of site. For that we need people to post in a certain way: thoughtfully, respectfully, substantively. If you post that way, you're making a positive contribution. If you don't post that way, then you're contributing to destroying this place (for its intended purpose), which is not in your interest, because the community and culture here are what makes HN worth participating in in the first place. I'm sure you wouldn't litter in a city park or dump motor oil in a mountain lake, right? You'd treat those resources carefully because you know how valuable they are, and how we all have to hold them in common. It's like that here. I don't see that as an "expressing my opinion" issue—if someone dumped motor oil in a mountain lake and you asked them about it and they said "this is how I express myself", that would not be persuasive. People tend to vastly underestimate the damage they cause (let's say 10x) and vastly overestimate the damage that other people cause (let's say another 10x), which leads to a 100x bias in evaluating these things. That's why everyone feels innocent and aggrieved and why it's so obvious that other people are the problem. Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear! If you're interested in reading a much longer explanation, here is an exchange I had with another user who was in a similar situation a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27161491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27161491. I took a lot of time to write that out (it's basically an essay) because this comes up fairly regularly. The point is that the issue isn't really a moral one ("don't say bad things") - it's an optimization problem ("how do we sustain an internet forum that doesn't suck"). If you understand that then maybe you'll feel less like the moderation here is against you.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  Please don't comment with ad hominems. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - danaris 5y ago
    That doesn't seem to be an ad hominem: it seems to be directly addressing their previous statements, which are clearly germane to debate.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      An ad hominem is when you attack the person (such as by bringing up their previous comment history) rather than the substance of their argument. Who the poster is and what they've said in the past are completely irrelevant. Good rule of thumb: Would the rebuttal remain the same if responding to a different poster? If no, then the rebuttal is probably an ad hominem.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Yes, if that different poster believed the same thing. There is a whole army of people out there who have a serious problem with accepting reality and it is useful to point out that someone is arguing with someone else who does not accept reality as it is commonly experienced. That saves everybody time, just like we don't feed the trolls we also should not waste cycles on engaging people who refuse to accept evidence anyway. Think of it as a PSA rather than an ad-hominem attack, you are assuming that the argument was brought in good faith, I don't.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
nanis 5y ago
Once one has acquired immunity that way, what practical and moral case is there to force them to also take a vaccine which may not add significantly more protection and may cause other problems?
- nicoburns 5y ago
  If the naturally immunity wanes quickly then that would be a good reason. Having said that, I do agree that advice and regulations around vaccination ought to be different for those who have previously been infected with the disease.
  - nanis 5y ago
    We can split hairs about which one wanes fastest, but it's not like vaccine provided immunity is bullet-proof or lasts forever: As of 10/4, COVID19 cases resulting in death or requiring hospitalization are up to 1/10,000 among the fully vaccinated and the trend has been going in the wrong direction for a while. [1]: https://www.covid2020.icu/vaccine-breakthrough/ https://www.covid2020.icu/vaccine-breakthrough/
- jrm415 5y ago
  What case is there to refuse a vaccine that is likely to add significantly more protection to the individual and community while remaining extremely unlikely to cause “other problems “? It’s important to distinguish events that are likely from those which are unlikely. Otherwise you may mislead someone.
  - nanis 5y ago
    Note that the comparison is asymmetric. Forcing someone to do X is qualitatively different from that person not taking any action.
jojo2000 5y ago
Please some arguments to back up your claim. Why are they publishing this ? Because vaccine-induced immunity is zilch. Gone after 2 months. Furthermore the strategy used is very dangerous that's why there are so many side effects of this gene therapy. Because you transform your own cells into an enemy to the immune system, triggering apoptosis. Also, the spike protein is destroying the blood vessels and the acquired immunity is not long-lasting and not competent vs. new variants. I'll add some references if you're interested. I'm not worried, those affirmations will stand the test of time (not like many retracted studies that have driven ridiculous policies).

jacquesm 5y ago

This person believes the pandemic is a lie. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27975053 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27975053

jojo2000 5y ago
yes, there are different opinions than what the mainstream thinks on this planet. You'll thank me later.
- dang 5y ago
  Could you please stop posting flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments to HN? We're trying for a different kind of site than that, and you've unfortunately been doing a lot of it. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  - jojo2000 5y ago
    Hello Dang, I'm not responsible for flamebait by expressing my opinion. Maybe the moderation system is to be overhauled to account for more diverse opinions ? I observed when I tell things half the time I get points half the time I get downvoted. Are one-sided debates more fun ? Yes, if you want a reflexion of yourself in a mirror. In any case I don't try to be this way intentionnally. Is free speech still a thing ? In any case if my opinion is not needed here I will go spend energy elsewhere. Community can be toxic and it's becoming the case here. Re-reading all my comments I stand firm, no aggression there, just opinions. Best regards, I know your work is very hard !
    - dang 5y ago
      > I'm not responsible for flamebait by expressing my opinion. We're trying to be a specific kind of site. For that we need people to post in a certain way: thoughtfully, respectfully, substantively. If you post that way, you're making a positive contribution. If you don't post that way, then you're contributing to destroying this place (for its intended purpose), which is not in your interest, because the community and culture here are what makes HN worth participating in in the first place. I'm sure you wouldn't litter in a city park or dump motor oil in a mountain lake, right? You'd treat those resources carefully because you know how valuable they are, and how we all have to hold them in common. It's like that here. I don't see that as an "expressing my opinion" issue—if someone dumped motor oil in a mountain lake and you asked them about it and they said "this is how I express myself", that would not be persuasive. People tend to vastly underestimate the damage they cause (let's say 10x) and vastly overestimate the damage that other people cause (let's say another 10x), which leads to a 100x bias in evaluating these things. That's why everyone feels innocent and aggrieved and why it's so obvious that other people are the problem. Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear! If you're interested in reading a much longer explanation, here is an exchange I had with another user who was in a similar situation a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27161491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27161491. I took a lot of time to write that out (it's basically an essay) because this comes up fairly regularly. The point is that the issue isn't really a moral one ("don't say bad things") - it's an optimization problem ("how do we sustain an internet forum that doesn't suck"). If you understand that then maybe you'll feel less like the moderation here is against you.
torstenvl 5y ago
Please don't comment with ad hominems. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- danaris 5y ago
  That doesn't seem to be an ad hominem: it seems to be directly addressing their previous statements, which are clearly germane to debate.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    An ad hominem is when you attack the person (such as by bringing up their previous comment history) rather than the substance of their argument. Who the poster is and what they've said in the past are completely irrelevant. Good rule of thumb: Would the rebuttal remain the same if responding to a different poster? If no, then the rebuttal is probably an ad hominem.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Yes, if that different poster believed the same thing. There is a whole army of people out there who have a serious problem with accepting reality and it is useful to point out that someone is arguing with someone else who does not accept reality as it is commonly experienced. That saves everybody time, just like we don't feed the trolls we also should not waste cycles on engaging people who refuse to accept evidence anyway. Think of it as a PSA rather than an ad-hominem attack, you are assuming that the argument was brought in good faith, I don't.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

nanis 5y ago

Once one has acquired immunity that way, what practical and moral case is there to force them to also take a vaccine which may not add significantly more protection and may cause other problems?

nicoburns 5y ago
If the naturally immunity wanes quickly then that would be a good reason. Having said that, I do agree that advice and regulations around vaccination ought to be different for those who have previously been infected with the disease.
- nanis 5y ago
  We can split hairs about which one wanes fastest, but it's not like vaccine provided immunity is bullet-proof or lasts forever: As of 10/4, COVID19 cases resulting in death or requiring hospitalization are up to 1/10,000 among the fully vaccinated and the trend has been going in the wrong direction for a while. [1]: https://www.covid2020.icu/vaccine-breakthrough/ https://www.covid2020.icu/vaccine-breakthrough/
jrm415 5y ago
What case is there to refuse a vaccine that is likely to add significantly more protection to the individual and community while remaining extremely unlikely to cause “other problems “? It’s important to distinguish events that are likely from those which are unlikely. Otherwise you may mislead someone.
- nanis 5y ago
  Note that the comparison is asymmetric. Forcing someone to do X is qualitatively different from that person not taking any action.

jojo2000 5y ago

Please some arguments to back up your claim. Why are they publishing this ? Because vaccine-induced immunity is zilch. Gone after 2 months. Furthermore the strategy used is very dangerous that's why there are so many side effects of this gene therapy. Because you transform your own cells into an enemy to the immune system, triggering apoptosis. Also, the spike protein is destroying the blood vessels and the acquired immunity is not long-lasting and not competent vs. new variants. I'll add some references if you're interested. I'm not worried, those affirmations will stand the test of time (not like many retracted studies that have driven ridiculous policies).