3 ms·

Nah, humanity ignored covid because their leaders told them it harmless. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78

Nah, humanity ignored covid because their leaders told them it harmless. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o We're still seeing the effects of harmful disinformation about the vaccine in East Europe.

trhway 5y ago
There is no "the vaccine". There are several existing vaccines, and so far no one prevents infection, nor prevents spread. The only thing current vaccines do is making the illness softer. Yet the governments everywhere pushing the mandate which would have made sense only if the vaccines prevented infection and spread. Whole stuff of an emergency department in a Russian town resign refusing to get vaccinated. In addition to their main job they also work in the local covid hospital, and so far nobody of them has gotten ill. They are being forced to either get vaccinated or resign: https://www.rbc.ru/society/04/11/2021/6183924a9a794708a564ae6b https://www.rbc.ru/society/04/11/2021/6183924a9a794708a564ae... > but it sure feels like they’re tinkering with humanity on the edge of a knife. I can’t help but worry something could go wrong. well the current Covid is a result of such experiments - the original gain-of-function NIH grant channeled through the Dvorjac's EcoAlliance to the Wuhan lab even had the "Human Subjects Involved" checked. Gain-of-function in human model with human specific genetic modification of the virus (check the EcoAlliance's DARPA proposal) - what can go wrong... Well, now we know at least one such scenario for real.
- mcguire 5y ago
  No vaccine prevents infection, nor prevents spread.
  - trhway 5y ago
    that is antivax propaganda. The main push of the antivaxxers these days is associating the successful, effective and well proven vaccines (like the ones against polio, etc.) with the obviously failing (except for the softening of illness effect) covid vaccines. The covid vaccines are at the level of those every year flu vaccines - make sense for vulnerable population, otherwise no effect on infection and spread.
    - pcwalton 5y ago
      Your posts are themselves spreading antivax falsehoods. The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in reducing severity of infection and spread.
      - trhway 5y ago
        No, they aren't effective in reducing spread. Singapore, Israel, UK, Wisconsin studies or even just public data on US infections all tell the same picture.
        pcwalton 5y ago
        You literally have to just search [covid vaccine reducing spread] to find articles all saying the same thing, for example https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y Not acknowledging this is just denial.
        trhway 5y ago
        Speaking about denial - looks like you didn't read the article you submitted: " A person who was fully vaccinated and then had a ‘breakthrough’ Delta infection was almost twice as likely to pass on the virus as someone who was infected with Alpha." ( and that is the same what i was saying months ago without any study and just based on simple arithmetic on public data https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28081982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28081982) "Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus." To the comment below: I quoted facts/numbers, not conclusions (which is the title/subtitle/etc). The article spins those facts into conclusions sounding much more substantive and far going than what the facts/numbers are. There is no meaningful difference between the 57% and 67% when it comes to the spread of that an infectious virus in a dense human society (as i stated above "not effective in reducing spread"). The article is right though saying 57 < 67 on the 1st grade arithmetic basis, you win.

trhway 5y ago

There is no "the vaccine". There are several existing vaccines, and so far no one prevents infection, nor prevents spread. The only thing current vaccines do is making the illness softer. Yet the governments everywhere pushing the mandate which would have made sense only if the vaccines prevented infection and spread. Whole stuff of an emergency department in a Russian town resign refusing to get vaccinated. In addition to their main job they also work in the local covid hospital, and so far nobody of them has gotten ill. They are being forced to either get vaccinated or resign: https://www.rbc.ru/society/04/11/2021/6183924a9a794708a564ae6b https://www.rbc.ru/society/04/11/2021/6183924a9a794708a564ae... > but it sure feels like they’re tinkering with humanity on the edge of a knife. I can’t help but worry something could go wrong. well the current Covid is a result of such experiments - the original gain-of-function NIH grant channeled through the Dvorjac's EcoAlliance to the Wuhan lab even had the "Human Subjects Involved" checked. Gain-of-function in human model with human specific genetic modification of the virus (check the EcoAlliance's DARPA proposal) - what can go wrong... Well, now we know at least one such scenario for real.

mcguire 5y ago
No vaccine prevents infection, nor prevents spread.
- trhway 5y ago
  that is antivax propaganda. The main push of the antivaxxers these days is associating the successful, effective and well proven vaccines (like the ones against polio, etc.) with the obviously failing (except for the softening of illness effect) covid vaccines. The covid vaccines are at the level of those every year flu vaccines - make sense for vulnerable population, otherwise no effect on infection and spread.
  - pcwalton 5y ago
    Your posts are themselves spreading antivax falsehoods. The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in reducing severity of infection and spread.
    - trhway 5y ago
      No, they aren't effective in reducing spread. Singapore, Israel, UK, Wisconsin studies or even just public data on US infections all tell the same picture.
      - pcwalton 5y ago
        You literally have to just search [covid vaccine reducing spread] to find articles all saying the same thing, for example https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y Not acknowledging this is just denial.
        trhway 5y ago
        Speaking about denial - looks like you didn't read the article you submitted: " A person who was fully vaccinated and then had a ‘breakthrough’ Delta infection was almost twice as likely to pass on the virus as someone who was infected with Alpha." ( and that is the same what i was saying months ago without any study and just based on simple arithmetic on public data https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28081982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28081982) "Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus." To the comment below: I quoted facts/numbers, not conclusions (which is the title/subtitle/etc). The article spins those facts into conclusions sounding much more substantive and far going than what the facts/numbers are. There is no meaningful difference between the 57% and 67% when it comes to the spread of that an infectious virus in a dense human society (as i stated above "not effective in reducing spread"). The article is right though saying 57 < 67 on the 1st grade arithmetic basis, you win.