3 ms·
I didn't say your concerns were illegitimate, I said your analysis was insufficient. Being concerned about exposure to spike proteins is fine, whatever. Infect
by maxerickson 5y ago
I didn't say your concerns were illegitimate, I said your analysis was insufficient.
Being concerned about exposure to spike proteins is fine, whatever. Infection results in far more exposure to those proteins and is basically inevitable for people that aren't vaccinated, so any analysis of the risk of vaccination needs to include that context, the risk due to infection (which is as I have said, is essentially a 100% chance of a larger exposure to the spike protein).
- guscost 5y agoYou don’t fully understand the risks or benefits - nobody does. Where are you going with this?
- maxerickson 5y agoI'm not going anywhere, I was just pointing out that your analysis was incomplete, and tacked on the obvious extension of it, where natural infection results in much higher exposure to spike protein than vaccination.
- guscost 5y agoYou either misunderstood or ignored the point I was trying to make, and filled in some additional details about risk... to what end? None of this is relevant to the conversation, unless your goal is to imply (without actually claiming) that the risk/reward is in fact robustly understood, and that the choices made by the out-group are indefensible?