4 ms·

"immune response from the vaccine is lower than from just getting covid" {{citation needed}} My point is that this is unsubstantiated. And it does make a big

by epgui 5y ago

"immune response from the vaccine is lower than from just getting covid" {{citation needed}} My point is that this is unsubstantiated. And it does make a big difference, because this reduces the likelihood of children going through multiple periods of infectivity: the fewer times children are infectious to others, on average, the more herd immunity we have, collectively, against SARS-CoV-2.

abduhl 5y ago
- epgui 5y ago
  I have no idea what you mean. I believe (and at least I was hoping that) my comment was helpful.
  - abduhl 5y ago
    Your comment was made intending to shut down discussion by appealing to authority rather than engaging in the substance of the discussion. Note that the last large paragraph you wrote which does engage with the discussion was added via an edit. This was the entirety of your original post: “{{citation needed}} My point is that this is unsubstantiated.”
    - epgui 5y ago
      I was not "appealing to authority". The fact that I'm an expert in the field is, imo, valuable meta-information. I weigh people's opinions differently if they're rooted in expertise than if they're random anonymous people on the internet. Do what you want with that information, and please forgive my hasty edits: sometimes when I read back what I wrote, I notice that I'm missing something. There's no bad faith there.
      - clairity 5y ago
        sorry, being 'an expert' has no bearing on the veracity of your claims. and further, claiming the nominative of 'expert' tends to negatively correlate with veracity. at best, you're an expert at the thing you study deeply, not the whole field. you perhaps may be more knowledgeable about different aspects of a given field, but that doesn't give you extraordinary powers of insight or reasoning. the exact opposite of your appeal is what teases out the known from the unknown, by triangulating from many arguments/opinions (the more, the better) whether they be 'expert' or not (the less correlated, the better).
        epgui 5y ago
        We're no longer talking about the subject matter, but there is absolutely value in knowing whether an opinion is informed by expertise or not. I did not "appeal to expertise", I merely signalled that I had expertise in the field. This has value. I suspect that a small minority of Hacker News participants are biochemists/biologists/life scientists, so the default assumption when you read comments on these topics is that they probably come from smart non-experts. By adding this extra information, I wasn't making my argument any better: I was only providing the readers with extra meta-information. I won't bother explaining the dangers of the appeal to authority, because I am persuaded that you are already familiar with the fallacy. However, I will say that not every form of "expertise signalling" is an appeal to authority, and it is usually a very good idea to defer to expertise. I recommend this article on the subject, if you're interested in seeing where I'm coming from: https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-part-6-appealing-to-authority-vs-deferring-to-experts/ https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-... Edit: and I will happily and readily admit that I am not the "most expert" person on any subject, and I myself pretty much always defer to the expertise of those who are more expert than me.
        clairity 5y ago
        > “…it is usually a very good idea to defer to expertise.” this is exactly what i’m pointedly disagreeing with. expertise gives you no such esteem to have others defer to you by default. what it does confer is an expectation of novel (to the non-expert) information and perhaps reasoning, but explicitly not deference. we are all often wrong, especially in our areas of expertise because of the disproportionate amount of time we spend in that area. have some humility that you may bring a relatively unique or more considered perspective to the table, but not infallibility or almighty ‘truth’. and earnest consideration of an ‘expert’ opinion is the best you should hope for. all the rest is by definition beyond the realm of science and into the realm of (small p) political. that is, expertise signalling is always an appeal to authority, no matter the magnitude or centrality of the claim. only the reasoning/evidence matters, not the titles of the person presenting them. you may expect some correlation there but should never assume it. (note that i’ve also scienced in my past life, if that meta-information matters to you in the way you seem to believe it should.)
- chana_masala 5y ago
  When you're already late... I appreciate the humor and I totally agree with your point
chana_masala 5y ago
I would agree with the other sibling reply that asking for citation for natural immunity vs vaccine protection is a bit like asking for a citation for claiming that frozen water floats. Sure, you could prove it but it's a well accepted understanding in epidemiology and virology. It's only lately been.... Politicized.
- epgui 5y ago
  This is pretty close to my area of expertise, and I don't think this is a well established principle at all.
- heurisko 5y ago
  I was reading this article recently about natural vs vaccine immunity (mostly in adults I think). Didn't seem to reach any strong conclusions either way. > “It appears from the literature that natural infection provides immunity, but that immunity is seemingly not as strong and may not be as long lasting as that provided by the vaccine... > But not everyone agrees with this interpretation. “The data we have right now suggests that there probably isn’t a whole lot of difference” in terms of immunity to the spike protein > Memoli highlights real world data such as the Cleveland Clinic study18 and points out that while “vaccines are focused on only that tiny portion of immunity that can be induced” by the spike, someone who has had covid-19 was exposed to the whole virus, “which would likely offer a broader based immunity” that would be more protective against variants. The laboratory study offered by the FDA22 “only has to do with very specific antibodies to a very specific region of the virus [the spike],” says Memoli. “Claiming this as data supporting that vaccines are better than natural immunity is shortsighted and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complexity of immunity to respiratory viruses.” https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101 https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101
  - chana_masala 5y ago
    Look into Measles vs MMR or pertussis and the pertussis vaccine

by epgui 5y ago

abduhl 5y ago

epgui 5y ago
I have no idea what you mean. I believe (and at least I was hoping that) my comment was helpful.
- abduhl 5y ago
  Your comment was made intending to shut down discussion by appealing to authority rather than engaging in the substance of the discussion. Note that the last large paragraph you wrote which does engage with the discussion was added via an edit. This was the entirety of your original post: “{{citation needed}} My point is that this is unsubstantiated.”
  - epgui 5y ago
    I was not "appealing to authority". The fact that I'm an expert in the field is, imo, valuable meta-information. I weigh people's opinions differently if they're rooted in expertise than if they're random anonymous people on the internet. Do what you want with that information, and please forgive my hasty edits: sometimes when I read back what I wrote, I notice that I'm missing something. There's no bad faith there.
    - clairity 5y ago
      sorry, being 'an expert' has no bearing on the veracity of your claims. and further, claiming the nominative of 'expert' tends to negatively correlate with veracity. at best, you're an expert at the thing you study deeply, not the whole field. you perhaps may be more knowledgeable about different aspects of a given field, but that doesn't give you extraordinary powers of insight or reasoning. the exact opposite of your appeal is what teases out the known from the unknown, by triangulating from many arguments/opinions (the more, the better) whether they be 'expert' or not (the less correlated, the better).
      - epgui 5y ago
        We're no longer talking about the subject matter, but there is absolutely value in knowing whether an opinion is informed by expertise or not. I did not "appeal to expertise", I merely signalled that I had expertise in the field. This has value. I suspect that a small minority of Hacker News participants are biochemists/biologists/life scientists, so the default assumption when you read comments on these topics is that they probably come from smart non-experts. By adding this extra information, I wasn't making my argument any better: I was only providing the readers with extra meta-information. I won't bother explaining the dangers of the appeal to authority, because I am persuaded that you are already familiar with the fallacy. However, I will say that not every form of "expertise signalling" is an appeal to authority, and it is usually a very good idea to defer to expertise. I recommend this article on the subject, if you're interested in seeing where I'm coming from: https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-part-6-appealing-to-authority-vs-deferring-to-experts/ https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-... Edit: and I will happily and readily admit that I am not the "most expert" person on any subject, and I myself pretty much always defer to the expertise of those who are more expert than me.
        clairity 5y ago
        > “…it is usually a very good idea to defer to expertise.” this is exactly what i’m pointedly disagreeing with. expertise gives you no such esteem to have others defer to you by default. what it does confer is an expectation of novel (to the non-expert) information and perhaps reasoning, but explicitly not deference. we are all often wrong, especially in our areas of expertise because of the disproportionate amount of time we spend in that area. have some humility that you may bring a relatively unique or more considered perspective to the table, but not infallibility or almighty ‘truth’. and earnest consideration of an ‘expert’ opinion is the best you should hope for. all the rest is by definition beyond the realm of science and into the realm of (small p) political. that is, expertise signalling is always an appeal to authority, no matter the magnitude or centrality of the claim. only the reasoning/evidence matters, not the titles of the person presenting them. you may expect some correlation there but should never assume it. (note that i’ve also scienced in my past life, if that meta-information matters to you in the way you seem to believe it should.)
chana_masala 5y ago
When you're already late... I appreciate the humor and I totally agree with your point

chana_masala 5y ago

I would agree with the other sibling reply that asking for citation for natural immunity vs vaccine protection is a bit like asking for a citation for claiming that frozen water floats. Sure, you could prove it but it's a well accepted understanding in epidemiology and virology. It's only lately been.... Politicized.

epgui 5y ago
This is pretty close to my area of expertise, and I don't think this is a well established principle at all.
heurisko 5y ago
I was reading this article recently about natural vs vaccine immunity (mostly in adults I think). Didn't seem to reach any strong conclusions either way. > “It appears from the literature that natural infection provides immunity, but that immunity is seemingly not as strong and may not be as long lasting as that provided by the vaccine... > But not everyone agrees with this interpretation. “The data we have right now suggests that there probably isn’t a whole lot of difference” in terms of immunity to the spike protein > Memoli highlights real world data such as the Cleveland Clinic study18 and points out that while “vaccines are focused on only that tiny portion of immunity that can be induced” by the spike, someone who has had covid-19 was exposed to the whole virus, “which would likely offer a broader based immunity” that would be more protective against variants. The laboratory study offered by the FDA22 “only has to do with very specific antibodies to a very specific region of the virus [the spike],” says Memoli. “Claiming this as data supporting that vaccines are better than natural immunity is shortsighted and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complexity of immunity to respiratory viruses.” https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101 https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101
- chana_masala 5y ago
  Look into Measles vs MMR or pertussis and the pertussis vaccine