13 ms·

Alright, now you lost me. As someone that complied initially, holed up in an apartment solo for many months while the city descended into chaos, and began test

Alright, now you lost me. As someone that complied initially, holed up in an apartment solo for many months while the city descended into chaos, and began testing every 7 days when that became available and staggering interactions between people, I feel like I’ve shown that I’m willing to help mitigation efforts. Boosters for last year’s virus makes less sense. Boosters at all make less sense, especially for a non vulnerable population, and the fairly predictable solution of stacking them every 6 months should come under much more scrutiny. Especially with the unnecessary myocarditis element. The same for cloth masks, if they are less effective against the newer prevalent variant. I’m not sold on this one, and I’ll totally begin bolstering anti-establishment sentiment if they are the only ones willing to disagree.

GenerocUsername 5y ago
Welcome to the resistance... its not glamorous, but it is overwhelmingly obviously the right time to be a skeptic.
- vkou 5y ago
  The skeptics have felt overwhelmingly in the right for the past 21 months, but throughout that time period, reality has not been particularly compliant to their wishes. What reality has shown, time and again, is that medical systems across the entire world are incapable of dealing with COVID while providing the same standard of care that people generally expect. (For both non-COVID and COVID cases.) I personally feel there are reasons to be optimistic over the next few months, but that its too early to say - and claiming otherwise is engaging in very speculative, very wishful magical thinking.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - notacoward 5y ago
    Exactly. The self-professed "skeptics" have only seemed to doubt one narrative (the mainstream one) but have seemed singularly credulous when it comes to alternative theories, treatments, etc. All in an effort to stand out, not to help. Many have even supported multiple mutually exclusive beliefs at different times, pointing to the few hits as evidence of their perspicacity, quietly hoping everyone will forget the misses. The world would be better off with some real skepticism, not just Oppositional Defiant Disorder disguised as skepticism. Real skepticism notes the absence or weakness of evidence behind a claim, but can be overcome as the evidence becomes stronger. True skepticism also does not require assertion of an alternate or opposite theory as Absolute Truth with no more evidence than the theory one is being "skeptical" about. People should ask for - even demand - evidence, but not misportray disagreement (or disagreeableness) as skepticism.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      They're using "argument in the alternative" [1], which is logically sound. The goal isn't to show that any particular alternative theory is true, just to show that the mainstream one is false. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative
      - notacoward 5y ago
        No they're not. > with the goal of showing that regardless of interpretation there is no reasonable conclusion other than the advocate's For that part of the definition to apply, there must be some particular conclusion that the advocate supports. It's multiple arguments for a single conclusion, whereas what I was observing is multiple separate conclusions. That's pure contrarianism, neither skepticism nor argument in the alternative.
        josephcsible 5y ago
        Isn't "the media and government have been intentionally exaggerating the danger of COVID, and most of the mitigation strategies being mandated shouldn't be" the conclusion?
        notacoward 5y ago
        Not really. The second part alone ("most of ... shouldn't be") might qualify as skepticism, particularly if the reason given is lack of sufficient evidence, but few stop there. Most go on to express one or more other reasons and/or conclusions, such as "intentionally exaggerating" which is its own claim requiring its own proof. Also, if that's the only reason given then it can't be argument in the alternative because there are no alternative routes given to the desired conclusion. Just one route to one conclusion, contrary to the original proposition but itself lacking proof.
        honkdaddy 5y ago
        Plenty of the COVID skeptic types I know, and myself included, have expressed exactly the sentiment the GP described. In a way, it's nice to be vindicated after all this. I don't think it really makes a difference whether that sentiment fits into the exact Wikipedia definition you're arguing about, but it's obvious to me it's been a common one for the entirety of the pandemic.
  - ekianjo 5y ago
    > What reality has shown, time and again, is that medical systems across the entire world are incapable of dealing with COVID while providing the same standard of care that people generally expect. (For both non-COVID and COVID cases.) Speak for your country. Numerous countries did not blink an eye, and did not panic either. I think people forget that it all started by "lets flatten the curve" before it turned into a pandemic of fear for absolutely no reason.
    - vkou 5y ago
      > Numerous countries did not blink an eye, and did not panic either. 'Panic' can mean anything you personally want it to, so of course there will be countries that match your criteria. Is wearing masks at the theatre panic? If you hate masks, yes! If you don't, no? Is requiring that foreign travelers have a negative test before admission at the border panic? Depends on where you stand. Is discouraging travel before vaccines were available panic? Well, that depends on whether or not you own a hotel! Is requiring that employers provide COVID sick days panic? Depends on your political view on labour relations. Eviction moratorium? Depends on whether you are a landlord!
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > is that medical systems across the entire world are incapable of dealing with COVID while providing the same standard of care that people generally expect. (For both non-COVID and COVID cases.) That's despite billions in fundings and ever-growing budgets. Time for a re-structuring and a culture change.
    - vkou 5y ago
      Restructuring to what? Socialized, privatized, mixed-market, none of them have had the ability to handle this pandemic in a business as usual world.
  - marvin 5y ago
    The population of skeptics might have changed during the last six months. You could be debating right now with someone who was strongly in favor of quarantine measures in 2020.
- jwlake 5y ago
  I've increasingly come to the idea that everyone is cosplaying outbreak, and somehow I didn't get the memo that this was fun.
  - GenerocUsername 5y ago
    Indeed. As a C
maxerickson 5y ago
The immune response to the booster isn't linear relative to the response to the earlier shots. The every six months thing doesn't apply until there's actually a government recommendation to get a 4th shot. I think there is enough chance that there will be, but there's also a pretty good chance that there won't be (because we are actually getting to the point where ~everyone has been infected or vaccinated).
- emteycz 5y ago
  The government has already determined the expiration of booster shot certificates. What am I supposed to do afterwards, never come out anymore?
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    Which government, what determination?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - emteycz 5y ago
      EU, 9 months
      - maxerickson 5y ago
        So https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_6837 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_... ? That requires the booster to be treated as proof of vaccinated status for 9 months, it doesn't predict that proof of additional shots will be required in the future. Which makes sense, as we don't have the information to make that determination!
        xdennis 5y ago
        So "get more shots of the vaccine we don't have enough information about"? I'm drawing the line at two.
swivelmaster 5y ago
The data I've seen about this has shown that the antibody numbers will slowly dip over time after the initial vaccine shots, but skyrocket after the booster. I'm not sure what your argument against the booster is beyond the mention of myocarditis (which the CDC addresses here: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/my...) and "it's a lot of work." At this point, those of us who can do the maximum amount possible to avoid catching the virus and/or making sure that we mitigate its effects should do so. The most likely risk at this point isn't death, it's ending up in the hospital for enough time that someone else can't get admitted or has to put off an important procedure.
- MarcoZavala 5y ago
- ars 5y ago
  > who can do the maximum amount possible to avoid catching the virus Hear me out - but, I suggest doing the opposite. Get vaccinated, then deliberately expose yourself to the virus every month. If you do that, you'll never get sick, and your immune response will remain high.
halpert 5y ago
Just because a percentage of the population is "non vulnerable" doesn't mean getting Covid is harmless. There are measurable impacts on cognitive ability: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00324-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...
- timr 5y ago
  This is self-reported data. Self-reported data is garbage. There's simply too much risk of bias. To illustrate the point, a large study out of France found that the only "long covid" symptom that actually correlates with confirmed illness was loss of smell. But there were multiple "long covid" symptoms that correlated with self-reported illness. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2785832 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... We have to be careful to separate populations by severity of disease, hospitalization, etc., but "long covid" is at least partly psychosomatic.
  - halpert 5y ago
    The data was from a cognitive assessment, not self-reported. There were some self-reported components, like do you have depression, anxiety, etc. But the measurement of cognition was not self reported.
    - timr 5y ago
      The question of whether or not the respondent actually had Covid-19 was self-reported: > People who indicated that they had suspected having COVID-19 were presented further questions including whether they had breathing difficulties, what happened as a consequence of their breathing difficulties, and whether there had been positive confirmation via a biological test (Table S1). Also, this was a web-based test, conducted at home, where the participants self-selected into the survey. There is no universe in which this should be considered unbiased data.
      - halpert 5y ago
groggo 5y ago
I came to the same conclusion. Fully vaxxed, but pressured by family into getting booster. Couldn't get out of bed for a day, and my heart still feels weird a week later. Going to the doctor to get that checked out.
- colordrops 5y ago
  I had a rash cover half my body that started at the vaccination site. My GP, who is the head of internal medicine at a famous hospital, call me directly during the holidays as it's not that common apparently.
  - ada1981 5y ago
    God speed.
  - landemva 5y ago
    Did this get entered in reporting database VAERS? How would you know? It helps everyone to accurately report adverse reactions.
    - colordrops 5y ago
      > Did this get entered in reporting database VAERS? Yes > How would you know? Like I said, my doctor, who spent some time digging into this, mentioned it was not a common occurance.
- swayvil 5y ago
  I had a friend. 75. Health nut. Swam every day. Organic vegetarian. Regular checkup. Never a blip. 2 months after the second shot, dead of sudden heart attack.
  - ZoomerCretin 5y ago
    Post-hoc, ergo propter hoc. 75 year olds have a tendency to die, a plurality from cardiovascular failure (pre-covid).
falcolas 5y ago
So, will you refuse tetanus boosters as well? Flu shots? Malaria, et.al.? This reluctance to accept medications that have proven to minimize the impact of deadly infections doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
- calpp 5y ago
  We have been over this so many times here: Tetanus and Malaria also affect younger people, median COVID-19 fatality age is over 80. No one criticizes an 80 year old for getting vaccinated. Herd immunity is elusive, as we see in regions with 95% vaxxed.
  - vlovich123 5y ago
    The vaccines help protect you from long COVID and from very serious complications that can form (or even death). It is very misleading to imply that only old people suffer from that as there are countless stories of “I have a 35 yold friend with no pre-existing conditions who’s fighting for their lives”. If it were only old people the hospital situations would look drastically different and we wouldn’t have capacity issues. We maybe are now better at saving those people than at the start of the pandemic but we’re not perfect yet. Hopefully the COVID pills coming out to treat it are going to meaningfully reduce the outsized burden anti-vaxx people are putting on the health care system (overwhelmingly, if not even exclusively, the people ending up in hospital due to COVID are unvaccinated)
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      > there are countless stories of “I have a 35 yold friend with no pre-existing conditions who’s fighting for their lives” You can't say this about rare serious COVID cases but also point out that the plural of anecdote is not data when other people say similar things about rare serious vaccine side effects.
    - rkk3 5y ago
      > It is very misleading to imply that only old people suffer from that as there are countless stories of “I have a 35 yold friend with no pre-existing conditions who’s fighting for their lives” Those stories are breathlessly reported on because they are rare, 2.4% of Covid Deaths in the US are people under the age of 40[1] which is 50% of the US population, it's harder to find data but most of them had whom had other issues or were not direct covid deaths. Covid Risk goes up orders of magnitude by age [2]. [11 https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investi...
rayiner 5y ago
> I’m not sold on this one, and I’ll totally begin bolstering anti-establishment sentiment if they are the only ones willing to disagree. I’m a compliant, conformist Asian, and they’re beginning to lose even me. My nine year old’s private school required everyone to get vaccinated (and we’re in a county where vaccination rates are high) but for some reason she is still wearing masks and eating lunch outside in the winter. My three year old—who is a hyperactive little boy to begin with—suffering developmental delays because he can’t understand instructions from masked teachers. For example, we do a gym class on Saturdays and he can’t tell which of the instructors he should be listening to, against the background noise. I cheat and take off my mask to give him instructions. I’ve noticed—that in a class where I suspect everyone is a democrat (blue state, almost entirely non-white or interracial)—about half the other parents are doing the same thing.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Masks inhibit the most fundamental communication API we have. Faces. Our occipital lobes and the vision system is trained to identify faces for a number of things from gauging emotions to assessing symmetry for mating. It is so deeply ingrained in us. It makes me think that cutting off half of the face is going to lead to developmental issues in people, I am not qualified to predict. Not directly relevant but there was a cool neurology experiment where they flipped faces upside down and people couldn't even recognize President Obama [1]. I also understand that Masks prevent people spitting large droplets. But no one seems to be raising concerns that we've starved kids from one of the most evolutionarily significant aspects of humans - facial communication. Would be great if academics/scientists who are far greater qualified in this matter try to understand what impact masks will have on kids - something tells me they are going to face opposition. [1] I learned about this experiment from the Introduction to Human Brain course at MIT. I watched the entire thing a couple of years ago, it was truly eye opening and I believe the professor had an AMA on HN at time. Check it out: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-and-cognitive-sciences/9-13-the-human-brain-spring-2019/ https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-and-cognitive-sciences/9-1...
- syspec 5y ago
  Non-white != democratic / blue
rpearl 5y ago
> Boosters for last year’s virus makes less sense. The antibodies elicited in response to the booster, 6 months later, are different and more diverse in their neutralization capabilities than the ones elicited in response to the first shots. Although it is likely an omicron-tuned booster would be more effective, time is of the essence and there is both evidence and a reasonable explanation as to why the original booster works. Specifically, the immune system is not static and also changes over time. Here is a presentation by a virologist on the research his team performed that leads to this conclusion (amongst other lines of research) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIcaSqQFrX0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIcaSqQFrX0
- vizzah 5y ago
  Okay, but why demand boosters from those younger than 40?? Considering new myocarditis studies and how low the risk is for someone already vaccinated and how negligible it is with Omicron (even for non-vaccinated)? This blind boosterization is only demonstrating how the governments are still shitless scared of their medical system collapses with vulnerable groups, so that they want to boost anyone in sight, just to be on a safer side.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    Because if protection from symptomatic infection increases at a population level, then overall transmission becomes less likely. Look, the risks are pretty low for younger people, but from a population level every extra bit of immunity helps to reduce the likelihood of health care system collapse (which has been the goal throughout the pandemic).
    - peteradio 5y ago
      Then all you need is bullet-proof evidence that transmission is significantly impacted by the vaccines. It ain't a guessing game, do the measurement. Do it all over the world and compare and contrast.
      - 5y ago
themgt 5y ago
There are guaranteed to be healthy 18 years who've been double-vaxxed and fought off a COVID infection, possibly as recently as right now during the massive Omicron wave. Their near-term risk of winding up dead/in ICU from a potential new COVID infection is effectively zero. The idea of a blanket mandate that these young people must be immediately boosted regardless of how many times and how recently their immune system has fought off SARS-CoV-2 or what their current antibody levels are is totally unsupportable as science or public policy. We're moving from cloth mask theater to potentially screwing up your immune system and endangering yourself with unnecessary-to-harmful booster theater. Enough.
- malchow 5y ago
  Stanford is also remaining willfully ignorant of prior infection-conferred immunity, easily measured by IgG assay. This is all becoming very embarrassing.
  - ZoomerCretin 5y ago
    Infection-conferred immunity is inferior to vaccine-conferred immunity.
    - colordrops 5y ago
      Inferior in what way? There are several measures of effectiveness. When it comes to consistency of immune response, the vaccines are superior. When it comes to broad spectrum immunity to variants, infection-conferred immunity is superior. When it comes to how long immunity lasts, infection-conferred immunity is vastly superior.
    - malchow 5y ago
      That isn't so, and both controlled studies and population-level statistics make that clear.
alphabettsy 5y ago
> .. I’ll totally begin bolstering anti-establishment sentiment if they are the only ones willing to disagree. What does this mean? It’s not enough to be against vaccine mandates?
- vmception 5y ago
  It means I have to listen to wildly absurd theories and hang out in Orange County, just because I didn't get the 3rd++ booster
tejohnso 5y ago
The writing was on the wall as soon as governments started normalizing vaccination passports. Governments and businesses can now take that same mentality forward for whatever type of shot they want. Meanwhile they continue to antagonize those who choose not to take these shots, employing the classic citizen vs citizen tactic from the playbook.
- bern4444 5y ago
  Another weird take on a government's rights to dictate who is allowed to enter and exit their own country. Countries have always been able to impose vaccine requirements for smallpox polio, yellow fever, meningitis and now covid. Businesses didn't need to validate that people coming into their stores had these vaccines because the government already would have validated it for them. Businesses have the right to ensure the health of their employees and customers.
  - tejohnso 5y ago
    > Another weird take It's not the "take" that's weird, it's the situation. I said nothing about whether the government or businesses have the right or not. Just that since it has now started it is likely to be used further. That's not a weird take, it's just a fact proven by the current situation that previous poster was describing. I've been entering businesses my entire life and until now I've never had to show private medical information about vaccinations in order to enter. Similarly, I've traveled through multiple countries in my life and until now I've never had to show private medical information about vaccinations in order to enter. What's weird is that now I can't go to a funeral without telling someone at the door about what shots I have. It's also interesting that pointing out this very unusual state of affairs and its likely continuance results in a response suggesting that it's "weird" to even point it out, suggesting that it should not be pointed out, because who wants to be "weird" or say "weird" things. That's a type of antagonization.
etempleton 5y ago
You risk the institution effectively having to shut down if too many students/faculty are sick at any given time. Students live in dorms with other students. If one gets sick they have to isolate away from other students. This is effectively impossible in a traditional dorm so they have to be moved to quarantine. There is likely a limit to quarantine space available. If quarantine is filled the University will have to shut down because they cannot follow CDC guidance. It is not about the immediate health risk to the students as that is relatively low, but the University being able to continue operations.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > oo many students/faculty are sick at any given time. Whats the rate of hospitalization for COVID among students right now? If you dont have that kind of actual data in hand, you can't make a proper decision. because of the demographics that number should be close to zero, except for students that have multiple comorbidities.
  - etempleton 5y ago
    The CDC has guidance for how colleges should handle students who test positive for Covid. You cannot have a student who has tested positive living in the dorms with other students. You do not need to be in the hospital to be sick, no?
    - jerlam 5y ago
      Colleges and schools in general are also very unforgiving of sick time, compared to work. If you miss a week or two of a difficult class, you may not be able to make up for that lost time in order to pass. With some classes only being offered at specific quarters/semesters and many being impacted, a single failed or dropped class can put you a year behind graduation, assuming you can pay for it. If a professor or teaching assistants gets sick, it would have pretty significant impacts for a larger number of students.
- srackey 5y ago
  Or they could not? Among college-aged folks, Corona has mild symptoms - maybe approaching a bad flu. When I was at school, we had flu outbreaks. People got sick, their roommates got sick…and no one was tested or quarantined or had to wear masks. Life continued. What if we just stopped? We could treat Corona outbreaks at schools like cold or flu outbreaks. Would anyone even notice Omicron ripping through the student body if we weren’t obsessively looking? I doubt it.
lamontcg 5y ago
> Boosters for last year’s virus You're announcing confidently to the world that you don't know anything about immunology, and haven't seen the studies that show that boosters produce broad neutralization against Omicron even though they haven't been updated (and you probably lack the ability to theorize as to how that could be possible). > the fairly predictable solution of stacking them every 6 months Outside of Israel nobody is suggesting boosters every 6 months. We'll see how that goes for them. Lots of experts are actually very suspicious of the idea that we'll be boosting constantly (outside of the 3% of the vulnerable population that is immunosuppressed).
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  >Outside of Israel nobody is suggesting boosters every 6 months. Why would any other country stop with 1 booster? I think rather that they are just slow rolling their mandates. The data suggests that the immune boost is temporary so I don't see how the situation will be any different for shot 4. Perhaps the only difference will be increasing fatigue with compliance.
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    A 4th shot is unlikely to produce substantially better immunity than a 3rd shot. The realistic goal is also not to prevent transmission but to prevent severe disease and death, and a 4th shot won't help much with that at all. Once everyone has T-cells the pandemic phase is over and it really does just become a cold or the flu and we're getting close. Estimates are that around >90% of the population is exposed or vaccinated. Once we get there then the reaction to the virus should look more like a cold or flu virus. We don't recommend anything for colds. For the flu we mandate it for health care workers and highly recommend it for vulnerable people and offer it to everyone. We're going to wind up there soon. There's also going to be a narrower number of people who have been vaccinated and never caught the virus who think that the goal is zero covid, sooner or later nearly everyone catches it. Once they've been vaccinated and caught mild disease they're going to stop treating it as an existential threat. Once that happens their appetite for supporting mandates will disappear. My guess is that Omicron is the last gasp of the pandemic phase of the virus. And I can't see mandates for 4+ shots being anything other than political suicide in the US outside of health care.
GoodJokes 5y ago
sharken 5y ago
Also lost me and I'm not even a Stanford student. But the wording is exactly the same as used by companies. "Strongly encouraged" is now the preferred wording to express: "You MUST comply with this." But since everyone who is worried have gotten the vaccine and will continue to get booster shots ad infinitum, there is zero reason to force this on everyone else. It's time to stop this nonsense.

GenerocUsername 5y ago

Welcome to the resistance... its not glamorous, but it is overwhelmingly obviously the right time to be a skeptic.

vkou 5y ago
The skeptics have felt overwhelmingly in the right for the past 21 months, but throughout that time period, reality has not been particularly compliant to their wishes. What reality has shown, time and again, is that medical systems across the entire world are incapable of dealing with COVID while providing the same standard of care that people generally expect. (For both non-COVID and COVID cases.) I personally feel there are reasons to be optimistic over the next few months, but that its too early to say - and claiming otherwise is engaging in very speculative, very wishful magical thinking.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- notacoward 5y ago
  Exactly. The self-professed "skeptics" have only seemed to doubt one narrative (the mainstream one) but have seemed singularly credulous when it comes to alternative theories, treatments, etc. All in an effort to stand out, not to help. Many have even supported multiple mutually exclusive beliefs at different times, pointing to the few hits as evidence of their perspicacity, quietly hoping everyone will forget the misses. The world would be better off with some real skepticism, not just Oppositional Defiant Disorder disguised as skepticism. Real skepticism notes the absence or weakness of evidence behind a claim, but can be overcome as the evidence becomes stronger. True skepticism also does not require assertion of an alternate or opposite theory as Absolute Truth with no more evidence than the theory one is being "skeptical" about. People should ask for - even demand - evidence, but not misportray disagreement (or disagreeableness) as skepticism.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    They're using "argument in the alternative" [1], which is logically sound. The goal isn't to show that any particular alternative theory is true, just to show that the mainstream one is false. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative
    - notacoward 5y ago
      No they're not. > with the goal of showing that regardless of interpretation there is no reasonable conclusion other than the advocate's For that part of the definition to apply, there must be some particular conclusion that the advocate supports. It's multiple arguments for a single conclusion, whereas what I was observing is multiple separate conclusions. That's pure contrarianism, neither skepticism nor argument in the alternative.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        Isn't "the media and government have been intentionally exaggerating the danger of COVID, and most of the mitigation strategies being mandated shouldn't be" the conclusion?
        notacoward 5y ago
        Not really. The second part alone ("most of ... shouldn't be") might qualify as skepticism, particularly if the reason given is lack of sufficient evidence, but few stop there. Most go on to express one or more other reasons and/or conclusions, such as "intentionally exaggerating" which is its own claim requiring its own proof. Also, if that's the only reason given then it can't be argument in the alternative because there are no alternative routes given to the desired conclusion. Just one route to one conclusion, contrary to the original proposition but itself lacking proof.
        honkdaddy 5y ago
        Plenty of the COVID skeptic types I know, and myself included, have expressed exactly the sentiment the GP described. In a way, it's nice to be vindicated after all this. I don't think it really makes a difference whether that sentiment fits into the exact Wikipedia definition you're arguing about, but it's obvious to me it's been a common one for the entirety of the pandemic.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > What reality has shown, time and again, is that medical systems across the entire world are incapable of dealing with COVID while providing the same standard of care that people generally expect. (For both non-COVID and COVID cases.) Speak for your country. Numerous countries did not blink an eye, and did not panic either. I think people forget that it all started by "lets flatten the curve" before it turned into a pandemic of fear for absolutely no reason.
  - vkou 5y ago
    > Numerous countries did not blink an eye, and did not panic either. 'Panic' can mean anything you personally want it to, so of course there will be countries that match your criteria. Is wearing masks at the theatre panic? If you hate masks, yes! If you don't, no? Is requiring that foreign travelers have a negative test before admission at the border panic? Depends on where you stand. Is discouraging travel before vaccines were available panic? Well, that depends on whether or not you own a hotel! Is requiring that employers provide COVID sick days panic? Depends on your political view on labour relations. Eviction moratorium? Depends on whether you are a landlord!
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > is that medical systems across the entire world are incapable of dealing with COVID while providing the same standard of care that people generally expect. (For both non-COVID and COVID cases.) That's despite billions in fundings and ever-growing budgets. Time for a re-structuring and a culture change.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Restructuring to what? Socialized, privatized, mixed-market, none of them have had the ability to handle this pandemic in a business as usual world.
- marvin 5y ago
  The population of skeptics might have changed during the last six months. You could be debating right now with someone who was strongly in favor of quarantine measures in 2020.
jwlake 5y ago
I've increasingly come to the idea that everyone is cosplaying outbreak, and somehow I didn't get the memo that this was fun.
- GenerocUsername 5y ago
  Indeed. As a C

maxerickson 5y ago

The immune response to the booster isn't linear relative to the response to the earlier shots. The every six months thing doesn't apply until there's actually a government recommendation to get a 4th shot. I think there is enough chance that there will be, but there's also a pretty good chance that there won't be (because we are actually getting to the point where ~everyone has been infected or vaccinated).

emteycz 5y ago
The government has already determined the expiration of booster shot certificates. What am I supposed to do afterwards, never come out anymore?
- maxerickson 5y ago
  Which government, what determination?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - emteycz 5y ago
    EU, 9 months
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      So https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_6837 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_... ? That requires the booster to be treated as proof of vaccinated status for 9 months, it doesn't predict that proof of additional shots will be required in the future. Which makes sense, as we don't have the information to make that determination!
      - xdennis 5y ago
        So "get more shots of the vaccine we don't have enough information about"? I'm drawing the line at two.

swivelmaster 5y ago

The data I've seen about this has shown that the antibody numbers will slowly dip over time after the initial vaccine shots, but skyrocket after the booster. I'm not sure what your argument against the booster is beyond the mention of myocarditis (which the CDC addresses here: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/my...) and "it's a lot of work." At this point, those of us who can do the maximum amount possible to avoid catching the virus and/or making sure that we mitigate its effects should do so. The most likely risk at this point isn't death, it's ending up in the hospital for enough time that someone else can't get admitted or has to put off an important procedure.

MarcoZavala 5y ago
ars 5y ago
> who can do the maximum amount possible to avoid catching the virus Hear me out - but, I suggest doing the opposite. Get vaccinated, then deliberately expose yourself to the virus every month. If you do that, you'll never get sick, and your immune response will remain high.

halpert 5y ago

Just because a percentage of the population is "non vulnerable" doesn't mean getting Covid is harmless. There are measurable impacts on cognitive ability: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00324-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...

timr 5y ago
This is self-reported data. Self-reported data is garbage. There's simply too much risk of bias. To illustrate the point, a large study out of France found that the only "long covid" symptom that actually correlates with confirmed illness was loss of smell. But there were multiple "long covid" symptoms that correlated with self-reported illness. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2785832 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... We have to be careful to separate populations by severity of disease, hospitalization, etc., but "long covid" is at least partly psychosomatic.
- halpert 5y ago
  The data was from a cognitive assessment, not self-reported. There were some self-reported components, like do you have depression, anxiety, etc. But the measurement of cognition was not self reported.
  - timr 5y ago
    The question of whether or not the respondent actually had Covid-19 was self-reported: > People who indicated that they had suspected having COVID-19 were presented further questions including whether they had breathing difficulties, what happened as a consequence of their breathing difficulties, and whether there had been positive confirmation via a biological test (Table S1). Also, this was a web-based test, conducted at home, where the participants self-selected into the survey. There is no universe in which this should be considered unbiased data.
    - halpert 5y ago

groggo 5y ago

I came to the same conclusion. Fully vaxxed, but pressured by family into getting booster. Couldn't get out of bed for a day, and my heart still feels weird a week later. Going to the doctor to get that checked out.

colordrops 5y ago
I had a rash cover half my body that started at the vaccination site. My GP, who is the head of internal medicine at a famous hospital, call me directly during the holidays as it's not that common apparently.
- ada1981 5y ago
  God speed.
- landemva 5y ago
  Did this get entered in reporting database VAERS? How would you know? It helps everyone to accurately report adverse reactions.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    > Did this get entered in reporting database VAERS? Yes > How would you know? Like I said, my doctor, who spent some time digging into this, mentioned it was not a common occurance.
swayvil 5y ago
I had a friend. 75. Health nut. Swam every day. Organic vegetarian. Regular checkup. Never a blip. 2 months after the second shot, dead of sudden heart attack.
- ZoomerCretin 5y ago
  Post-hoc, ergo propter hoc. 75 year olds have a tendency to die, a plurality from cardiovascular failure (pre-covid).

falcolas 5y ago

So, will you refuse tetanus boosters as well? Flu shots? Malaria, et.al.? This reluctance to accept medications that have proven to minimize the impact of deadly infections doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

calpp 5y ago
We have been over this so many times here: Tetanus and Malaria also affect younger people, median COVID-19 fatality age is over 80. No one criticizes an 80 year old for getting vaccinated. Herd immunity is elusive, as we see in regions with 95% vaxxed.
- vlovich123 5y ago
  The vaccines help protect you from long COVID and from very serious complications that can form (or even death). It is very misleading to imply that only old people suffer from that as there are countless stories of “I have a 35 yold friend with no pre-existing conditions who’s fighting for their lives”. If it were only old people the hospital situations would look drastically different and we wouldn’t have capacity issues. We maybe are now better at saving those people than at the start of the pandemic but we’re not perfect yet. Hopefully the COVID pills coming out to treat it are going to meaningfully reduce the outsized burden anti-vaxx people are putting on the health care system (overwhelmingly, if not even exclusively, the people ending up in hospital due to COVID are unvaccinated)
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > there are countless stories of “I have a 35 yold friend with no pre-existing conditions who’s fighting for their lives” You can't say this about rare serious COVID cases but also point out that the plural of anecdote is not data when other people say similar things about rare serious vaccine side effects.
  - rkk3 5y ago
    > It is very misleading to imply that only old people suffer from that as there are countless stories of “I have a 35 yold friend with no pre-existing conditions who’s fighting for their lives” Those stories are breathlessly reported on because they are rare, 2.4% of Covid Deaths in the US are people under the age of 40[1] which is 50% of the US population, it's harder to find data but most of them had whom had other issues or were not direct covid deaths. Covid Risk goes up orders of magnitude by age [2]. [11 https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investi...

rayiner 5y ago

> I’m not sold on this one, and I’ll totally begin bolstering anti-establishment sentiment if they are the only ones willing to disagree. I’m a compliant, conformist Asian, and they’re beginning to lose even me. My nine year old’s private school required everyone to get vaccinated (and we’re in a county where vaccination rates are high) but for some reason she is still wearing masks and eating lunch outside in the winter. My three year old—who is a hyperactive little boy to begin with—suffering developmental delays because he can’t understand instructions from masked teachers. For example, we do a gym class on Saturdays and he can’t tell which of the instructors he should be listening to, against the background noise. I cheat and take off my mask to give him instructions. I’ve noticed—that in a class where I suspect everyone is a democrat (blue state, almost entirely non-white or interracial)—about half the other parents are doing the same thing.

systemvoltage 5y ago
Masks inhibit the most fundamental communication API we have. Faces. Our occipital lobes and the vision system is trained to identify faces for a number of things from gauging emotions to assessing symmetry for mating. It is so deeply ingrained in us. It makes me think that cutting off half of the face is going to lead to developmental issues in people, I am not qualified to predict. Not directly relevant but there was a cool neurology experiment where they flipped faces upside down and people couldn't even recognize President Obama [1]. I also understand that Masks prevent people spitting large droplets. But no one seems to be raising concerns that we've starved kids from one of the most evolutionarily significant aspects of humans - facial communication. Would be great if academics/scientists who are far greater qualified in this matter try to understand what impact masks will have on kids - something tells me they are going to face opposition. [1] I learned about this experiment from the Introduction to Human Brain course at MIT. I watched the entire thing a couple of years ago, it was truly eye opening and I believe the professor had an AMA on HN at time. Check it out: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-and-cognitive-sciences/9-13-the-human-brain-spring-2019/ https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/brain-and-cognitive-sciences/9-1...
syspec 5y ago
Non-white != democratic / blue

rpearl 5y ago

> Boosters for last year’s virus makes less sense. The antibodies elicited in response to the booster, 6 months later, are different and more diverse in their neutralization capabilities than the ones elicited in response to the first shots. Although it is likely an omicron-tuned booster would be more effective, time is of the essence and there is both evidence and a reasonable explanation as to why the original booster works. Specifically, the immune system is not static and also changes over time. Here is a presentation by a virologist on the research his team performed that leads to this conclusion (amongst other lines of research) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIcaSqQFrX0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIcaSqQFrX0

vizzah 5y ago
Okay, but why demand boosters from those younger than 40?? Considering new myocarditis studies and how low the risk is for someone already vaccinated and how negligible it is with Omicron (even for non-vaccinated)? This blind boosterization is only demonstrating how the governments are still shitless scared of their medical system collapses with vulnerable groups, so that they want to boost anyone in sight, just to be on a safer side.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  Because if protection from symptomatic infection increases at a population level, then overall transmission becomes less likely. Look, the risks are pretty low for younger people, but from a population level every extra bit of immunity helps to reduce the likelihood of health care system collapse (which has been the goal throughout the pandemic).
  - peteradio 5y ago
    Then all you need is bullet-proof evidence that transmission is significantly impacted by the vaccines. It ain't a guessing game, do the measurement. Do it all over the world and compare and contrast.
    - 5y ago

themgt 5y ago

There are guaranteed to be healthy 18 years who've been double-vaxxed and fought off a COVID infection, possibly as recently as right now during the massive Omicron wave. Their near-term risk of winding up dead/in ICU from a potential new COVID infection is effectively zero. The idea of a blanket mandate that these young people must be immediately boosted regardless of how many times and how recently their immune system has fought off SARS-CoV-2 or what their current antibody levels are is totally unsupportable as science or public policy. We're moving from cloth mask theater to potentially screwing up your immune system and endangering yourself with unnecessary-to-harmful booster theater. Enough.

malchow 5y ago
Stanford is also remaining willfully ignorant of prior infection-conferred immunity, easily measured by IgG assay. This is all becoming very embarrassing.
- ZoomerCretin 5y ago
  Infection-conferred immunity is inferior to vaccine-conferred immunity.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    Inferior in what way? There are several measures of effectiveness. When it comes to consistency of immune response, the vaccines are superior. When it comes to broad spectrum immunity to variants, infection-conferred immunity is superior. When it comes to how long immunity lasts, infection-conferred immunity is vastly superior.
  - malchow 5y ago
    That isn't so, and both controlled studies and population-level statistics make that clear.

alphabettsy 5y ago

> .. I’ll totally begin bolstering anti-establishment sentiment if they are the only ones willing to disagree. What does this mean? It’s not enough to be against vaccine mandates?

vmception 5y ago
It means I have to listen to wildly absurd theories and hang out in Orange County, just because I didn't get the 3rd++ booster

tejohnso 5y ago

The writing was on the wall as soon as governments started normalizing vaccination passports. Governments and businesses can now take that same mentality forward for whatever type of shot they want. Meanwhile they continue to antagonize those who choose not to take these shots, employing the classic citizen vs citizen tactic from the playbook.

bern4444 5y ago
Another weird take on a government's rights to dictate who is allowed to enter and exit their own country. Countries have always been able to impose vaccine requirements for smallpox polio, yellow fever, meningitis and now covid. Businesses didn't need to validate that people coming into their stores had these vaccines because the government already would have validated it for them. Businesses have the right to ensure the health of their employees and customers.
- tejohnso 5y ago
  > Another weird take It's not the "take" that's weird, it's the situation. I said nothing about whether the government or businesses have the right or not. Just that since it has now started it is likely to be used further. That's not a weird take, it's just a fact proven by the current situation that previous poster was describing. I've been entering businesses my entire life and until now I've never had to show private medical information about vaccinations in order to enter. Similarly, I've traveled through multiple countries in my life and until now I've never had to show private medical information about vaccinations in order to enter. What's weird is that now I can't go to a funeral without telling someone at the door about what shots I have. It's also interesting that pointing out this very unusual state of affairs and its likely continuance results in a response suggesting that it's "weird" to even point it out, suggesting that it should not be pointed out, because who wants to be "weird" or say "weird" things. That's a type of antagonization.

etempleton 5y ago

You risk the institution effectively having to shut down if too many students/faculty are sick at any given time. Students live in dorms with other students. If one gets sick they have to isolate away from other students. This is effectively impossible in a traditional dorm so they have to be moved to quarantine. There is likely a limit to quarantine space available. If quarantine is filled the University will have to shut down because they cannot follow CDC guidance. It is not about the immediate health risk to the students as that is relatively low, but the University being able to continue operations.

ekianjo 5y ago
> oo many students/faculty are sick at any given time. Whats the rate of hospitalization for COVID among students right now? If you dont have that kind of actual data in hand, you can't make a proper decision. because of the demographics that number should be close to zero, except for students that have multiple comorbidities.
- etempleton 5y ago
  The CDC has guidance for how colleges should handle students who test positive for Covid. You cannot have a student who has tested positive living in the dorms with other students. You do not need to be in the hospital to be sick, no?
  - jerlam 5y ago
    Colleges and schools in general are also very unforgiving of sick time, compared to work. If you miss a week or two of a difficult class, you may not be able to make up for that lost time in order to pass. With some classes only being offered at specific quarters/semesters and many being impacted, a single failed or dropped class can put you a year behind graduation, assuming you can pay for it. If a professor or teaching assistants gets sick, it would have pretty significant impacts for a larger number of students.
srackey 5y ago
Or they could not? Among college-aged folks, Corona has mild symptoms - maybe approaching a bad flu. When I was at school, we had flu outbreaks. People got sick, their roommates got sick…and no one was tested or quarantined or had to wear masks. Life continued. What if we just stopped? We could treat Corona outbreaks at schools like cold or flu outbreaks. Would anyone even notice Omicron ripping through the student body if we weren’t obsessively looking? I doubt it.

lamontcg 5y ago

> Boosters for last year’s virus You're announcing confidently to the world that you don't know anything about immunology, and haven't seen the studies that show that boosters produce broad neutralization against Omicron even though they haven't been updated (and you probably lack the ability to theorize as to how that could be possible). > the fairly predictable solution of stacking them every 6 months Outside of Israel nobody is suggesting boosters every 6 months. We'll see how that goes for them. Lots of experts are actually very suspicious of the idea that we'll be boosting constantly (outside of the 3% of the vulnerable population that is immunosuppressed).

s1artibartfast 5y ago
>Outside of Israel nobody is suggesting boosters every 6 months. Why would any other country stop with 1 booster? I think rather that they are just slow rolling their mandates. The data suggests that the immune boost is temporary so I don't see how the situation will be any different for shot 4. Perhaps the only difference will be increasing fatigue with compliance.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  A 4th shot is unlikely to produce substantially better immunity than a 3rd shot. The realistic goal is also not to prevent transmission but to prevent severe disease and death, and a 4th shot won't help much with that at all. Once everyone has T-cells the pandemic phase is over and it really does just become a cold or the flu and we're getting close. Estimates are that around >90% of the population is exposed or vaccinated. Once we get there then the reaction to the virus should look more like a cold or flu virus. We don't recommend anything for colds. For the flu we mandate it for health care workers and highly recommend it for vulnerable people and offer it to everyone. We're going to wind up there soon. There's also going to be a narrower number of people who have been vaccinated and never caught the virus who think that the goal is zero covid, sooner or later nearly everyone catches it. Once they've been vaccinated and caught mild disease they're going to stop treating it as an existential threat. Once that happens their appetite for supporting mandates will disappear. My guess is that Omicron is the last gasp of the pandemic phase of the virus. And I can't see mandates for 4+ shots being anything other than political suicide in the US outside of health care.

GoodJokes 5y ago

sharken 5y ago

Also lost me and I'm not even a Stanford student. But the wording is exactly the same as used by companies. "Strongly encouraged" is now the preferred wording to express: "You MUST comply with this." But since everyone who is worried have gotten the vaccine and will continue to get booster shots ad infinitum, there is zero reason to force this on everyone else. It's time to stop this nonsense.