4 ms·
I got the original two shots, but I have not and will not get the booster. One factor in this decision is the fact that people who have legitimate questions ar
by csense 5y ago
I got the original two shots, but I have not and will not get the booster.
One factor in this decision is the fact that people who have legitimate questions are answered with "You're dumb and anti-science! If you don't take it, you'll lose your job, and never be able to get on an airplane ever again!"
How should a reasonable person respond when honest, good-faith questions are answered by suppressing the questioner with name-calling and government-sanctioned force?
I personally choose to: Ignore the names. Resist the force. Assume the people encouraging the name-calling and mandates have bad motives. If they had good motives, they'd lay all the cards on the table, give me honest, good-faith answers (which might be "We don't know" or "Yes, there are some safety issues"), and then let me freely choose whether I accept a medical treatment into my own body.
- EricE 5y agoInsisting people who already have had the virus (and thus have better immunity than that given by the vaccine) should be second class citizens until they comply and get the vaccine, despite not needing it, proves more than anything else that many of the pro-vaccine arguments are NOT being made in good faith. "Follow the Science!" indeed :p
- mbg721 5y agoI believe there were countries that did acknowledge previous infection as contributing to immunity; this is just America doing what America does best--large portion sizes.
- fergonco 5y agoIn Spain public health system don't do PCRs anymore (only private, which very few would). Without a PCR you don't have a valid proof of being infected. This is my personal case and the case of many many Spanish people, as Omicron is sweeping the country.
- sudosysgen 5y agoIt is the same in Quebec. It's not because they don't want to recognize infections, it's just that they don't have the capacity to do so, which is perfectly understandable, while not recognizing infection as a vaccine does isn't.
- christkv 5y agoIn Asturias they will accept a positive antigen test as you can go to a pharmacy and they’ll do it and report you as positive to the health system.
- jhasse 5y ago> and thus have better immunity than that given by the vaccine source?
- landemva 5y agoOne source from CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm
- swsieber 5y agoGlancing over it, it seems pretty hard to draw any useful conclusions from it. I would expect that those most at risk from covid are the most likely to get vaccinated for it. I would expect the effect to get smaller once you start controlling for age (which they did not). Granted, I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation. But I wouldn't state it as being supported by that paper.
- landemva 5y agoDid you see this part? Seems to be a conclusion. 'persons who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone.'
- swsieber 5y agoI did. And it in no way disagrees with my above comment. _Persons_ who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone. This _does not mean_ that prior infection confers better protection. The vaccine vs infection was not distributed randomly - inherent risk is a confounding factor. So an equally likely explanation for the conclusion (as opposed to your interpretation of causation) is that the people who are naturally better at fighting off covid (e.g. younger, fewer high-risk factors), are less likely to get the vaccine.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y agoGermophobes have finally been granted their paradise where everyone lives in a controlled bubble. They aren't going to give up that power easily. These people are going to be masking up for the rest of their lives and expect everyone to follow their virtuous example. The perpetual boosters and social pressure is a play right into the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies who want annual flu vaccine 2.0.
- kelnos 5y agoSo... you're refusing to get the booster because a few assholes called you names? That definitely does seem anti-science to me.
- marton78 5y agoIt's not a few assholes. It's literally all media, public and private (at least where I live, in Germany). You do get the feeling that something is terribly off here.
- dekhn 5y agoif your goal is to truly good-faith ask questions without getting the response you cite, it's entirely possible. The secret is to play dumb and make the person you're asking explicitly support each and every statement they are making in a way that would convince a normal person. Just keep asking reasonable questions and playing dumb. Then, at the very end, say slowly: "huh. well, ok, I guess you've explained your perspective, but there are these things that don't quite follow, and seem like they are just guesses or suppositions:" and list all the remaining problems. This is also an effective denial of service attack on the scientific infrastructure. I don't think public health officials really want to be in the position of explaining their lack of certainty (combined with a set of previously established good practices that are likely to lead to good outcomes) about nearly anything, since we have a long history of noncompliance in patients and lack of certainly just leads to additional noncompliance. I don't want to sound completely unsympathetic, as I've lived through multiple paradigm changes and I know well that scientists get defensive when you challenge their territory. but remember, we have to deal with the jenny mccarthy effect.
- Taters91 5y agoHave you talked to a doctor about it, and not just people on the Internet? If you ask a doctor, they would probably tell you the benefits without belittling you.
- b0sk 5y agohttps://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1485695982117425153?s=21 https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1485695982117425153?s=2... (Yes, it's death rate and may not apply to you. it's a similar effect for infections)