3 ms·

This article has very poor reasoning. For example, the author states > Everybody knows that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But if hospitalizations and

by dfdz 5y ago

This article has very poor reasoning. For example, the author states > Everybody knows that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But if hospitalizations and deaths were almost exclusively occurring in the unvaccinated, why would booster shots be necessary? There is a simple example of how both these “seemingly contradictory” statements can be true. 1. Suppose that being unvaccinated increases chance of death by a factor 10. Then, it would reasonable to call the pandemic a pandemic of unvaccinated 2. Suppose that the booster decreases the chance of death by another factor of 10. Then, many vaccinated individuals may still want the booster. The authors argument is a example of reductio ad absurdum. The author attempts to argue against the vaccine by trying to show that getting the booster leads to a logical contraction by using a poorly reasoned absurd example. I am disappointed to see such a poorly reasoned articles on HN.

camel_Snake 5y ago
Interesting. I've always just assumed that the messaging around prevention like vaccination/masking has always been adjusted to the Western motive - Do THIS thing and it will keep you safe! Whereas I think we all know by now the only way to defeat the virus is to prevent the spread - not to prevent a specific individual from being infected. Vaccination, boosting, masks, social distancing - the goal is all to get that R0 below 1.0, but to convince people to actually practice them we must tell them it will keep them safe.
nkurz 5y ago
> This article has very poor reasoning. For example, the author states I feel you may have misread the article. The author doesn't "state" the lines you quoted, she quotes someone else (Dr Peter Doshi) who used this line in a presentation as an example of something that deserves further investigation. The part of the quote the author highlighted (a couple lines after) was "There’s something to be curious about. There’s something not adding up." She uses this quote to provoke thought, not to claim that (the unspoken) answer is obvious. > The author attempts to argue against the vaccine I don't think this is the argument she's making. The main thrust of her argument is that adverse side-effects of the vaccine are systematically underreported. While this could be used as part of an argument against the vaccine, she doesn't actually try to make that argument. The closest she comes is in the conclusion, where she says "I believe that for someone of my age and health, I was taking on more risk than reward, especially considering the fact that its efficacy wanes relatively quickly." Whether or not she is right, I'd wager this means she believes that many people (older than her or in poorer health) definitely benefit from the vaccine.

by dfdz 5y ago

camel_Snake 5y ago

Interesting. I've always just assumed that the messaging around prevention like vaccination/masking has always been adjusted to the Western motive - Do THIS thing and it will keep you safe! Whereas I think we all know by now the only way to defeat the virus is to prevent the spread - not to prevent a specific individual from being infected. Vaccination, boosting, masks, social distancing - the goal is all to get that R0 below 1.0, but to convince people to actually practice them we must tell them it will keep them safe.

nkurz 5y ago

> This article has very poor reasoning. For example, the author states I feel you may have misread the article. The author doesn't "state" the lines you quoted, she quotes someone else (Dr Peter Doshi) who used this line in a presentation as an example of something that deserves further investigation. The part of the quote the author highlighted (a couple lines after) was "There’s something to be curious about. There’s something not adding up." She uses this quote to provoke thought, not to claim that (the unspoken) answer is obvious. > The author attempts to argue against the vaccine I don't think this is the argument she's making. The main thrust of her argument is that adverse side-effects of the vaccine are systematically underreported. While this could be used as part of an argument against the vaccine, she doesn't actually try to make that argument. The closest she comes is in the conclusion, where she says "I believe that for someone of my age and health, I was taking on more risk than reward, especially considering the fact that its efficacy wanes relatively quickly." Whether or not she is right, I'd wager this means she believes that many people (older than her or in poorer health) definitely benefit from the vaccine.