11 ms·

There is an appropriate xkcd now: https://xkcd.com/2557/ https://xkcd.com/2557/

PathOfEclipse 5y ago
The comic was pretty unfunny and ignorant. For most people, COVID never was a major threat, and getting infected and getting immunity was always a valid approach. Read the great Barrington declaration, signed by over 10,000 scientists and thoroughly attacked by people like Dr. Fauci without any science backing the attack. Also read all the studies on the matter, which almost universally conclude those with natural immunity fare better against re-infection than those with vaccine immunity alone. Speaking as an unvaccinated with natural immunity, along with all my immediate family and friends in the same boat. Edit: adjusted signature numbers for Barrington declaration.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > which almost universally conclude those with natural immunity fare better against re-infection than those with vaccine immunity alone Almost as if the immune system... worked as intended. Shocking. This begs the question, why not simply use immunity status instead of vaccination status? If someone has the right antibodies to fight COVID, does it matter how these were obtained?
  - PathOfEclipse 5y ago
    Other countries, notably Israel do allow it. Their scientific establishment is apparently a lot smarter than the one in the U.S. Or maybe less corrupt? We can only guess at the motivation behind apparent incompetence of these agencies, often referred to as "conspiracy theorizing".
  - Karsteski 5y ago
    > This begs the question, why not simply use immunity status instead of vaccination status? If someone has the right antibodies to fight COVID, does it matter how these were obtained? Because humans love any opportunity to discriminate against another group of people. Despite this discrimination making zero sense, since clearly us vaccinated people are still spreading COVID at very high rates.
  - alphabettsy 5y ago
    This seems like a reasonable approach and it’s been talked about. Is there anything stopping individual states from issuing such certification?
  - dzhiurgis 5y ago
    1. To err on safe side - better have 2 immunities than 1 (esp when it's self reported) 2. Unity - we're in this together and I'm sorry if you live in a place where communities are disconnected
    - peteradio 5y ago
      We're in this together sounds a lot more like "You're in this with me."
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    I can present to you a very good reason not to use immunity status. Every idiot and their brother was discussing how they had already had it when statistically this was absolutely impossible. Everyone who had the sniffles from late 2019! to current is absolutely sure they have had it because it would be more convenient to be immune than not. It would be impossible to give antibody tests to 60M antivaxxers in any reasonable time frame. Instead of asking people to wait in line a year for a test that has very little medical use the politically expedient thing would be to ask for the equivalent of a doctors note saying they pinky swear their patient had covid. Some states/some doctors would fire up the presses and within a month 95% of the antivaxxers there would have a certificate regardless of actual status. Since vaccination is actually in everyone's interests even if they have already had covid this would lead to less people being vaccinated and it would be against even the anti vaxxers interests and furthermore locations that only allow vaccinated or tested people would now be equally full of infectious people as vulnerable people with a newly false sense of security.
    - 908B64B197 5y ago
      > Some states/some doctors would fire up the presses and within a month 95% of the antivaxxers there would have a certificate regardless of actual status. Then test them and fire the doctors who deciced to lie.
- vannevar 5y ago
  I have natural immunity too. Got it by being vaccinated, instead of taking the much larger risk of being infected. Aside from the higher risk from the disease, there's the risk of infecting others. An infected person can infect others before symptoms appear, so having everyone with low risk get infected creates the possibility of infecting others of high risk, which of course defeats the whole purpose of the immunization effort.
  - PathOfEclipse 5y ago
    Nope. That's vaccine immunity. Let's get our terms right. Also, you can infect others presymptomatically with the vaccine. With omicron, it looks like asymptomatic transmission also occurs. Don't worry. I've researched this. You're not the first person in this world to try to make others feel guilty for not getting the vaccine. The problem is you don't have a ton of science backing your guilt trip.
    - vannevar 5y ago
      - spurgu 5y ago
        Vaccine-induced immunity is against the particular spike protein of the first Covid variant. The protection offered by natural immunity is broader than that.
      - PathOfEclipse 5y ago
        You are arguing like a child who thinks she can define words to mean whatever she wants them to. But in reality, words are meant to communicate mutually agreed-upon ideas, and in our reality, these phrases have specific definitions: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/immunity-types.htm https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/immunity-types.htm That I have to spell this out suggests you are either lying to yourself or being disingenous. And the same applies to your argument about trying to make me feel "silly" but not "guilty". And your other arguments. They all seem to stem from self-deceit or insincerity, and suggest that I am wasting my time trying to communicate ideas with you.
- berryton 5y ago
  Just to make sure that no one reads this and believe in that "Great Barrington" claim, the numbers (as of today) are: Total Signatures 920,477 Medical & Public Health Scientists 15,707 Medical practitioners 46,412 The rest fall under "concerned citizens" category.
- enkid 5y ago
  The Great Barrington Declaration is complete garbage, and does not have a million scientists' signatures. Even if you go by the self-proclaimed numbers, slightly under a million "concerned citizens" signed it and 15,000 public health scientists signed it. The next question then is how they verified those 15,000 were scientists and the answer is they didn't. You checked a box when you signed it. So at best, they have 15000 people who would claim that they are scientist. Oh, btw, you didn't have to put your real name to sign it, so you have individuals with clearly fake names claiming to be scientists signing this thing and there still were only 15,000 signatures. Nope, do not base public health decisions on this dumpster fire of a petition.
  - PathOfEclipse 5y ago
    If your only critique is that some of the signatures are fake, then you haven't exactly disproved the declaration as much as hurled insults at it. That's usually what people do when they don't have facts on their side.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      When a large part of the argument for the position was that it was the reasoned words of qualified experts the fact that it is a complete lie full of signatures of imaginary people is even more destructive than one might imagine to its credibility because honest positions aren't normally advanced by lies. If I produced a position that advanced the idea that water makes things wet and it was signed by Roger Rabbit and Porky Pig you wouldn't give it serious thought and assume that it pushing some untruth or other because generally the truth doesn't walk in clothed in a lie. Positions unworthy of consideration don't need to be debunked because they have proven their lack of worth on their face. If you believe the ideas contained therein are worthy you ought to strip them of their association to obvious liars and present them bare to the world lest they be casually dismissed.
      - PathOfEclipse 5y ago
        I considered the great barrington declaration first and foremost based on its ideas, not based on its signatories. Similarly, I would take seriously the claim water is wet because it's actually true. I've also spent a good deal of time listening to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the co-creators of the declaration. I would that he had Dr. Fauci's job. Actually, he would probably be miserable because the job is about politics far more than it is about science.
- thebruce87m 5y ago
  Do you include Prof Cominic Dummings and Dr Johnny Bananas in your numbers? [1] [1] https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/09/herd-immunity-letter-signed-fake-experts-dr-johnny-bananas-covid https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/09/herd-immunity-...
  - logic_beats_pro 5y ago
    Attempting to refute the entire petition based on a few fake signatures is a similar argument used against the VAERS database. "Hey it doesn't matter if there's 20,000 deaths, I found this one fake report! The entire system is thus suspicious and should be disregarded" Luckily people see right through this weak argument.
    - thebruce87m 5y ago
      OP thinks the claims hold more weight due to the number of signatures otherwise they wouldn’t have mentioned the numbers. Therefore it is perfectly valid to point out that the people on the list were not properly verified. Not sure what your point about VAERS is.
orblivion 5y ago
There are layers to this. 1) "I'm going to protect myself with natural immunity" with no other context is a stupid statement for the reasons given in the comic. It does feel like people do make this proclamation, but it's likely that they're just leaving relevant context out, and that they're actually in one of the below categories. 2) "I'm not afraid of getting sick myself, so I'm willing to do so early and protect people later" makes a little bit of sense, except that in reality such people (my bias; I could be wrong) tend to infect themselves in an uncontrolled manner that fails to protect others anyway. (I would support a version of the Great Barrington Declaration that was fully controlled, where all infections were consensual. I actually had a run-in with Jeffrey Tucker about this at a libertarian event.) 3) "Tried as I did to avoid it, I got infected anyway. But at least I should be good to go at this point." This makes sense (pending scientific review). The cost to self and others is already paid. 4) "I would not be afraid of getting sick so long as I had an early treatment plan" also makes sense in principle. It's an alternative to vaccination. Also pending scientific review; I have no idea who's right here.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  4 is an absolutely terrible alternative to vaccination. It's like saying if the boat sinks I'm going to either swim or put on a life vest. 2 prior to vaccination was absolutely horrible nonsense. There was an expectation relatively early that we would have a vaccine within a few years and that it was absolutely possible to hold out and have only a fraction of the population would have to get it pre vaccine. If you hold position 2 the only logical way to proceed would be to take protective measures prior to vaccination, vaccinate, then get infected. This is still suboptimal because the more the infections are spread out the lower the burden on the system for those who do get sick. The reason you don't see fully fleshed out though processes beyond I'm going to get sick and get it over with is that if they really thought it all the way through they would drop the entire position.
  - orblivion 5y ago
    > 4 is an absolutely terrible alternative to vaccination. It's like saying if the boat sinks I'm going to either swim or put on a life vest. I don't dismiss it prima facie like you do here. On one hand you probably have small but non-zero damage from the vaccines (putting aside the controversy of supposed significant damage). On the other, you supposedly have the ability to keep damage from the disease to also small (but non-zero) by early treatment. Plus, you get immunity to more proteins in the end. At least some studies out there indicate that infection-based immunity is stronger and/or longer lasting than vaccine-based. But again, the reality of the situation may very well be as you imply. I just want to steelman their argument. I'm also rather skeptical of their claims about mitigating damage with early treatment, but maybe. > 2 prior to vaccination was absolutely horrible nonsense. I have mixed agreement here. As it pertains to careless massive spread of the thing, I'm with you. As it pertains to individual choices, I really think it's a value judgment. Do you want to live life hidden away for this unknown period of time, the government apparently moving the goal posts over and over, etc etc? Or would you rather just take a risk in life like you always do, albeit a bit larger one than usual? Or maybe you're close to the end of life anyway, and you're willing to risk dying to see your grandkids one last time? etc etc. I've always had zero judgment toward people who make this choice in as much as it affects only them. I was close to taking this route myself (in a controlled manner) winter 2020-2021 if the vaccines didn't come out. (On the other hand, I've had a lot of judgment toward people in as much as they affect others. It's been a tough couple years for me as a libertarian.) > If you hold position 2 the only logical way to proceed would be to take protective measures prior to vaccination, vaccinate, then get infected. This is more or less me, other than pulling back during hospital surges.
Ourgon 5y ago
Hm, I'd have expected a better response under the 'xkcd' moniker, something more... logical. Something like... Say, I think I'll O o --- take my chances /|\/|\ with this cough /\ /\ --------------------- But why would you risk O o --- being infected? You'll /|\/|\ feel miserable! /\ /\ --------------------- I'd rather feel miserable O o --- only once instead of /|\/|\ three-four times. /\ /\
anotherevan 5y ago
This would have to be my favourite xkcd regarding COVID. https://xkcd.com/2300/ https://xkcd.com/2300/

The comic was pretty unfunny and ignorant. For most people, COVID never was a major threat, and getting infected and getting immunity was always a valid approach. Read the great Barrington declaration, signed by over 10,000 scientists and thoroughly attacked by people like Dr. Fauci without any science backing the attack. Also read all the studies on the matter, which almost universally conclude those with natural immunity fare better against re-infection than those with vaccine immunity alone. Speaking as an unvaccinated with natural immunity, along with all my immediate family and friends in the same boat. Edit: adjusted signature numbers for Barrington declaration.

908B64B197 5y ago
> which almost universally conclude those with natural immunity fare better against re-infection than those with vaccine immunity alone Almost as if the immune system... worked as intended. Shocking. This begs the question, why not simply use immunity status instead of vaccination status? If someone has the right antibodies to fight COVID, does it matter how these were obtained?
- PathOfEclipse 5y ago
  Other countries, notably Israel do allow it. Their scientific establishment is apparently a lot smarter than the one in the U.S. Or maybe less corrupt? We can only guess at the motivation behind apparent incompetence of these agencies, often referred to as "conspiracy theorizing".
- Karsteski 5y ago
  > This begs the question, why not simply use immunity status instead of vaccination status? If someone has the right antibodies to fight COVID, does it matter how these were obtained? Because humans love any opportunity to discriminate against another group of people. Despite this discrimination making zero sense, since clearly us vaccinated people are still spreading COVID at very high rates.
- alphabettsy 5y ago
  This seems like a reasonable approach and it’s been talked about. Is there anything stopping individual states from issuing such certification?
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  1. To err on safe side - better have 2 immunities than 1 (esp when it's self reported) 2. Unity - we're in this together and I'm sorry if you live in a place where communities are disconnected
  - peteradio 5y ago
    We're in this together sounds a lot more like "You're in this with me."
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  I can present to you a very good reason not to use immunity status. Every idiot and their brother was discussing how they had already had it when statistically this was absolutely impossible. Everyone who had the sniffles from late 2019! to current is absolutely sure they have had it because it would be more convenient to be immune than not. It would be impossible to give antibody tests to 60M antivaxxers in any reasonable time frame. Instead of asking people to wait in line a year for a test that has very little medical use the politically expedient thing would be to ask for the equivalent of a doctors note saying they pinky swear their patient had covid. Some states/some doctors would fire up the presses and within a month 95% of the antivaxxers there would have a certificate regardless of actual status. Since vaccination is actually in everyone's interests even if they have already had covid this would lead to less people being vaccinated and it would be against even the anti vaxxers interests and furthermore locations that only allow vaccinated or tested people would now be equally full of infectious people as vulnerable people with a newly false sense of security.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > Some states/some doctors would fire up the presses and within a month 95% of the antivaxxers there would have a certificate regardless of actual status. Then test them and fire the doctors who deciced to lie.
vannevar 5y ago
I have natural immunity too. Got it by being vaccinated, instead of taking the much larger risk of being infected. Aside from the higher risk from the disease, there's the risk of infecting others. An infected person can infect others before symptoms appear, so having everyone with low risk get infected creates the possibility of infecting others of high risk, which of course defeats the whole purpose of the immunization effort.
- PathOfEclipse 5y ago
  Nope. That's vaccine immunity. Let's get our terms right. Also, you can infect others presymptomatically with the vaccine. With omicron, it looks like asymptomatic transmission also occurs. Don't worry. I've researched this. You're not the first person in this world to try to make others feel guilty for not getting the vaccine. The problem is you don't have a ton of science backing your guilt trip.
  - vannevar 5y ago
    - spurgu 5y ago
      Vaccine-induced immunity is against the particular spike protein of the first Covid variant. The protection offered by natural immunity is broader than that.
    - PathOfEclipse 5y ago
      You are arguing like a child who thinks she can define words to mean whatever she wants them to. But in reality, words are meant to communicate mutually agreed-upon ideas, and in our reality, these phrases have specific definitions: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/immunity-types.htm https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/immunity-types.htm That I have to spell this out suggests you are either lying to yourself or being disingenous. And the same applies to your argument about trying to make me feel "silly" but not "guilty". And your other arguments. They all seem to stem from self-deceit or insincerity, and suggest that I am wasting my time trying to communicate ideas with you.
berryton 5y ago
Just to make sure that no one reads this and believe in that "Great Barrington" claim, the numbers (as of today) are: Total Signatures 920,477 Medical & Public Health Scientists 15,707 Medical practitioners 46,412 The rest fall under "concerned citizens" category.
enkid 5y ago
The Great Barrington Declaration is complete garbage, and does not have a million scientists' signatures. Even if you go by the self-proclaimed numbers, slightly under a million "concerned citizens" signed it and 15,000 public health scientists signed it. The next question then is how they verified those 15,000 were scientists and the answer is they didn't. You checked a box when you signed it. So at best, they have 15000 people who would claim that they are scientist. Oh, btw, you didn't have to put your real name to sign it, so you have individuals with clearly fake names claiming to be scientists signing this thing and there still were only 15,000 signatures. Nope, do not base public health decisions on this dumpster fire of a petition.
- PathOfEclipse 5y ago
  If your only critique is that some of the signatures are fake, then you haven't exactly disproved the declaration as much as hurled insults at it. That's usually what people do when they don't have facts on their side.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    When a large part of the argument for the position was that it was the reasoned words of qualified experts the fact that it is a complete lie full of signatures of imaginary people is even more destructive than one might imagine to its credibility because honest positions aren't normally advanced by lies. If I produced a position that advanced the idea that water makes things wet and it was signed by Roger Rabbit and Porky Pig you wouldn't give it serious thought and assume that it pushing some untruth or other because generally the truth doesn't walk in clothed in a lie. Positions unworthy of consideration don't need to be debunked because they have proven their lack of worth on their face. If you believe the ideas contained therein are worthy you ought to strip them of their association to obvious liars and present them bare to the world lest they be casually dismissed.
    - PathOfEclipse 5y ago
      I considered the great barrington declaration first and foremost based on its ideas, not based on its signatories. Similarly, I would take seriously the claim water is wet because it's actually true. I've also spent a good deal of time listening to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the co-creators of the declaration. I would that he had Dr. Fauci's job. Actually, he would probably be miserable because the job is about politics far more than it is about science.
thebruce87m 5y ago
Do you include Prof Cominic Dummings and Dr Johnny Bananas in your numbers? [1] [1] https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/09/herd-immunity-letter-signed-fake-experts-dr-johnny-bananas-covid https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/09/herd-immunity-...
- logic_beats_pro 5y ago
  Attempting to refute the entire petition based on a few fake signatures is a similar argument used against the VAERS database. "Hey it doesn't matter if there's 20,000 deaths, I found this one fake report! The entire system is thus suspicious and should be disregarded" Luckily people see right through this weak argument.
  - thebruce87m 5y ago
    OP thinks the claims hold more weight due to the number of signatures otherwise they wouldn’t have mentioned the numbers. Therefore it is perfectly valid to point out that the people on the list were not properly verified. Not sure what your point about VAERS is.

orblivion 5y ago

There are layers to this. 1) "I'm going to protect myself with natural immunity" with no other context is a stupid statement for the reasons given in the comic. It does feel like people do make this proclamation, but it's likely that they're just leaving relevant context out, and that they're actually in one of the below categories. 2) "I'm not afraid of getting sick myself, so I'm willing to do so early and protect people later" makes a little bit of sense, except that in reality such people (my bias; I could be wrong) tend to infect themselves in an uncontrolled manner that fails to protect others anyway. (I would support a version of the Great Barrington Declaration that was fully controlled, where all infections were consensual. I actually had a run-in with Jeffrey Tucker about this at a libertarian event.) 3) "Tried as I did to avoid it, I got infected anyway. But at least I should be good to go at this point." This makes sense (pending scientific review). The cost to self and others is already paid. 4) "I would not be afraid of getting sick so long as I had an early treatment plan" also makes sense in principle. It's an alternative to vaccination. Also pending scientific review; I have no idea who's right here.

michaelmrose 5y ago
4 is an absolutely terrible alternative to vaccination. It's like saying if the boat sinks I'm going to either swim or put on a life vest. 2 prior to vaccination was absolutely horrible nonsense. There was an expectation relatively early that we would have a vaccine within a few years and that it was absolutely possible to hold out and have only a fraction of the population would have to get it pre vaccine. If you hold position 2 the only logical way to proceed would be to take protective measures prior to vaccination, vaccinate, then get infected. This is still suboptimal because the more the infections are spread out the lower the burden on the system for those who do get sick. The reason you don't see fully fleshed out though processes beyond I'm going to get sick and get it over with is that if they really thought it all the way through they would drop the entire position.
- orblivion 5y ago
  > 4 is an absolutely terrible alternative to vaccination. It's like saying if the boat sinks I'm going to either swim or put on a life vest. I don't dismiss it prima facie like you do here. On one hand you probably have small but non-zero damage from the vaccines (putting aside the controversy of supposed significant damage). On the other, you supposedly have the ability to keep damage from the disease to also small (but non-zero) by early treatment. Plus, you get immunity to more proteins in the end. At least some studies out there indicate that infection-based immunity is stronger and/or longer lasting than vaccine-based. But again, the reality of the situation may very well be as you imply. I just want to steelman their argument. I'm also rather skeptical of their claims about mitigating damage with early treatment, but maybe. > 2 prior to vaccination was absolutely horrible nonsense. I have mixed agreement here. As it pertains to careless massive spread of the thing, I'm with you. As it pertains to individual choices, I really think it's a value judgment. Do you want to live life hidden away for this unknown period of time, the government apparently moving the goal posts over and over, etc etc? Or would you rather just take a risk in life like you always do, albeit a bit larger one than usual? Or maybe you're close to the end of life anyway, and you're willing to risk dying to see your grandkids one last time? etc etc. I've always had zero judgment toward people who make this choice in as much as it affects only them. I was close to taking this route myself (in a controlled manner) winter 2020-2021 if the vaccines didn't come out. (On the other hand, I've had a lot of judgment toward people in as much as they affect others. It's been a tough couple years for me as a libertarian.) > If you hold position 2 the only logical way to proceed would be to take protective measures prior to vaccination, vaccinate, then get infected. This is more or less me, other than pulling back during hospital surges.

Ourgon 5y ago

Hm, I'd have expected a better response under the 'xkcd' moniker, something more... logical. Something like... Say, I think I'll O o --- take my chances /|\/|\ with this cough /\ /\ --------------------- But why would you risk O o --- being infected? You'll /|\/|\ feel miserable! /\ /\ --------------------- I'd rather feel miserable O o --- only once instead of /|\/|\ three-four times. /\ /\

anotherevan 5y ago

This would have to be my favourite xkcd regarding COVID. https://xkcd.com/2300/ https://xkcd.com/2300/