13 ms·

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 approac

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.

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.