9 ms·

He did travel, to Poland and Hungary. The AP originally had an article claiming no travel, but later updated it. Vincent Racaniello covers this and other detai

• qbasic_forever 4y ago
  He didn't travel in the last 30 days I read, and the incubation time is shorter than that. I.e. he caught it after coming home. Vincent has been a very bad source of information for the COVID pandemic. He has famously been against vaccine boosters, and even declared he didn't think he needed one. Even now as the need for second boosters is clear (and the need for first boosters completely justified and verified) he still says they aren't necessary. This is on top of him downplaying every variant like Omicron and saying they wouldn't be a problem (and then they went on to be huge problems). He should not be platformed IMHO.
  • encryptluks2 4y ago
  • chrisco255 4y ago
    [flagged]
    • jeromegv 4y ago
      The vaccine is vastly effective to prevent hospital stays and death by a very high margin. Yes, it is true, it does not prevent spread, as we thought it might. But it prevents the worse outcome of it, which is a big win.
      • mwint 4y ago
        Please confirm: this means the people saying the vaccine should be a strictly personal decision were correct?
        • blamestross 4y ago
          One judges decisions based on available information. All the then available information indicated that mass vaccination was the best means of reducing transmission, especially because such large portions of the population were unwilling (or unable) to lock down to prevent spread. Even then, it still has been shown to prevent spread, just not as effectively as hoped. From a public health perspective mass vaccination was definitely the right approach.
          • mwint 4y ago
            Certainly one cannot judge a decision by its outcome, but we can perhaps learn something if the skeptics we were banning from social media ended up being correct. Whether they were following proper reasoning or not, if they were right it’d be good to take a step back and figure out if anything in the “proper reasoning” system needs adjusted.
            • blamestross 4y ago
              That I agree with. A lot of bad assumptions were revealed, but not the ones I think you are alluding to. - If the market and the government disagree on the value of human lives, the market wins. (Basically the government should just consign more people to die, especially vulnerable populations to avoid drama) - A nontrivial portion of the population reacts to government intervention with spiteful noncompliance (we need to be using a softer and more coercive hand than 'authority says X is the best plan') - If we have to fall back on socialized medicine whenever there is a crisis, maybe we should just do it all the time. - There will be more pandemics, more often, until the forces permitting them change. As somebody who immunocompromised, this pandemic taught me exactly how little my life is valued by my civilization and government.
      • kelnos 4y ago
        If you're less likely to get COVID if you are vaccinated (which seems to be the case; at least in my city, two-thirds of the case rate is coming from unvaccinated people), then it absolutely does reduce spread. Not "prevent", but that was never a realistic outcome.
      • claytongulick 4y ago
        There's a lot of nuance here. In what population? With what comorbiditities? What are the other associated risks? Based on that I've seen, in certain populations the risks of vaccination are close to, or outweigh the risks posed by covid infection. This is why medical decisions are personal and should be made in consultation with a doctor.
    • ajkjk 4y ago
      There is plenty of data to establish exactly what the vaccine does, and how effective it is (very), so we don't have to guess or infer from weird anecdotes.
  • claytongulick 4y ago
    Based on your opinions, I don't think you should be platformed. Kind of stinks when it's used against you, doesn't it? The solution to bad ideas is more ideas, not "deplatforming" or whatever mealy-mouthed word is currently being used to make censorship marketable these days.
    • pstuart 4y ago
      So would you consider @dang to be some mealy-mouthed censor when he admonishes and possibly removes content here that goes against community guidelines?
      • ls15 4y ago
        That fully depends on the content of the guidelines.
        • pstuart 4y ago
          https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html My question is simple: is there any speech that should not be tolerated here? Yes, or no?
          • teakettle42 4y ago
            Manner restrictions are different than content restrictions. There’s speech that doesn’t fit the community’s guidelines in terms of the manner it is expressed, but I don’t believe there are any ideas that should not be tolerated here.
            • Fargoan 4y ago
              Hitler did nothing wrong. Do you still stand by your statement? Should that idea be tolerated on this forum?
              • 4y ago