6 ms·

Actually yes, sometimes an outsider opinion can be the correct one... that is the very essence of scientific enquiry - to ask questions. Who am I? Some rando o

Actually yes, sometimes an outsider opinion can be the correct one... that is the very essence of scientific enquiry - to ask questions. Who am I? Some rando on the Internet, but I correctly assessed that the vaccines wouldn't prevent transmission, carried a non-zero risk of side effects - sometimes extremely serious, that natural immunity would provide far greater protection, that vaccination was unnecessary for children and younger adults, that there would no benefit to lock downs, and that masks were pointless. We have been proven correct about every single one of these things, and every health official who promoted these ideas has been proven completely incorrect

ben_w 4y ago
> We have been proven correct about every single one of these things No, you haven't. > natural immunity would provide far greater protection false > vaccines wouldn't prevent transmission, carried a non-zero risk of side effects "Prevent" and "non-zero" are weasel words, that sentence as written is true of literally every treatment and prophylactic in existence forever. But it does reduce the risk of transmission even in the case of prisoners sharing a cell. And the risks of side effects are much, much lower than the risks of those effects from the actual illness. > that there would no benefit to lock downs, and that masks were pointless. False on both counts. Lockdowns were there to reduce the secondary consequences from running out of capacity. Several places ran out of capacity to handle the dead, let alone the living. I still don't understand how we were able to get short of medical oxygen, but that happened in some places too. Masks likewise, reduce the transmission rate. Not eliminate, reduce. That's not pointless. > that vaccination was unnecessary for children and younger adults, Weasel phrasing, "unnecessary" can mean anything. But, I will try to interpret generously as possible: Sure, lots of kids and young adults won't die, they'll only get sick for a few weeks, with unknown long term damage.
- mrphoebs 4y ago
  While I agree with the points you are making and think they are important, they could have been made just as effectively without resorting to an Ad hominem format. Though the quality of civil discourse on HN has degraded over the years, HN is still the one of the places I expect to live upto a higher standard. (I'm sorry to any readers that this comment is not adding anything materially useful to the wider discussion)
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Noted. I'm not sure how to make the same points without saying that some of the statements were weasel words, but if you could suggest a different way to make the same points, I'd appreciate it. (Apart from anything else, I know that raising the other party's heart rate is a terrible way to change their minds).
    - mrphoebs 4y ago
      I think you were half way there taking charitable view on one of the arguments, I think taking a charitable view on the commenter's perspective/intent would have gotten you all the way. With that adjustment, I think you can go from "weasel words" to "Your perspective might be flawed..." Apologies, if this comes off as patronising.
      - ben_w 4y ago
        > Apologies, if this comes off as patronising. Thanks for checking; don't worry, it wasn't.
- realjhol 4y ago
  >> natural immunity would provide far greater protection > false True: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965 > vaccines wouldn't prevent transmission, The vaccines were never tested to prevent transmission: https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2022/10/12/pfizer-vaccine-not-tested-for-transmission-due-to-speed-of-science/ https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2022/10/12/pfizer-vaccine-not-tes... -- and indeed they do not prevent transmission, or infection for that matter. Many many people, from Joe Biden to my own mother have been injected and boosted 5-times over, and still got a COVID infection. The vaccines simply don't work very well. > And the risks of side effects are much, much lower than the risks of those effects from the actual illness. You can't make a blanket statement about risk, especially when so little was know about the risk of side effects across the population. For people like us, and the large number of people who have had COVID, we know what the risk of a COVID infection is, and in our case - as with most other people who are in good health, and not extremely elderly, it's a very mild condition. On the other hand, health officials continue to deliberately downplay the significance of side effects, which we now know includes non-negligable risk of life threatening heart dissease and Bell's Palsey. > Lockdowns were there to reduce the secondary consequences from running out of capacity. That was the claim, certainly. But as we predicted, this never actually happened anywhere in the world - not even in places where people live in poverty, and healthcare is virtually non-existant. > Several places ran out of capacity to handle the dead, let alone the living. I still don't understand how we were able to get short of medical oxygen, but that happened in some places too. A lot of that stuff turneded out to be fabricated, but it spooked a lot of folks. Sweden never locked down, and their outcomes were better than most of the rest of Europe: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/comparingdifferentinternationalmeasuresofexcessmortality/2022-12-20 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde... > Masks likewise, reduce the transmission rate. Not eliminate, reduce. That's not pointless. They don't though. Scarecly anyone wore the kind of mask that could possibly make any difference. It was security theatre to calm the masses. All a cloth mask does is redirect your breathe out the sides. It doesn't filter anything. > Sure, lots of kids and young adults won't die, they'll only get sick for a few weeks, with unknown long term damage. My kids have never had any COVID symptoms at all since we were first infected March 2020. So in our case (and millions like us), it's actually not unknown. I wouldn't even know if they had had the disease a dozen times over already - I hope they have, because it help further fortify their natural immunity. Over and over the claims of the expert class have been proven wrong. They claimed to know things that they couldn't possibly have known, and continue to lie and deflect to this day.
moistly 4y ago
The risk from catching sars-cov-2 was/is way higher than the risk from vaccination. This is proven by the fact that some 13 billion doses have been administered with little harm, while some 700 million infections have caused 7 million deaths. You have drawn the wrong conclusions and made incorrect decisions based on your ineptitude. You are Dunning-Kruger instantiated.
realjhol 4y ago
Turns out that just winning an election doesn't help you enact a lasting win against the swamp, when 95% of the people qualified to serve in your cabinet are DC swamp creatures or are at least adjacent to the swamp

ben_w 4y ago

> We have been proven correct about every single one of these things No, you haven't. > natural immunity would provide far greater protection false > vaccines wouldn't prevent transmission, carried a non-zero risk of side effects "Prevent" and "non-zero" are weasel words, that sentence as written is true of literally every treatment and prophylactic in existence forever. But it does reduce the risk of transmission even in the case of prisoners sharing a cell. And the risks of side effects are much, much lower than the risks of those effects from the actual illness. > that there would no benefit to lock downs, and that masks were pointless. False on both counts. Lockdowns were there to reduce the secondary consequences from running out of capacity. Several places ran out of capacity to handle the dead, let alone the living. I still don't understand how we were able to get short of medical oxygen, but that happened in some places too. Masks likewise, reduce the transmission rate. Not eliminate, reduce. That's not pointless. > that vaccination was unnecessary for children and younger adults, Weasel phrasing, "unnecessary" can mean anything. But, I will try to interpret generously as possible: Sure, lots of kids and young adults won't die, they'll only get sick for a few weeks, with unknown long term damage.

mrphoebs 4y ago
While I agree with the points you are making and think they are important, they could have been made just as effectively without resorting to an Ad hominem format. Though the quality of civil discourse on HN has degraded over the years, HN is still the one of the places I expect to live upto a higher standard. (I'm sorry to any readers that this comment is not adding anything materially useful to the wider discussion)
- ben_w 4y ago
  Noted. I'm not sure how to make the same points without saying that some of the statements were weasel words, but if you could suggest a different way to make the same points, I'd appreciate it. (Apart from anything else, I know that raising the other party's heart rate is a terrible way to change their minds).
  - mrphoebs 4y ago
    I think you were half way there taking charitable view on one of the arguments, I think taking a charitable view on the commenter's perspective/intent would have gotten you all the way. With that adjustment, I think you can go from "weasel words" to "Your perspective might be flawed..." Apologies, if this comes off as patronising.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      > Apologies, if this comes off as patronising. Thanks for checking; don't worry, it wasn't.
realjhol 4y ago
>> natural immunity would provide far greater protection > false True: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965 > vaccines wouldn't prevent transmission, The vaccines were never tested to prevent transmission: https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2022/10/12/pfizer-vaccine-not-tested-for-transmission-due-to-speed-of-science/ https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2022/10/12/pfizer-vaccine-not-tes... -- and indeed they do not prevent transmission, or infection for that matter. Many many people, from Joe Biden to my own mother have been injected and boosted 5-times over, and still got a COVID infection. The vaccines simply don't work very well. > And the risks of side effects are much, much lower than the risks of those effects from the actual illness. You can't make a blanket statement about risk, especially when so little was know about the risk of side effects across the population. For people like us, and the large number of people who have had COVID, we know what the risk of a COVID infection is, and in our case - as with most other people who are in good health, and not extremely elderly, it's a very mild condition. On the other hand, health officials continue to deliberately downplay the significance of side effects, which we now know includes non-negligable risk of life threatening heart dissease and Bell's Palsey. > Lockdowns were there to reduce the secondary consequences from running out of capacity. That was the claim, certainly. But as we predicted, this never actually happened anywhere in the world - not even in places where people live in poverty, and healthcare is virtually non-existant. > Several places ran out of capacity to handle the dead, let alone the living. I still don't understand how we were able to get short of medical oxygen, but that happened in some places too. A lot of that stuff turneded out to be fabricated, but it spooked a lot of folks. Sweden never locked down, and their outcomes were better than most of the rest of Europe: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/comparingdifferentinternationalmeasuresofexcessmortality/2022-12-20 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde... > Masks likewise, reduce the transmission rate. Not eliminate, reduce. That's not pointless. They don't though. Scarecly anyone wore the kind of mask that could possibly make any difference. It was security theatre to calm the masses. All a cloth mask does is redirect your breathe out the sides. It doesn't filter anything. > Sure, lots of kids and young adults won't die, they'll only get sick for a few weeks, with unknown long term damage. My kids have never had any COVID symptoms at all since we were first infected March 2020. So in our case (and millions like us), it's actually not unknown. I wouldn't even know if they had had the disease a dozen times over already - I hope they have, because it help further fortify their natural immunity. Over and over the claims of the expert class have been proven wrong. They claimed to know things that they couldn't possibly have known, and continue to lie and deflect to this day.

moistly 4y ago

The risk from catching sars-cov-2 was/is way higher than the risk from vaccination. This is proven by the fact that some 13 billion doses have been administered with little harm, while some 700 million infections have caused 7 million deaths. You have drawn the wrong conclusions and made incorrect decisions based on your ineptitude. You are Dunning-Kruger instantiated.

realjhol 4y ago

Turns out that just winning an election doesn't help you enact a lasting win against the swamp, when 95% of the people qualified to serve in your cabinet are DC swamp creatures or are at least adjacent to the swamp