5 ms·

If you have an interest in making your point, I suggest to reference trusted sources one can read through so people on the fence can educate themself. Blaming

by sod 3y ago

If you have an interest in making your point, I suggest to reference trusted sources one can read through so people on the fence can educate themself. Blaming and labelling has the opposite effect though.

ceejayoz 3y ago
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/covid-shots-previous-infection-may-cut-risk-spread-prisons https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/covid-shots-previous-inf... > Unvaccinated, infected inmates had an estimated 36% risk of spreading the virus, compared with 28% among infected vaccinees. After adjustment, any vaccination, previous infection alone, and both vaccination and previous infection cut the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by 22%, 23%, and 40%, respectively. > Booster doses and more recent vaccination further lowered infectiousness among vaccinated inmates, with each dose conferring an 11% risk reduction; the risk of transmission rose 6% for every 5 weeks that had elapsed since the last shot.
- dalore 3y ago
  I don't know about you, 8% sounds a rounding error and probably within the error margins. It certainly wasn't enough to open the country en-mass like the OP believes. And now we have the opposite situation with those who have had the most boosters and now more likely to catch the new variant that is out.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > I don't know about you, 8% sounds a rounding error and probably within the error margins. It is not. The study is available for you to review if you like. > And now we have the opposite situation with those who have had the most boosters and now more likely to catch the new variant that is out. I’d like to see that study. Cite, please.
    - Workaccount2 3y ago
      >I’d like to see that study. Cite, please. Sure: www.NewEarthTimes.com/publications/VaccinesKill/New-vaccine-makes-more-infections.html /this is a joke
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      > 8% sounds a rounding error and probably within the error margins. It is not. Erm yes it is ... from the study: > In adjusted analyses, we estimated that any vaccination ... reduced an index case’s risk of transmitting infection by 22% (6–36%) CI is much wider than 8pp and the estimated absolute transmission risk CIs actually overlap at 31%. So the study results are consistent with there being no actual difference, also. If this is the best evidence of a difference in transmission it's not very good. Also this is Omicron which hardly matters. The justification was the earlier variants.
  - empath-nirvana 3y ago
    This is a classic example of the way conspiracy theorists shift goal posts and demand more and more evidence, while waving away any evidence provided. It's _boring_ to engage with people like you. You have no idea what you're talking about, and demand that people who _do_ know what they're talking about give you an education that you don't actually want. You're just _performing_, you aren't having a genuine conversation with people.
- shrubble 3y ago
  Out of 111,000 inmates, 31 were hospitalized and none died. Is there a small city with equivalent population where approximately the same numbers held?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    I very much doubt there's a small city with total gender segregation, people living in large buildings they're not permitted to leave, and single-source universal healthcare. (That's what makes it such a good observational study population; a whole bunch of variables are controlled away by default.)
aredox 3y ago
Why should I do it, to "do your own research" types like you? Do your own research.
zo1 3y ago
[flagged]
- noarchy 3y ago
  >I'm one of those people "on the fence". Versus >I can tell you now that honestly a good study won't convince me to trust the prevailing narrative. You're not on the fence.
  - zo1 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Ensorceled 3y ago
      [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ggm 3y ago
  You may want to avoid casting all questions through this lens. Some people seek to leverage this sense of loss of trust to promote other arguments, in politics and the economy. I appreciate that loss of trust is real, happens fast, and takes longer to recover. Recovery itself demands some acceptance that not all evidence is unequivocal, or comprehensible.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
nicman23 3y ago
the fact that antivaxers never source data but instead require normal sane people to do so will never not make me laugh
- stefantalpalaru 3y ago
  [dead]
Lutger 3y ago
Respectfully, I believe you are in the wrong here. Covid and climate science denial can be strengthened by having a 'discussion'. This is because conspiracy thinking is actually immune to evidence. The denialist will subvert your evidence in a way that it proves the conspiracy. In here they will probably complain that 'correlation is not causation' or some other methodology 101 trope, whereas the audience will think "oh, yeah, this is complicated, smart people are debating it, I guess the jury is still out and we don't know for certain if climate change is real or not, and the vaccines are not a silver bullet either, lets just wait until the debate is over'. But, in fact, the debate is over. So no, in this case the onus is one the person attacking a vast body of scientific literature proving beyond reasonable doubt that vaccines are effective to come up with something supporting those wild claims. It is not up to me to provide a literature list that nobody will ever read anyway, and anyone who is even remotely interested in finding the truth can google such a list in 5 min.
- kuerbel 3y ago
  Thank you for your post. And I mean it. I've fallen into this trap so often myself, because nothing grinds my gears as conspiracy theorists do. I think next time I'll stop before I answer, think of your post and maybe copypaste it.
- sod 3y ago
  All I did was asking for information. After all, science is about studies and data, not about opinion. It would just be nice to get a finger pointing in a direction, not the middlefinger.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    At this point, anyone still "asking for information" knows full well where to find it. It's not March 2020 any more. "Actual data from US prisons" took me about 20 seconds to find a reputable source for (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37736396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37736396), likely less time than your comment asking for it took to type.
    - 3y ago

by sod 3y ago

ceejayoz 3y ago

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/covid-shots-previous-infection-may-cut-risk-spread-prisons https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/covid-shots-previous-inf... > Unvaccinated, infected inmates had an estimated 36% risk of spreading the virus, compared with 28% among infected vaccinees. After adjustment, any vaccination, previous infection alone, and both vaccination and previous infection cut the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by 22%, 23%, and 40%, respectively. > Booster doses and more recent vaccination further lowered infectiousness among vaccinated inmates, with each dose conferring an 11% risk reduction; the risk of transmission rose 6% for every 5 weeks that had elapsed since the last shot.

dalore 3y ago
I don't know about you, 8% sounds a rounding error and probably within the error margins. It certainly wasn't enough to open the country en-mass like the OP believes. And now we have the opposite situation with those who have had the most boosters and now more likely to catch the new variant that is out.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > I don't know about you, 8% sounds a rounding error and probably within the error margins. It is not. The study is available for you to review if you like. > And now we have the opposite situation with those who have had the most boosters and now more likely to catch the new variant that is out. I’d like to see that study. Cite, please.
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    >I’d like to see that study. Cite, please. Sure: www.NewEarthTimes.com/publications/VaccinesKill/New-vaccine-makes-more-infections.html /this is a joke
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    > 8% sounds a rounding error and probably within the error margins. It is not. Erm yes it is ... from the study: > In adjusted analyses, we estimated that any vaccination ... reduced an index case’s risk of transmitting infection by 22% (6–36%) CI is much wider than 8pp and the estimated absolute transmission risk CIs actually overlap at 31%. So the study results are consistent with there being no actual difference, also. If this is the best evidence of a difference in transmission it's not very good. Also this is Omicron which hardly matters. The justification was the earlier variants.
- empath-nirvana 3y ago
  This is a classic example of the way conspiracy theorists shift goal posts and demand more and more evidence, while waving away any evidence provided. It's _boring_ to engage with people like you. You have no idea what you're talking about, and demand that people who _do_ know what they're talking about give you an education that you don't actually want. You're just _performing_, you aren't having a genuine conversation with people.
shrubble 3y ago
Out of 111,000 inmates, 31 were hospitalized and none died. Is there a small city with equivalent population where approximately the same numbers held?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  I very much doubt there's a small city with total gender segregation, people living in large buildings they're not permitted to leave, and single-source universal healthcare. (That's what makes it such a good observational study population; a whole bunch of variables are controlled away by default.)

aredox 3y ago

Why should I do it, to "do your own research" types like you? Do your own research.

zo1 3y ago

[flagged]

noarchy 3y ago
>I'm one of those people "on the fence". Versus >I can tell you now that honestly a good study won't convince me to trust the prevailing narrative. You're not on the fence.
- zo1 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Ensorceled 3y ago
    [flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ggm 3y ago
You may want to avoid casting all questions through this lens. Some people seek to leverage this sense of loss of trust to promote other arguments, in politics and the economy. I appreciate that loss of trust is real, happens fast, and takes longer to recover. Recovery itself demands some acceptance that not all evidence is unequivocal, or comprehensible.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

nicman23 3y ago

the fact that antivaxers never source data but instead require normal sane people to do so will never not make me laugh

stefantalpalaru 3y ago
[dead]

Lutger 3y ago

Respectfully, I believe you are in the wrong here. Covid and climate science denial can be strengthened by having a 'discussion'. This is because conspiracy thinking is actually immune to evidence. The denialist will subvert your evidence in a way that it proves the conspiracy. In here they will probably complain that 'correlation is not causation' or some other methodology 101 trope, whereas the audience will think "oh, yeah, this is complicated, smart people are debating it, I guess the jury is still out and we don't know for certain if climate change is real or not, and the vaccines are not a silver bullet either, lets just wait until the debate is over'. But, in fact, the debate is over. So no, in this case the onus is one the person attacking a vast body of scientific literature proving beyond reasonable doubt that vaccines are effective to come up with something supporting those wild claims. It is not up to me to provide a literature list that nobody will ever read anyway, and anyone who is even remotely interested in finding the truth can google such a list in 5 min.

kuerbel 3y ago
Thank you for your post. And I mean it. I've fallen into this trap so often myself, because nothing grinds my gears as conspiracy theorists do. I think next time I'll stop before I answer, think of your post and maybe copypaste it.
sod 3y ago
All I did was asking for information. After all, science is about studies and data, not about opinion. It would just be nice to get a finger pointing in a direction, not the middlefinger.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  At this point, anyone still "asking for information" knows full well where to find it. It's not March 2020 any more. "Actual data from US prisons" took me about 20 seconds to find a reputable source for (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37736396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37736396), likely less time than your comment asking for it took to type.
  - 3y ago