They’ll be forcing you to get a booster with an RTX 3000 bundle soon.
Premium social media service access code(and flair sets) available with vaccine.
Better account visibility, tools and community access.
They’ll be forcing you to get a booster with an RTX 3000 bundle soon.
You have a better chance of being struck by lightning than having a severe side effect from any vaccine and you know it. Don't try and pretend I am ignorant of the astronomical possibilities of taking any kind of medication. Billions of different medications are consumed everyday on this rock. Almost all of which have a tiny tiny chance to give you some kind of bad side effect. Yet society still keeps trucking along just fine. A booster shot is not going to be any different or somehow more dangerous than the vaccine let alone any of the other stuff we shove into our bodies on a daily basis.*sigh*
That's not even my position, but they've certainly killed and maimed some relatively small number of people. According to you, though, the worst it can do is "nothing."
I saw that. It's been all over the news here. Typical hypocritical grifter like the rest of the people pushing anti-vax and anti-mask nonsense. Asshole says schools can't enforce masks, but if you look at the requirements to visit the governor's mansion one of the things listed is that masks are "strongly recommended".Damn, the Texas gov already had three vaccine shots and yet got the advanced authorization approved $50k or whatever Regneron treatment cost it is even though he didn't have any symptoms, all on the public dime, while preaching anti-science shit that was getting his voters killed. He's like Iago on steroids.
I saw that. It's been all over the news here. Typical hypocritical grifter like the rest of the people pushing anti-vax and anti-mask nonsense. Asshole says schools can't enforce masks, but if you look at the requirements to visit the governor's mansion one of the things listed is that masks are "strongly recommended".
Grifters. The lot of them.
Yep. Definitely not hypocritical at all. No sir.I don't see how outlawing government mandates makes him a hypocrite for having recommendations but ultimately leaving the decision up to the individual.
Yep. Definitely not hypocritical at all. No sir.
![]()
If you actually believe that masks were optional then I have a bridge to sell you.It's not, because the consistency lies in the leaving it up to individual choice. You can recommend something without requiring it.
And I implore you to read the whole post because I addressed all of your points, even agreeing with you that the math wasn't as congruent as it could have been.I implore you to stop with the novel-sized replies and get to the point.
It is not reasonable when he is comparing it to the general population statistic that looks only at long COVID cases as a percentage of total COVID cases, not the entire population. He's using a different method of calculation for the study group to get a much more appealingly low percentage.
And I implore you to read the whole post because I addressed all of your points, even agreeing with you that the math wasn't as congruent as it could have been.
Nevertheless, Campbell was asked a question - Are the chances of getting long haul COVID lessened with the vaccine, and he answered yes, with a supporting dataset to justify that opinion.
Do you think this is always the case? That there can never be a time when this concept can be referenced in a completely benign way? I'm sure there are many cases where ill-informed people ironically reference this, but that doesn't mean it always happens. This is an actual documented phenomenon. Just because it's possible someone's using it wrong, doesn't mean it's always going to happen. luckily, there's a way to determine which is which.Whenever it is used, there is an implication of inferiority (of intelligence frequently) being placed upon others - those who are not yourself. Of course the irony being that the very invoking of this concept could cause you belong to the very phenomenon for which you are categorizing others. It's, "You're stupid/incapable because you think you're smart, therefore I am smart." which of course can spin right back around.
Humans have been wrong about many a thing, yes. We might be wrong about stuff in the present too. Does that mean we can never be maximally certain about a given thing? No. There's methods of investigation and verification we can use, and those methods have only gotten stronger with the passage of time.I think we're all better off when we can listen to others who we may (strongly) disagree with, without an assumption that they are just lacking the same intelligence we believe ourselves to possess. Sometimes we're all wrong. Heck, humanity has *collectively* believed many erroneous things throughout history. Who's to say what we've got wrong in the present? We're better when we treat each other with respect, despite a sometimes great gulf in perspective.
I think this is true when it comes to opinions, but someone can definitely not have the required knowledge of the concepts they are using.This is not a comment on this covid discussion or you personally, so please take that into account.
I've always found it fascinating when anyone references this concept. Whenever it is used, there is an implication of inferiority (of intelligence frequently) being placed upon others - those who are not yourself. Of course the irony being that the very invoking of this concept could cause you belong to the very phenomenon for which you are categorizing others. It's, "You're stupid/incapable because you think you're smart, therefore I am smart." which of course can spin right back around.
I think we're all better off when we can listen to others who we may (strongly) disagree with, without an assumption that they are just lacking the same intelligence we believe ourselves to possess. Sometimes we're all wrong. Heck, humanity has *collectively* believed many erroneous things throughout history. Who's to say what we've got wrong in the present? We're better when we treat each other with respect, despite a sometimes great gulf in perspective.
He presented the argument within the context of that study, fully acknowledging the gaps in data. He didn't necessarily say more than what the paper showed - that out of 1,497 positive vaccinated people, 7 got long COVID.I can't comprehend your defense of how he presented that argument. It was wildly disingenuous. He tried to make it look like the vaccine had a protective effect against developing long COVID on top of any efficacy it has to prevent infection outright when the data actually shows that, if infected, the chances of developing long-term symptoms appears to be just about the same at 19%.
In the video, he literally said that your chances of getting Long COVID go from around 10 ~ 20% all the way down to about 0.4% if you're vaccinated, but that's pure rubbish and full of faulty assumptions, namely 1) that only 2.6% of fully vaccinated people will ever catch COVID and 2) that every single unvaccinated person will catch COVID.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that more than 114 million Americans had been infected with Covid-19 through March 2021. Factoring in new infections in unvaccinated people, we can conservatively expect more than 15 million cases of long Covid resulting from this pandemic.
According to the trials, this shouldn't be a worry https://www.healthline.com/health-n...nt-matter-whether-you-had-side-effects-or-nothonestly I'd be a little concerned if it failed to produce any kind of immune response
The essence of my point is that we (humans, generally speaking) often find ourselves in a position where we are *convinced* and that certainty can create blind spots. It's difficult to shift perspectives or see things from different angles if you already know that you "know". And that same certainty in our position(s) most surely often damages any potential for meaningful dialogue because of how we view others. Arrogance/superiority (no fingers pointed at you or anyone specific) rarely, if ever, benefits anyone. We're, all of us - intelligence, finances, career, life circumstances aside - looking to live the best lives we can, and of course we are all incorrect at times, but we're better off as a collective when we treat one another with respect, even if we're "certain" that we're dealing with "fools".Do you think this is always the case? That there can never be a time when this concept can be referenced in a completely benign way? I'm sure there are many cases where ill-informed people ironically reference this, but that doesn't mean it always happens. This is an actual documented phenomenon. Just because it's possible someone's using it wrong, doesn't mean it's always going to happen. luckily, there's a way to determine which is which.
Humans have been wrong about many a thing, yes. We might be wrong about stuff in the present too. Does that mean we can never be maximally certain about a given thing? No. There's methods of investigation and verification we can use, and those methods have only gotten stronger with the passage of time.
Ben Shapiro once famously said, "Facts don't care about your feelings". That's actually a good way to get a sense of where the truth lies. Who is basing their opinion on empirical evidence and who is basing their opinion on instinct and feelings?
Sorry for the confusion on this one. I meant "affects the unvaccinated at a higher rate than previous variants," not that the vaccinated were being affected at a higher rate than the unvaccinated.
If you think that the vaccines are not particularly good at preventing delta infection, I don't know where you're getting that from or from what data you're basing that conclusion on. As time goes on, perhaps the situation will change. However, in the here and now, the data overwhelmingly shows a protective effect against delta infection.
That data from countries other than the United States that I've already shared multiple times in this thread. In the face of those data, the reports coming out of the United States are beyond incredulous, especially when so many seem to go out of their way to use data going all the way back to December or January to get their desired number, not to mention how our CDC changed their tracking methodology of breakthrough cases back in May, which really muddied the waters.
It's fine. Surely the US will catch up on this point as well, just like they did on the idea that the vaccinated don't transmit the disease.
Vaccines are the only way out of this pandemic, without suffering a huge death toll. Not quite sure why so many people are determined not to believe this.
Because they clearly are not blocking infection very well in the real world. It's really quite simple. Just look at Israel's daily cases, which are twice what they were at this time last year.
Unless you just mean reducing the death rate among higher risk individuals as the way out, because they definitely appear to be quite effective in that regard.
I got the essence of your point. The only specific areas of your post that I wanted to pushback on wereThe essence of my point is that we (humans, generally speaking) often find ourselves in a position where we are *convinced* and that certainty can create blind spots. It's difficult to shift perspectives or see things from different angles if you already know that you "know". And that same certainty in our position(s) most surely often damages any potential for meaningful dialogue because of how we view others. Arrogance/superiority (no fingers pointed at you or anyone specific) rarely, if ever, benefits anyone. We're, all of us - intelligence, finances, career, life circumstances aside - looking to live the best lives we can, and of course we are all incorrect at times, but we're better off as a collective when we treat one another with respect, even if we're "certain" that we're dealing with "fools".
It’s starting to look like it , Israel is imposing almost all measures again , ( they are well vaccinated) the rest of the world is lagging 3 - 4 months behind and we are going into fall, which is basically the start of virus season..Does that mean you no longer think that the vaccines aren't particularly good at preventing delta infection?
It is not accurate that "they clearly are not blocking infection very well in the real world".
Yes, cases are rising in Israel, but it's not because the vaccines aren't good at preventing infection.It’s starting to look like it , Israel is imposing almost all measures again , ( they are well vaccinated) the rest of the world is lagging 3 - 4 months behind and we are going into fall, which is basically the start of virus season..
Does that mean you no longer think that the vaccines aren't particularly good at preventing delta infection?
No they aren't good at preventing delta infection but they were better at blocking original COVID, or No they are good at preventing delta infection but they were better blocking original COVID?No, but they were better at blocking the Alpha variant and original wild incarnation. Or it's just a function of time and waning efficacy, I'm not sure.
1. No of course not. If we are to accept the idea of positions being "correct" then someone can be "right".I got the essence of your point. The only specific areas of your post that I wanted to pushback on were
1. That the reference of that effect is always a tell that the invoker is also suffering from the same thing. He/she could be, but not necessarily.
2. That the reference of that effect is a sign of disrespect. It could be used disrespectfully, but it also could be used accurately. This isn't on the same level as Godwin's Law.
No they aren't good at preventing delta infection but they were better at blocking original COVID, or No they are good at preventing delta infection but they were better blocking original COVID?
It's still a little unclear.
Not a chance.Need to be vaccinated to run for office or vote next?
They are not good at protecting infection against Delta and their effectiveness declines over time. It's unclear how good they would have been against Alpha or the original after the same amount of time elapsed.
This is now the official position of the American CDC, by the way.
"Vaccine induced protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection begins to decrease over time." "Vaccine effectiveness is generally decreased against the Delta variant." "Vaccine effectiveness against severe disease, hospitalization, and death, remains relatively high." (language toned down dramatically in that one)
What level of effectiveness is considered good in your opinion?
“Vaccinated people do not carry the virus — they don’t get sick,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday. That’s “not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real-world data.”
The error was in the framing by the director. There was no error I'm pushing for or continuing to push for vaccination. The same article includes the actual data and push back from scientists and the CDC itself on the blanket statement.For me, personally, it would have to be very high (probably in the realm of the original Pfizer estimates) to even consider getting the shot given my risk profile. I think if other people want to get the vaccine even with this new information, they should be welcome to do so, but requiring it to participate in society after all of this? Madness.
Let me just remind everyone that this was only 4 months ago. This was common knowledge throughout April and May.
To me, this just highlights the extreme importance of long-term trials especially before any talk of requirements or mandates *ever* enters the conversation.
I'm willing to forgive for the mistakes and the errors of judgment given this was an emergent situation, but we need to pump the goddamn brakes in light of those errors rather than just closing our eyes and plugging our ears to reality before slamming the pedal to the metal and blasting full speed ahead with all of these insane and desperate policies.
No. What they said wasn’t an issue of framing. They said vaccinated people don’t get sick. Don’t carry the virus. That statement has proven to be false. That is just the fact of the matter. They completely spoke out of turn. Either they didn’t have enough data to make that statement or they were lying to push vaccination. Either way, what they said merely 4 months ago has turned out to be false.The error was in the framing by the director. There was no error I'm pushing for or continuing to push for vaccination. The same article includes the actual data and push back from scientists and the CDC itself on the blanket statement.
Science messaging often falls foul of either giving the complete picture and confusing people or giving a broad strokes overview that over or under states the case.
No. What they said wasn’t an issue of framing. They said vaccinated people don’t get sick. Don’t carry the virus. That statement has proven to be false. That is just the fact of the matter. They completely spoke out of turn. Either they didn’t have enough data to make that statement or they were lying to push vaccination. Either way, what they said merely 4 months ago has turned out to be false.
For these people, it’s always been about the who.And yet the statement that vaccination is unequivocally and unanimously a better chance for ones health remains the case with even more and more evidence piling on. At one point does it become not about who said what, but what the data is clearly showing?
The CDC had the data that said that vaccinated people can get sick and can carry the virus, but at much lower rates, and they presented as such. She as the guest on a show said the wrong thing as she grossly oversimplified the analysis. Given the target audience maybe she was justified /s. This wasn't an official statement, wasn't a press release etc it was just a dumb simplification in an interview, one that was effectively retracted immediately. This did not guide policy, so I fail to see how it is anything of significance.No. What they said wasn’t an issue of framing. They said vaccinated people don’t get sick. Don’t carry the virus. That statement has proven to be false. That is just the fact of the matter. They completely spoke out of turn. Either they didn’t have enough data to make that statement or they were lying to push vaccination. Either way, what they said merely 4 months ago has turned out to be false.
I could say the same about ivermectin and therapeutic usage. Something John Campbell actually agrees with, FWIWAnd yet the statement that vaccination is unequivocally and unanimously a better chance for ones health remains the case with even more and more evidence piling on. At one point does it become not about who said what, but what the data is clearly showing?
The CDC had the data that said that vaccinated people can get sick and can carry the virus, but at much lower rates, and they presented as such. She as the guest on a show said the wrong thing as she grossly oversimplified the analysis. Given the target audience maybe she was justified /s. This wasn't an official statement, wasn't a press release etc it was just a dumb simplification in an interview, one that was effectively retracted immediately. This did not guide policy, so I fail to see how it is anything of significance.
Did not spread the virus as much, not did not spread it at all. That guidance was sound and is still pretty much sound - unless you are one of the people who thinks that the only acceptable policy is one with zero risk. Are you actually arguing for universal masking?IT DID NOT GUIDE POLICY?! Am I taking crazy pills?!
Did you just totally memory hole the fact that the CDC put out official guidance (in May, was it?) that the vaccinated no longer have to wear masks indoors precisely because they do not spread the virus?
It was not a case of poor messaging. This was their stance. Their policy. Their official messaging that propagated through the media and online discussion. It was commonly accepted knowledge until just a little while ago. It was not even a month ago that most of America was shocked to learn that the fully vaccinated could and did get infected by Delta and spread it to others.
Jesus. You people are desperate to have an argument with yourselves at this point. I didn’t say vaccination wasn’t beneficial. Follow along slowly. The CDC director said, unambiguously, that vaccinated people do not get sick, do not carry the virus. What she said had proven to be false literally a few months later.And yet the statement that vaccination is unequivocally and unanimously a better chance for ones health remains the case with even more and more evidence piling on. At one point does it become not about who said what, but what the data is clearly showing?
As with most things for the screechers, all the Nazi accusations were just projection.I’m just shocked how many people are ok with the authoritarian shit going on in, this is bigger than a damn vaccine and it will be too late and will bite each and everyone one of us in the ass.
Where is the aclu and other groups??? Where are the people yelling fascism and nazis about every little thing??