|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On October 16 2021 13:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2021 09:53 NewSunshine wrote:On October 16 2021 07:13 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 20:10 Salazarz wrote:On October 15 2021 18:41 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 09:15 WombaT wrote:On October 15 2021 08:01 BlackJack wrote:On October 14 2021 20:10 WombaT wrote:On October 14 2021 12:16 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 21:19 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]People keep posting those 'ridiculous scenario's' because that is what happens outside in the real world.
You think the people stupid enough to take horse dewormer aren't capable of thinking "hey, natural immunity is good I'll just get some covid victims to cough in my face"?
Let scientists do their science but keep that shit away from the general public because 'we' can't be trusted to handle it and its no use to us anyway. Back to mistrust/misinformation - I'm more concerned that there are reasonable people that are saying we shouldn't say things even if they are objectively true because the horse paste eaters might take it the wrong way. Especially when the "horse dewormer eating" thing was a narrative that was heavily trumped up by the media. For example: The NYTimes article that reported Mississippi poison control was inundated with calls about people taking ivermectin/horse dewormer, with 70% of their calls being related to ivermectin. The rest of the mainstream media from MSNBC to Huffpost and everyone in between repeated the story. Well weeks later the NYT came out with a correction that it wasn't 70%, it was actually 2% of calls. Not exactly what I would call inundated. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/fNGrSje.png) Or the Rolling Stone article of the Oklahoma doctor that claimed gunshot victims were waiting for beds because the hospital was full of people overdosing on Ivermectin. Again, widely reposted by every media outlet, also found to be complete bullshit. Or the MSM casually reporting that Joe Rogan was taking horse dewormer medicine to treat his COVID even though he was taking ivermectin for human consumption prescribed by a doctor. I'm far more concerned when misinformation comes from the MSM and even reasonable and educated people buy into it. Natural immunity is clearly a pretty crucial part of any wider pandemic mitigation strategy and needs investigated. Knowing its potency will also assuage the fears of those who have been infected and have been unable to access vaccination. It’s something that can be relatively soberly discussed within a thread like this, as something that’s a neutral bit of information and how to address it. I think the last 8 pages of this thread has plenty of evidence that this is not true. But the reason I think this is a way bigger concern is because, in my opinion, this is primarily what drives people to the rabbit holes of anti-vaccine misinformation. Joe Rogan has millions and millions of followers. When it's obvious that CNN is lying about him taking a livestock medication his followers think "well it's clear they are pushing a narrative and can't be trusted." It's giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists. But that alone is not even the most concerning part. The part I find most concerning is that due to the hysteria around COVID and concerns about misinformation, people are becoming more and more convinced that the government should step in to restrict false info online even if it means limiting freedom of information. One poll showed that support of this idea went from 40% to 65% among one group in just the last few years. This is 10x scarier than anything I have heard about COVID. A small group of people that are stupid enough to eat horse paste is not much of a threat. The fact that the MSM can convince lots of people that the horse paste eaters are so numerous that they are taking up all the hospital beds and making gunshot victims wait is very scary when you realize it leads to people thinking the government should censor/control information. Why is that scary? When has it ever been a good thing when a government could determine what the truth was and control the flow of information to the masses? I think historically there are enough examples to say this is overwhelmingly more bad than good. I think it's a mistake to think you would want anyone to determine what is true/false for you. It's a much bigger mistake if that anyone is the government. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas. While I'm not necessarily a fan of government control over 'what truth is', I also find the 'historical examples' a rather poor argument in general. 500 years ago, just about everyone in the West was convinced that the only reasonable form of government is hereditary monarchy and look where we are now; not to mention that modern issues with 'truth' and 'free speech' that stem from internet and social media simply weren't relevant at all in the past. It's like saying government control over what's a reasonable way to package your produce or how much pollution you emit is unnecessary, because you know, in the past we didn't need that. We don't even need historical examples. We have plenty of examples just during this pandemic that shows the government and/or public health experts are willing to lie to us to suit their agenda. Here's a good article that summarizes some of the lies we were told: https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.htmlMy favorite is probably Fauci admitting he moved the goalposts on "herd immunity" based on public opinion polls. When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85. Even as recent as yesterday multiple people in this thread were still believing in this pipe dream of herd immunity. Don't worry guys, we're so close! Just a few more vaccines and it's right around the corner. I'm sure you're not still being lied to. Even experts in a field will happily tell you they ultimately know very little about what they do, because it's true. Only once you start really understanding something do you also begin to understand how much you don't know. So I guess, it's not that even experts will admit they don't know, it's especially experts. You're reading some kind of nefarious agenda into someone basically saying they didn't know what was going to happen in an unprecedented pandemic. It's like we're all mortal in the end, or something. But sure, the big pro-vaccine lobby is out to get you. Did you read that quote? Not sure how you got "saying they didn't know what was going to happen." He didn't say he didn't know what number we needed for herd immunity. He said he purposefully made up a new number to shift the goal posts because he thought it could get more people vaccinated. The only confusing part is why he would even say that publicly. He could have just kept that to himself and people would have assumed the shifting numbers were from changing variables. The only explanation I can think of is that he really needs people to know how cunning and clever he is and how well he can manipulate the public.
This is a fundamental problem. Science can be uncertain and new research can prove old research wrong. The problem is, you have to be very careful about communicating that uncertainty to the public if you want them to change their behavior. I don't think we still know what % is needed for herd immunity.
Pseudo science and fixed opinions on the other hand are self affirming and unchangeable, bringing clarity to the confusion.
The best would probably be if we could take in all new info without being emotionally invested in what we already think we know.
|
Northern Ireland27066 Posts
On October 16 2021 13:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2021 09:53 NewSunshine wrote:On October 16 2021 07:13 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 20:10 Salazarz wrote:On October 15 2021 18:41 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 09:15 WombaT wrote:On October 15 2021 08:01 BlackJack wrote:On October 14 2021 20:10 WombaT wrote:On October 14 2021 12:16 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 21:19 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]People keep posting those 'ridiculous scenario's' because that is what happens outside in the real world.
You think the people stupid enough to take horse dewormer aren't capable of thinking "hey, natural immunity is good I'll just get some covid victims to cough in my face"?
Let scientists do their science but keep that shit away from the general public because 'we' can't be trusted to handle it and its no use to us anyway. Back to mistrust/misinformation - I'm more concerned that there are reasonable people that are saying we shouldn't say things even if they are objectively true because the horse paste eaters might take it the wrong way. Especially when the "horse dewormer eating" thing was a narrative that was heavily trumped up by the media. For example: The NYTimes article that reported Mississippi poison control was inundated with calls about people taking ivermectin/horse dewormer, with 70% of their calls being related to ivermectin. The rest of the mainstream media from MSNBC to Huffpost and everyone in between repeated the story. Well weeks later the NYT came out with a correction that it wasn't 70%, it was actually 2% of calls. Not exactly what I would call inundated. Or the Rolling Stone article of the Oklahoma doctor that claimed gunshot victims were waiting for beds because the hospital was full of people overdosing on Ivermectin. Again, widely reposted by every media outlet, also found to be complete bullshit. Or the MSM casually reporting that Joe Rogan was taking horse dewormer medicine to treat his COVID even though he was taking ivermectin for human consumption prescribed by a doctor. I'm far more concerned when misinformation comes from the MSM and even reasonable and educated people buy into it. Natural immunity is clearly a pretty crucial part of any wider pandemic mitigation strategy and needs investigated. Knowing its potency will also assuage the fears of those who have been infected and have been unable to access vaccination. It’s something that can be relatively soberly discussed within a thread like this, as something that’s a neutral bit of information and how to address it. I think the last 8 pages of this thread has plenty of evidence that this is not true. But the reason I think this is a way bigger concern is because, in my opinion, this is primarily what drives people to the rabbit holes of anti-vaccine misinformation. Joe Rogan has millions and millions of followers. When it's obvious that CNN is lying about him taking a livestock medication his followers think "well it's clear they are pushing a narrative and can't be trusted." It's giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists. But that alone is not even the most concerning part. The part I find most concerning is that due to the hysteria around COVID and concerns about misinformation, people are becoming more and more convinced that the government should step in to restrict false info online even if it means limiting freedom of information. One poll showed that support of this idea went from 40% to 65% among one group in just the last few years. This is 10x scarier than anything I have heard about COVID. A small group of people that are stupid enough to eat horse paste is not much of a threat. The fact that the MSM can convince lots of people that the horse paste eaters are so numerous that they are taking up all the hospital beds and making gunshot victims wait is very scary when you realize it leads to people thinking the government should censor/control information. Why is that scary? When has it ever been a good thing when a government could determine what the truth was and control the flow of information to the masses? I think historically there are enough examples to say this is overwhelmingly more bad than good. I think it's a mistake to think you would want anyone to determine what is true/false for you. It's a much bigger mistake if that anyone is the government. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas. While I'm not necessarily a fan of government control over 'what truth is', I also find the 'historical examples' a rather poor argument in general. 500 years ago, just about everyone in the West was convinced that the only reasonable form of government is hereditary monarchy and look where we are now; not to mention that modern issues with 'truth' and 'free speech' that stem from internet and social media simply weren't relevant at all in the past. It's like saying government control over what's a reasonable way to package your produce or how much pollution you emit is unnecessary, because you know, in the past we didn't need that. We don't even need historical examples. We have plenty of examples just during this pandemic that shows the government and/or public health experts are willing to lie to us to suit their agenda. Here's a good article that summarizes some of the lies we were told: https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.htmlMy favorite is probably Fauci admitting he moved the goalposts on "herd immunity" based on public opinion polls. When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85. Even as recent as yesterday multiple people in this thread were still believing in this pipe dream of herd immunity. Don't worry guys, we're so close! Just a few more vaccines and it's right around the corner. I'm sure you're not still being lied to. Even experts in a field will happily tell you they ultimately know very little about what they do, because it's true. Only once you start really understanding something do you also begin to understand how much you don't know. So I guess, it's not that even experts will admit they don't know, it's especially experts. You're reading some kind of nefarious agenda into someone basically saying they didn't know what was going to happen in an unprecedented pandemic. It's like we're all mortal in the end, or something. But sure, the big pro-vaccine lobby is out to get you. Did you read that quote? Not sure how you got "saying they didn't know what was going to happen." He didn't say he didn't know what number we needed for herd immunity. He said he purposefully made up a new number to shift the goal posts because he thought it could get more people vaccinated. The only confusing part is why he would even say that publicly. He could have just kept that to himself and people would have assumed the shifting numbers were from changing variables. The only explanation I can think of is that he really needs people to know how cunning and clever he is and how well he can manipulate the public.
It was a new one on me.
Like yourself I’m not really sure why he wouldn’t just say something like ‘we were making progress upping the vaccination rates and we wanted to err on the side of caution with herd immunity estimates’.
How he said it is just fodder for the Covid skeptic crowd.
|
No one is perfect. Fauci made a mistake, and I'm sure he's made a number of other mistakes in his profession, just like everyone else does. He should still be considered reputable on the majority of pandemic related issues.
The conclusion that truth must be upheld and that Fauci should be wiser moving forward is correct. The conclusion that scientists who work for the government are suspect and/or should not be trusted is incorrect.
All scientists' work and speech that is meaningfully related to their profession must always face scrutiny. But there's justified scrutiny (as in the case of Fauci's misleading statements), and then there's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
To say that these statements are linked to the fact that Fauci has an advisory role for the US government is absurd. There are plenty of examples of working scientists whose work is not associated with any governments while having some record of spreading smaller or bigger falsehoods. Hell, even Einstein made mistakes. And he doubled down on some of them. Does that destroy his credibility?
Can we stop pretending that an expected number of human misjudgements is immediately indicative of a larger systemic problem?
|
In terms of additional precautions / wiggle room, during our pandemic, I'm fine with overestimating the percentage for herd immunity and/or asking for more people to get vaccinated than is technically necessary to reach the baseline for herd immunity; I'd rather have way more vaccinated than too few vaccinated, and I'd imagine it's hard to know the exact percent needed for herd immunity anyway. Better safe than sorry. In practice, once we hit an "official" herd immunity percentage, a lot of unvaccinated people are going to feel justified in never getting the vaccine, since the community already hit their goal, and that's a justification that we want to discourage.
This reminds me of something similar I had read: that 3 feet of social distancing is probably just fine, even though we've been trying to have 6 feet of social distancing. Having a few extra feet of social distancing only makes things safer for everyone involved, and people aren't going to be carrying around a ruler anyway, so their idea of 6 feet might really end up being 5 or 4 or 3 feet.
|
This reminds me of something similar I had read: that 3 feet of social distancing is probably just fine, even though we've been trying to have 6 feet of social distancing. Having a few extra feet of social distancing only makes things safer for everyone involved, and people aren't going to be carrying around a ruler anyway, so their idea of 6 feet might really end up being 5 or 4 or 3 feet.
This falls apart once applied to real people in the real world. Here in Spain, 6 feed AND masks were the rule, but anyone having tried to have a conversation like that knows it is almost impossible with just the slightest background noise. The distance typically ended up being the cultural normal 1-2 feet once masks were obliged.
Proper research on distancing is very hard to do because of said rulers and other factors. What distance people usually have in the culture could be much more impactful than what they are asked to do. It could be better to ask for 3 feet and have people actually respect it than asking for 6 and nobody giving a sh**.
|
Yes, rules have to be consistent and reasonable. Otherwise the rule-makers loses all trust and credibility.
A friend was slightly pissed some weeks ago when his workplace (public service) first barred anyone not fully vaxxed to go into office by a certain date. So my friend quickly rushed to get vaccinated at a walk in centre (he had been waiting patiently for an appointment). Then his workplace changed the rule slightly to say everyone who had been jabbed (even once) has to come in office no matter what by that date. My friend was like "WTF? I have to come in even without a second dose?" He's healthy but more worried about infecting others. But of course, he's pissed that his workplace just want be able to say "All our workers are jabbed and back at work, hooray!" Even if some still haven't completed the full cycle. And apparently the workplace has been reporting the same rate of infections before and after (thankfully, still rather low, for now).
|
Northern Ireland27066 Posts
On October 16 2021 20:02 Magic Powers wrote:
No one is perfect. Fauci made a mistake, and I'm sure he's made a number of other mistakes in his profession, just like everyone else does. He should still be considered reputable on the majority of pandemic related issues.
The conclusion that truth must be upheld and that Fauci should be wiser moving forward is correct. The conclusion that scientists who work for the government are suspect and/or should not be trusted is incorrect.
All scientists' work and speech that is meaningfully related to their profession must always face scrutiny. But there's justified scrutiny (as in the case of Fauci's misleading statements), and then there's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
To say that these statements are linked to the fact that Fauci has an advisory role for the US government is absurd. There are plenty of examples of working scientists whose work is not associated with any governments while having some record of spreading smaller or bigger falsehoods. Hell, even Einstein made mistakes. And he doubled down on some of them. Does that destroy his credibility?
Can we stop pretending that an expected number of human misjudgements is immediately indicative of a larger systemic problem?
I pretty much entirely agree for the record. I do find that particular statement I mentioned earlier rather baffling.
As people already use Fauci as simultaneously both seemingly the only point of reference on Covid policy, and as a rod to fuel (probably more accurately confirm) their Covid skepticism, it just feels a silly thing to say on the record.
The wider scientific community has done a pretty sterling job in collaborating and getting us to where we are here, from the base problem of even identifying pathology all the way through to multiple pretty effective vaccines in a bloody short space of time.
Having everyone, or indeed anyone being actually infallible in this area is a preposterous standard to hold anyone to.
|
On October 16 2021 20:02 Magic Powers wrote:
No one is perfect. Fauci made a mistake, and I'm sure he's made a number of other mistakes in his profession, just like everyone else does. He should still be considered reputable on the majority of pandemic related issues.
The conclusion that truth must be upheld and that Fauci should be wiser moving forward is correct. The conclusion that scientists who work for the government are suspect and/or should not be trusted is incorrect.
All scientists' work and speech that is meaningfully related to their profession must always face scrutiny. But there's justified scrutiny (as in the case of Fauci's misleading statements), and then there's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
To say that these statements are linked to the fact that Fauci has an advisory role for the US government is absurd. There are plenty of examples of working scientists whose work is not associated with any governments while having some record of spreading smaller or bigger falsehoods. Hell, even Einstein made mistakes. And he doubled down on some of them. Does that destroy his credibility?
Can we stop pretending that an expected number of human misjudgements is immediately indicative of a larger systemic problem?
He made a mistake even though he himself admitted he was lying? Or is admitting to lying the mistake?
Some more recent obvious lying from him about gain of function: www.youtube.com
|
On October 16 2021 20:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
In terms of additional precautions / wiggle room, during our pandemic, I'm fine with overestimating the percentage for herd immunity and/or asking for more people to get vaccinated than is technically necessary to reach the baseline for herd immunity; I'd rather have way more vaccinated than too few vaccinated, and I'd imagine it's hard to know the exact percent needed for herd immunity anyway. Better safe than sorry. In practice, once we hit an "official" herd immunity percentage, a lot of unvaccinated people are going to feel justified in never getting the vaccine, since the community already hit their goal, and that's a justification that we want to discourage.
This reminds me of something similar I had read: that 3 feet of social distancing is probably just fine, even though we've been trying to have 6 feet of social distancing. Having a few extra feet of social distancing only makes things safer for everyone involved, and people aren't going to be carrying around a ruler anyway, so their idea of 6 feet might really end up being 5 or 4 or 3 feet.
Aerosolized virus stays in the air for hours but youre worried about 3ft vs 6ft?
|
On October 16 2021 07:34 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2021 07:17 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2021 06:35 BlackJack wrote:On October 16 2021 06:18 Simberto wrote:On October 16 2021 05:57 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 21:10 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2021 14:14 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Some people want to be part of the solution and some people want to be part of the problem. Can't we just ship them to re-education camps? Or do you think all hope is lost. Maybe we can cordon off a section of Mohdoo Island to use for the camps until they are permitted to re-enter society. No I think stripping groups of people from jobs they clearly don't want and are incapable of competently preforming is something that capitalism loves to do. They can try and find some job they acomidates their desire to trust misinformation over not killing people. Have you ever talked to people? Almost everyone believes some kind of anti-science bullshit. Even smart people like Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of bullshit alternative medicine. If you think holding irrational opinions makes you incompetent to do your job, good luck at getting rid of 90%+ of the workforce. Not generally, but some irrational opinions do make you incompetent in some jobs. For example, if steve jobs believed that orgon crystals are really good for computing and pushed lots of apple research money into that direction, he would be bad at his job. Similarly, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine, that makes them a bad doctor, because they will try to prescribe those pointless placebo pills to people as if they actually help. If the doctor thinks that he is really good at rap battles when all evidence points to the contrary, that does not hinder his performance as a doctor. And if a judge doesn't believe in the law, that makes him bad at his job. If a judge believes that crystal healing is totally a real thing, that usually doesn't hinder him a lot. Lots of working class people irrationally believe that they know really well what would be the best course of action for a specific sports team. That doesn't hinder them in their job. But if a construction worker started to belief that he is immune to damage from falling rocks due to his superior skull structure and thus stop wearing hard hats, he would be out of a job pretty soon. Some irrational beliefs immediately impact your job, usually if those beliefs are linked to central stuff you do at your job. Other irrational beliefs only impact your private life, usually if those beliefs don't have anything to do with your job. No, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine it does not make him a bad doctor. If he tries to prescribe homeopathic medicine instead of real medicine then it does make him a bad doctor. If a teacher holds some stupid beliefs it does not make them a bad teacher. If they try to push those stupid beliefs onto their students then it does make them a bad teacher. Don't conflate acts of incompetence with thoughts of incompetence as an excuse to herald in the thought police. I think you defeated your own argument with this. By not vaccinating they're pushing their opinions about being pro covid on other people around them. People not believing in the vaccine in it of itself isn't the issue the problem is not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and other people around them. How is not getting vaccinated at all equal to pushing your opinion to not vaccinate on other people? Can you tell which people are vaccinated by just looking at them? Ironically you defeated your own argument by saying it's not about not believing in the vaccine it's about spreading COVID. In that case someone that works in a factory doing a job that could be done by a robot should also not be permitted to work if they don't get vaccinated. So it has literally nothing to do with job competency, don't you agree?
That's not how logic works.
Not beliving in the vaccine isn't the problem in it of itself that you are trying to frame it as. People don't have to believe in covid to die from covid or get the vaccine. People who believe in covid can also die from covid and refuse to get the vaccine.
People have a problem with people not getting the vaccine and justifying it with madness and stupidity. You can't tell someone who has had the vaccine or hasn't but they still effect the area around them with that choice. Them spreading their opinion on prefering the death of others over saving them is a material effect from their pro covid stance.
|
On October 17 2021 02:30 teeel141 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2021 20:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
In terms of additional precautions / wiggle room, during our pandemic, I'm fine with overestimating the percentage for herd immunity and/or asking for more people to get vaccinated than is technically necessary to reach the baseline for herd immunity; I'd rather have way more vaccinated than too few vaccinated, and I'd imagine it's hard to know the exact percent needed for herd immunity anyway. Better safe than sorry. In practice, once we hit an "official" herd immunity percentage, a lot of unvaccinated people are going to feel justified in never getting the vaccine, since the community already hit their goal, and that's a justification that we want to discourage.
This reminds me of something similar I had read: that 3 feet of social distancing is probably just fine, even though we've been trying to have 6 feet of social distancing. Having a few extra feet of social distancing only makes things safer for everyone involved, and people aren't going to be carrying around a ruler anyway, so their idea of 6 feet might really end up being 5 or 4 or 3 feet. Aerosolized virus stays in the air for hours but youre worried about 3ft vs 6ft?
I was simply just giving another example of how asking for more-than-the-bare-minimum is probably not a bad idea during a serious health crisis, especially since factoring in human errors and apathy and lying are legitimate practical concerns.
|
On October 17 2021 02:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2021 07:34 BlackJack wrote:On October 16 2021 07:17 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2021 06:35 BlackJack wrote:On October 16 2021 06:18 Simberto wrote:On October 16 2021 05:57 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 21:10 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2021 14:14 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Some people want to be part of the solution and some people want to be part of the problem. Can't we just ship them to re-education camps? Or do you think all hope is lost. Maybe we can cordon off a section of Mohdoo Island to use for the camps until they are permitted to re-enter society. No I think stripping groups of people from jobs they clearly don't want and are incapable of competently preforming is something that capitalism loves to do. They can try and find some job they acomidates their desire to trust misinformation over not killing people. Have you ever talked to people? Almost everyone believes some kind of anti-science bullshit. Even smart people like Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of bullshit alternative medicine. If you think holding irrational opinions makes you incompetent to do your job, good luck at getting rid of 90%+ of the workforce. Not generally, but some irrational opinions do make you incompetent in some jobs. For example, if steve jobs believed that orgon crystals are really good for computing and pushed lots of apple research money into that direction, he would be bad at his job. Similarly, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine, that makes them a bad doctor, because they will try to prescribe those pointless placebo pills to people as if they actually help. If the doctor thinks that he is really good at rap battles when all evidence points to the contrary, that does not hinder his performance as a doctor. And if a judge doesn't believe in the law, that makes him bad at his job. If a judge believes that crystal healing is totally a real thing, that usually doesn't hinder him a lot. Lots of working class people irrationally believe that they know really well what would be the best course of action for a specific sports team. That doesn't hinder them in their job. But if a construction worker started to belief that he is immune to damage from falling rocks due to his superior skull structure and thus stop wearing hard hats, he would be out of a job pretty soon. Some irrational beliefs immediately impact your job, usually if those beliefs are linked to central stuff you do at your job. Other irrational beliefs only impact your private life, usually if those beliefs don't have anything to do with your job. No, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine it does not make him a bad doctor. If he tries to prescribe homeopathic medicine instead of real medicine then it does make him a bad doctor. If a teacher holds some stupid beliefs it does not make them a bad teacher. If they try to push those stupid beliefs onto their students then it does make them a bad teacher. Don't conflate acts of incompetence with thoughts of incompetence as an excuse to herald in the thought police. I think you defeated your own argument with this. By not vaccinating they're pushing their opinions about being pro covid on other people around them. People not believing in the vaccine in it of itself isn't the issue the problem is not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and other people around them. How is not getting vaccinated at all equal to pushing your opinion to not vaccinate on other people? Can you tell which people are vaccinated by just looking at them? Ironically you defeated your own argument by saying it's not about not believing in the vaccine it's about spreading COVID. In that case someone that works in a factory doing a job that could be done by a robot should also not be permitted to work if they don't get vaccinated. So it has literally nothing to do with job competency, don't you agree? That's not how logic works. Not beliving in the vaccine isn't the problem in it of itself that you are trying to frame it as.
Are you sure it's me framing it that way and it's not in fact what you literally wrote to start this digression?
On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point.
Now you've shifted your argument away from it's not about whether you believe in the vaccine to it's about spreading COVID to other people while on the job. To which I replied that can apply to almost every job and has nothing to do with competence. Or at the very least, your definition of competence is very interesting if everyone that doesn't get vaccinated is incompetent at their job.
|
On October 17 2021 04:19 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2021 02:50 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2021 07:34 BlackJack wrote:On October 16 2021 07:17 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2021 06:35 BlackJack wrote:On October 16 2021 06:18 Simberto wrote:On October 16 2021 05:57 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 21:10 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2021 14:14 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Some people want to be part of the solution and some people want to be part of the problem. Can't we just ship them to re-education camps? Or do you think all hope is lost. Maybe we can cordon off a section of Mohdoo Island to use for the camps until they are permitted to re-enter society. No I think stripping groups of people from jobs they clearly don't want and are incapable of competently preforming is something that capitalism loves to do. They can try and find some job they acomidates their desire to trust misinformation over not killing people. Have you ever talked to people? Almost everyone believes some kind of anti-science bullshit. Even smart people like Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of bullshit alternative medicine. If you think holding irrational opinions makes you incompetent to do your job, good luck at getting rid of 90%+ of the workforce. Not generally, but some irrational opinions do make you incompetent in some jobs. For example, if steve jobs believed that orgon crystals are really good for computing and pushed lots of apple research money into that direction, he would be bad at his job. Similarly, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine, that makes them a bad doctor, because they will try to prescribe those pointless placebo pills to people as if they actually help. If the doctor thinks that he is really good at rap battles when all evidence points to the contrary, that does not hinder his performance as a doctor. And if a judge doesn't believe in the law, that makes him bad at his job. If a judge believes that crystal healing is totally a real thing, that usually doesn't hinder him a lot. Lots of working class people irrationally believe that they know really well what would be the best course of action for a specific sports team. That doesn't hinder them in their job. But if a construction worker started to belief that he is immune to damage from falling rocks due to his superior skull structure and thus stop wearing hard hats, he would be out of a job pretty soon. Some irrational beliefs immediately impact your job, usually if those beliefs are linked to central stuff you do at your job. Other irrational beliefs only impact your private life, usually if those beliefs don't have anything to do with your job. No, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine it does not make him a bad doctor. If he tries to prescribe homeopathic medicine instead of real medicine then it does make him a bad doctor. If a teacher holds some stupid beliefs it does not make them a bad teacher. If they try to push those stupid beliefs onto their students then it does make them a bad teacher. Don't conflate acts of incompetence with thoughts of incompetence as an excuse to herald in the thought police. I think you defeated your own argument with this. By not vaccinating they're pushing their opinions about being pro covid on other people around them. People not believing in the vaccine in it of itself isn't the issue the problem is not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and other people around them. How is not getting vaccinated at all equal to pushing your opinion to not vaccinate on other people? Can you tell which people are vaccinated by just looking at them? Ironically you defeated your own argument by saying it's not about not believing in the vaccine it's about spreading COVID. In that case someone that works in a factory doing a job that could be done by a robot should also not be permitted to work if they don't get vaccinated. So it has literally nothing to do with job competency, don't you agree? That's not how logic works. Not beliving in the vaccine isn't the problem in it of itself that you are trying to frame it as. Are you sure it's me framing it that way and it's not in fact what you literally wrote to start this digression? Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Now you've shifted your argument away from it's not about whether you believe in the vaccine to it's about spreading COVID to other people while on the job. To which I replied that can apply to almost every job and has nothing to do with competence. Or at the very least, your definition of competence is very interesting if everyone that doesn't get vaccinated is incompetent at their job.
I believe you were the one specifically shifting to "spreading COVID while on the job", and proceeded to jump to "what about some job where Joe Schmoe is by himself", which to put it lightly, is a leap. The point is that if someone is in a public-facing job whose nominal duty is to protect the public, encouraging those workers to ignore and defy all the evidence and medical science and put the public they serve in danger of a pandemic is a problem, and it counteracts what they're supposed to be doing for a living by endangering people needlessly. It doesn't matter what your political stance is, because the virus doesn't care. If your job is to protect people and you're behaving in protest of public health and safety then you're not doing your job.
You're the one who strawmanned the hell out of Sermokala's post. He was spot-on.
|
On October 17 2021 06:39 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2021 04:19 BlackJack wrote:On October 17 2021 02:50 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2021 07:34 BlackJack wrote:On October 16 2021 07:17 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2021 06:35 BlackJack wrote:On October 16 2021 06:18 Simberto wrote:On October 16 2021 05:57 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 21:10 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2021 14:14 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Can't we just ship them to re-education camps? Or do you think all hope is lost. Maybe we can cordon off a section of Mohdoo Island to use for the camps until they are permitted to re-enter society.
No I think stripping groups of people from jobs they clearly don't want and are incapable of competently preforming is something that capitalism loves to do. They can try and find some job they acomidates their desire to trust misinformation over not killing people. Have you ever talked to people? Almost everyone believes some kind of anti-science bullshit. Even smart people like Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of bullshit alternative medicine. If you think holding irrational opinions makes you incompetent to do your job, good luck at getting rid of 90%+ of the workforce. Not generally, but some irrational opinions do make you incompetent in some jobs. For example, if steve jobs believed that orgon crystals are really good for computing and pushed lots of apple research money into that direction, he would be bad at his job. Similarly, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine, that makes them a bad doctor, because they will try to prescribe those pointless placebo pills to people as if they actually help. If the doctor thinks that he is really good at rap battles when all evidence points to the contrary, that does not hinder his performance as a doctor. And if a judge doesn't believe in the law, that makes him bad at his job. If a judge believes that crystal healing is totally a real thing, that usually doesn't hinder him a lot. Lots of working class people irrationally believe that they know really well what would be the best course of action for a specific sports team. That doesn't hinder them in their job. But if a construction worker started to belief that he is immune to damage from falling rocks due to his superior skull structure and thus stop wearing hard hats, he would be out of a job pretty soon. Some irrational beliefs immediately impact your job, usually if those beliefs are linked to central stuff you do at your job. Other irrational beliefs only impact your private life, usually if those beliefs don't have anything to do with your job. No, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine it does not make him a bad doctor. If he tries to prescribe homeopathic medicine instead of real medicine then it does make him a bad doctor. If a teacher holds some stupid beliefs it does not make them a bad teacher. If they try to push those stupid beliefs onto their students then it does make them a bad teacher. Don't conflate acts of incompetence with thoughts of incompetence as an excuse to herald in the thought police. I think you defeated your own argument with this. By not vaccinating they're pushing their opinions about being pro covid on other people around them. People not believing in the vaccine in it of itself isn't the issue the problem is not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and other people around them. How is not getting vaccinated at all equal to pushing your opinion to not vaccinate on other people? Can you tell which people are vaccinated by just looking at them? Ironically you defeated your own argument by saying it's not about not believing in the vaccine it's about spreading COVID. In that case someone that works in a factory doing a job that could be done by a robot should also not be permitted to work if they don't get vaccinated. So it has literally nothing to do with job competency, don't you agree? That's not how logic works. Not beliving in the vaccine isn't the problem in it of itself that you are trying to frame it as. Are you sure it's me framing it that way and it's not in fact what you literally wrote to start this digression? On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Now you've shifted your argument away from it's not about whether you believe in the vaccine to it's about spreading COVID to other people while on the job. To which I replied that can apply to almost every job and has nothing to do with competence. Or at the very least, your definition of competence is very interesting if everyone that doesn't get vaccinated is incompetent at their job. I believe you were the one specifically shifting to "spreading COVID while on the job".
Oy vey.
On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point.
On October 16 2021 07:17 Sermokala wrote:
People not believing in the vaccine in it of itself isn't the issue the problem is not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and other people around them.
|
On October 17 2021 02:08 teeel141 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2021 20:02 Magic Powers wrote:
No one is perfect. Fauci made a mistake, and I'm sure he's made a number of other mistakes in his profession, just like everyone else does. He should still be considered reputable on the majority of pandemic related issues.
The conclusion that truth must be upheld and that Fauci should be wiser moving forward is correct. The conclusion that scientists who work for the government are suspect and/or should not be trusted is incorrect.
All scientists' work and speech that is meaningfully related to their profession must always face scrutiny. But there's justified scrutiny (as in the case of Fauci's misleading statements), and then there's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
To say that these statements are linked to the fact that Fauci has an advisory role for the US government is absurd. There are plenty of examples of working scientists whose work is not associated with any governments while having some record of spreading smaller or bigger falsehoods. Hell, even Einstein made mistakes. And he doubled down on some of them. Does that destroy his credibility?
Can we stop pretending that an expected number of human misjudgements is immediately indicative of a larger systemic problem? He made a mistake even though he himself admitted he was lying? Or is admitting to lying the mistake? Some more recent obvious lying from him about gain of function: www.youtube.com
The gain-of-function debate is inconclusive as of this moment, so it's not possible to say that Fauci lied about it. The following article is from September 20th, 2021. A key question is about the rules for/against funding of the research, which is also is why the definition of "gain-of-function" is at the core of the debate.
"The NIH documents in The Intercept "do not establish whether Fauci was directly aware of the work." "
"Moreover, the terms of the NIH grant of 2014 specified that the funding could not be used for gain-of-function experiments. The grant conditions also required the researchers to immediately report potentially dangerous results and stop their experiments pending further NIH review. According to both the EcoHealth Alliance and NIH, "the agency reported the results, but NIH determined that rules designed to restrict gain-of-function research did not apply."
"To conclude, there have been disagreements over whether the research in Wuhan qualifies as gain-of-function research."
https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/e2e07131
|
|
|
On October 17 2021 06:59 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2021 06:39 NewSunshine wrote:On October 17 2021 04:19 BlackJack wrote:On October 17 2021 02:50 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2021 07:34 BlackJack wrote:On October 16 2021 07:17 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2021 06:35 BlackJack wrote:On October 16 2021 06:18 Simberto wrote:On October 16 2021 05:57 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 21:10 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
No I think stripping groups of people from jobs they clearly don't want and are incapable of competently preforming is something that capitalism loves to do.
They can try and find some job they acomidates their desire to trust misinformation over not killing people. Have you ever talked to people? Almost everyone believes some kind of anti-science bullshit. Even smart people like Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of bullshit alternative medicine. If you think holding irrational opinions makes you incompetent to do your job, good luck at getting rid of 90%+ of the workforce. Not generally, but some irrational opinions do make you incompetent in some jobs. For example, if steve jobs believed that orgon crystals are really good for computing and pushed lots of apple research money into that direction, he would be bad at his job. Similarly, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine, that makes them a bad doctor, because they will try to prescribe those pointless placebo pills to people as if they actually help. If the doctor thinks that he is really good at rap battles when all evidence points to the contrary, that does not hinder his performance as a doctor. And if a judge doesn't believe in the law, that makes him bad at his job. If a judge believes that crystal healing is totally a real thing, that usually doesn't hinder him a lot. Lots of working class people irrationally believe that they know really well what would be the best course of action for a specific sports team. That doesn't hinder them in their job. But if a construction worker started to belief that he is immune to damage from falling rocks due to his superior skull structure and thus stop wearing hard hats, he would be out of a job pretty soon. Some irrational beliefs immediately impact your job, usually if those beliefs are linked to central stuff you do at your job. Other irrational beliefs only impact your private life, usually if those beliefs don't have anything to do with your job. No, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine it does not make him a bad doctor. If he tries to prescribe homeopathic medicine instead of real medicine then it does make him a bad doctor. If a teacher holds some stupid beliefs it does not make them a bad teacher. If they try to push those stupid beliefs onto their students then it does make them a bad teacher. Don't conflate acts of incompetence with thoughts of incompetence as an excuse to herald in the thought police. I think you defeated your own argument with this. By not vaccinating they're pushing their opinions about being pro covid on other people around them. People not believing in the vaccine in it of itself isn't the issue the problem is not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and other people around them. How is not getting vaccinated at all equal to pushing your opinion to not vaccinate on other people? Can you tell which people are vaccinated by just looking at them? Ironically you defeated your own argument by saying it's not about not believing in the vaccine it's about spreading COVID. In that case someone that works in a factory doing a job that could be done by a robot should also not be permitted to work if they don't get vaccinated. So it has literally nothing to do with job competency, don't you agree? That's not how logic works. Not beliving in the vaccine isn't the problem in it of itself that you are trying to frame it as. Are you sure it's me framing it that way and it's not in fact what you literally wrote to start this digression? On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Now you've shifted your argument away from it's not about whether you believe in the vaccine to it's about spreading COVID to other people while on the job. To which I replied that can apply to almost every job and has nothing to do with competence. Or at the very least, your definition of competence is very interesting if everyone that doesn't get vaccinated is incompetent at their job. I believe you were the one specifically shifting to "spreading COVID while on the job". Oy vey. Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Show nested quote +On October 16 2021 07:17 Sermokala wrote:
People not believing in the vaccine in it of itself isn't the issue the problem is not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and other people around them.
You want to explain your point? I understand full well what people have said thus far in the conversation, and if your response to my critique of your argument is to tell me to reread everything then I will cease wasting my time on you. Make a good faith argument or cut it the fuck out.
|
On October 17 2021 11:03 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2021 06:59 BlackJack wrote:On October 17 2021 06:39 NewSunshine wrote:On October 17 2021 04:19 BlackJack wrote:On October 17 2021 02:50 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2021 07:34 BlackJack wrote:On October 16 2021 07:17 Sermokala wrote:On October 16 2021 06:35 BlackJack wrote:On October 16 2021 06:18 Simberto wrote:On October 16 2021 05:57 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Have you ever talked to people? Almost everyone believes some kind of anti-science bullshit. Even smart people like Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of bullshit alternative medicine. If you think holding irrational opinions makes you incompetent to do your job, good luck at getting rid of 90%+ of the workforce. Not generally, but some irrational opinions do make you incompetent in some jobs. For example, if steve jobs believed that orgon crystals are really good for computing and pushed lots of apple research money into that direction, he would be bad at his job. Similarly, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine, that makes them a bad doctor, because they will try to prescribe those pointless placebo pills to people as if they actually help. If the doctor thinks that he is really good at rap battles when all evidence points to the contrary, that does not hinder his performance as a doctor. And if a judge doesn't believe in the law, that makes him bad at his job. If a judge believes that crystal healing is totally a real thing, that usually doesn't hinder him a lot. Lots of working class people irrationally believe that they know really well what would be the best course of action for a specific sports team. That doesn't hinder them in their job. But if a construction worker started to belief that he is immune to damage from falling rocks due to his superior skull structure and thus stop wearing hard hats, he would be out of a job pretty soon. Some irrational beliefs immediately impact your job, usually if those beliefs are linked to central stuff you do at your job. Other irrational beliefs only impact your private life, usually if those beliefs don't have anything to do with your job. No, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine it does not make him a bad doctor. If he tries to prescribe homeopathic medicine instead of real medicine then it does make him a bad doctor. If a teacher holds some stupid beliefs it does not make them a bad teacher. If they try to push those stupid beliefs onto their students then it does make them a bad teacher. Don't conflate acts of incompetence with thoughts of incompetence as an excuse to herald in the thought police. I think you defeated your own argument with this. By not vaccinating they're pushing their opinions about being pro covid on other people around them. People not believing in the vaccine in it of itself isn't the issue the problem is not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and other people around them. How is not getting vaccinated at all equal to pushing your opinion to not vaccinate on other people? Can you tell which people are vaccinated by just looking at them? Ironically you defeated your own argument by saying it's not about not believing in the vaccine it's about spreading COVID. In that case someone that works in a factory doing a job that could be done by a robot should also not be permitted to work if they don't get vaccinated. So it has literally nothing to do with job competency, don't you agree? That's not how logic works. Not beliving in the vaccine isn't the problem in it of itself that you are trying to frame it as. Are you sure it's me framing it that way and it's not in fact what you literally wrote to start this digression? On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Now you've shifted your argument away from it's not about whether you believe in the vaccine to it's about spreading COVID to other people while on the job. To which I replied that can apply to almost every job and has nothing to do with competence. Or at the very least, your definition of competence is very interesting if everyone that doesn't get vaccinated is incompetent at their job. I believe you were the one specifically shifting to "spreading COVID while on the job". Oy vey. On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. On October 16 2021 07:17 Sermokala wrote:
People not believing in the vaccine in it of itself isn't the issue the problem is not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and other people around them. You want to explain your point? I understand full well what people have said thus far in the conversation, and if your response to my critique of your argument is to tell me to reread everything then I will cease wasting my time on you. Make a good faith argument or cut it the fuck out.
The conversation went like this, I'm paraphrasing and simplifying for brevity...
Sermokala: teachers that don't believe in science shouldn't be teachers because they lack competency.
BlackJack: Just having an anti-science belief doesn't make a teacher incompetent so long as they don't push their ideas on their students.
Sermokala: the issue isn't not believing in the vaccine, the issue is them not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and others.
BlackJack: That has nothing to do with competency in teaching. That's applicable to almost all professions.
He shifted his argument, I called him out on it, then you said I'm the one that shifted the argument and that I'm strawmanning his position.
I'm annoyed because this is always how it goes here. But it's endemic of arguing on the internet. People don't care about what is said as much as they care about who is saying it. The goal isn't to listen to nuanced opinion, it's to try to identify what tribe each person is in and reject whatever the people that aren't in your tribe are saying.
|
Anyone get their antibodies tested after vaccination?
I got my result today and it was 954 u/mL. Pretty happy with that. A study I found with testing 6-10 weeks after the 2nd shot showed an average level of 1108 u/mL for Pfizer. So maybe not much of a drop off for being 9+ months out after my 2nd shot. I also didn't have any side effects from either shot.
|
On October 17 2021 19:43 BlackJack wrote:
Anyone get their antibodies tested after vaccination?
I got my result today and it was 954 u/mL. Pretty happy with that. A study I found with testing 6-10 weeks after the 2nd shot showed an average level of 1108 u/mL for Pfizer. So maybe not much of a drop off for being 9+ months out after my 2nd shot. I also didn't have any side effects from either shot.
I didn't get my antibodies tested after my shots, although to be fair, I don't actually know what numbers I should be looking for anyway. For example, I assume 1,000 is better than 900, simply because 1,000 is more, but I'm not sure how much better 1,000 is than 900 in this specific context (is that a significant difference in resistance, are there diminishing returns, is there a maximum benchmark such that any amount above that benchmark adds no additional resistance at all (like extra water spilling over the edge of an already-full cup), is there such a thing as having "too many" antibodies from a vaccine, etc.).
When I took Pfizer, I basically had zero side effects as well, for either of the two doses. (I felt a tiny bit nauseated for about 24-48 hours, after one of the two doses, but it didn't actually inhibit me at all.) I'll probably get the booster within a few weeks, and we'll see if I have any side effects the third time around!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
