| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3843 Posts
This is despite the policy still being that all adults must wear an FFP2 mask in public transport. I could list a number of other changes that I've observed in 2022 as compared to 2021, but I think the point is clear that data from real life observations is tainted by several confounding variables, which makes correct conclusions much harder. Neither does the lab setting apply to everyday life nor vica versa. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21600 Posts
I don't know how it is in Austria specifically but if its anything like here everyone just wants to pretend like it no longer exists. And frankly so long as healthcare can handle it and other care is not effected, I say let them. If new spreads flare up and it becomes an issue again we should go back to, some of the, measures but we initially had to buy time to get vaccines out to people and get it under control. Now that we have you need to let people try to return to normal. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10421 Posts
On August 20 2022 01:23 Liquid`Drone wrote: Why are you saying bj is antiwax? His position, simplified, is 'the vaccines are so effective that vaccinated people don't have to fear covid, thus, now that everyone has had the option of getting vaccinated, we can live our lives just like we did precovid, and fuck the idiots who don't bother vaccinating'. You can maybe think this is heartless towards the immunocompromised or whatever but it's certainly not antivax. Then he also disregards the 'but what about spreading covid' argument because vaccinations offer very limited protection against being infected by omicron. That, again, is not antivax - it still offers good protection against severe illness. Yep, my argument has been unchanged for a long time and I've reiterated it many times and for some reason people still don't understand it. But of course Sermokala is proudly admitting that he literally sees no difference between forcing people to get a vaccine and simply knowing what a vaccine is. He basically thinks if you don't let untruths be told without questioning them you're an antivaxxer. In his bubble he still thinks if everyone got the jab COVID would be eliminated, the vaccine stops you from getting COVID, there are no cons to getting a vaccine, etc. I'm incredulous to the audacity of the position "if you think the vaccine works why won't you let people spread misinformation about how great the vaccine is" Maybe I should just go around this thread saying the COVID vaccine adds 3 inches to your cock and call people antivaxxers when they dispute it. Apparently the truth doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether you are heaping blind praise on the vaccine or not. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On August 20 2022 06:28 BlackJack wrote: Yep, my argument has been unchanged for a long time and I've reiterated it many times and for some reason people still don't understand it. But of course Sermokala is proudly admitting that he literally sees no difference between forcing people to get a vaccine and simply knowing what a vaccine is. He basically thinks if you don't let untruths be told without questioning them you're an antivaxxer. In his bubble he still thinks if everyone got the jab COVID would be eliminated, the vaccine stops you from getting COVID, there are no cons to getting a vaccine, etc. I'm incredulous to the audacity of the position "if you think the vaccine works why won't you let people spread misinformation about how great the vaccine is" Maybe I should just go around this thread saying the COVID vaccine adds 3 inches to your cock and call people antivaxxers when they dispute it. Apparently the truth doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether you are heaping blind praise on the vaccine or not. which untruth are we talking about here? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10421 Posts
On August 19 2022 23:52 Magic Powers wrote: It's not possible to compare apples to apples, because just as the virus has evolved, so have the policies. To name two differences, people have been mostly free to travel, which was not the case earlier. There is also a roughly 50% or greater reduction in mask wearing in all places except public transport, pharmacies, etc. Even with this in mind, the 8.8% figure cannot be taken at face value. A better estimate for protection against infection beyond 5 months is 22% after the full vaccination program, which is certainly meaningful and cannot be described as "ineffective". Protection against severe disease after 5 months is especially high at 90% In regards to the effectiveness of boosters specifically it is said that: "The longevity of this protection, beyond a few weeks after vaccination, has yet to be determined and the impact on transmission and utilization of healthcare resources remains unclear." This was posted on May 7th and therefore outweighs prior conclusions, because it includes the findings of all available peer-reviewed studies. Holding up the 8.8% figure as proof of definitive failure of the booster doses must be considered reckless and intellectually dishonest. This is not how scientific research is done correctly. https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-022-07418-y From your link: Lastly, our analysis was conducted before the emergence of the Omicron variant, which is associated with lower VE than the Delta variant [41], suggesting potential variability in VE as future variants emerge. So my 8.8% VE figure against Omicron is wrong because your cited meta-analysis against Delta shows 22%? And you have the nerve to call me reckless and intellectually dishonest? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44136 Posts
On August 20 2022 03:33 Sermokala wrote: Thats not nearly his position at all. What you are describing is a logical position. Hes against people getting vaccinated and mandating that more people get vaccinated. He brings up the "cons" of getting vaccinated as if they're relevant compared to the benefits of getting vaccinated. He constantly flip flops from defending people who don't want to get another booster and attacking people who then say they don't want to get the booster. Claiming that he got vaccinated doesn't make sense if he clearly doesn't believe that its worth getting. He doesn't disregard "but what about spreading covid" its the core of his argument he keeps bringing up to somehow defend his position that he doesn't think that it stops the spread of covid and therefore shouldn't be used as a strategy to prevent covid from effecting our lives. He constantly parrots that it doesn't stop you from getting infected with omicron and constantly ignores the protection from severe illness you get from omicron. He brought up the Floridian response of "just use the post-infection medications rather than the shot" when he knows the shot is a lot cheaper and more effective than those medications. In addition to this, I've also noticed that he'll list potential health risks of the vaccine without acknowledging that even more severe versions of those same health risks occur if an unvaccinated person gets covid. For example, if someone is going to note that there's a 0.001% chance of developing a mild case of X from vaccinating, they should also be comparing that to the 1% chance of developing a moderate/severe case of X from covid while unvaxxed. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13850 Posts
On August 20 2022 07:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: In addition to this, I've also noticed that he'll list potential health risks of the vaccine without acknowledging that even more severe versions of those same health risks occur if an unvaccinated person gets covid. For example, if someone is going to note that there's a 0.001% chance of developing a mild case of X from vaccinating, they should also be comparing that to the 1% chance of developing a moderate/severe case of X from covid while unvaxxed. Also constantly changing what someone is arguing against him while still proudly stating that he doesn't understand what a vaccine is or what it does. Even the thing he keeps asserting what the point of vaccination is, being the end of people getting covid, is still a good thing and would be true if people actually got vaccinated. If people got their shots and contracted covid, like people are still expecting they will, the virus will mutate into being relevant through more resistance and the law that the virus must get more and more contagious over time. It's the bad joke of people threatening you with a good time. I'm happy to be complimented on having the audacity to advocate for saving peoples lives. Hint to drone the misinformation he complains about is called science. Him labeling it misinformation is him telling you he's antivax. Watch him realize that he cant expand on what the "misinformation" is because that would give up the game. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3843 Posts
On August 20 2022 07:10 BlackJack wrote: From your link: So my 8.8% VE figure against Omicron is wrong because your cited meta-analysis against Delta shows 22%? And you have the nerve to call me reckless and intellectually dishonest? You're misreading my comment because you think everyone is attacking you. I'm not questioning you, but the data you're relying on, and by extension this means that you're posting bad information. You're incorrectly putting the claim out that one study proves that the vaccine doesn't protect against infection and therefore fails to do what it's supposed to. That behavior is objectively reckless and intellectually dishonest. You can angrily shake your first all you want, this is simply a fact. Firstly, just because one study shows 8.8% protection doesn't mean that's an accurate figure. It has not been confirmed, it's early data, and other data shows much higher levels of protection. Real-life confounding variables are a thing and cannot be ignored. We're not comparing apples to apples, as the policies and thus people's behavior have changed over time. Moreover, there are regional differences and therefore a study conducted in one region may show very different results than a study of the same nature in another region. Such limitations are mentioned in the studies you're posting, but you're omitting that fact. Secondly, the vaccines are doing their job. You're expecting something from them that is not typically expected. The fact that they even protect against infection to a significant degree - starting with 83% during the first month - is nothing short of a miracle. The fact that protection drops over time and can also be overall lower against a specific variant is expected and therefore not information that leads us to conclude that the vaccine doesn't protect against infection, unless you think most vaccines should have magical properties. Your train of thought is illogical and unscientific. Thirdly, you're always selectively omitting the most protective effects of the vaccines, whether you realize it or not. This is why I call you an anti-vaxxer, because you're selectively focused on the downsides of vaccines, and never care to post anything positive about them. Fourthly, Omicron is not the final variant. By continuously putting the idea out there that the vaccines aren't significantly protective against infection and are therefore failing - which is false - you're creating a false impression of the vaccines. Over time people get to believe that it makes the most sense to no longer get vaccinated, or to delay vaccination out of uncertainty over the data, since you're only posting the negative information. This would lead to more infections, more hospitalizations, and more people losing days and weeks of productivity. You are being reckless. You are an anti-vaxxer. And I will not hesitate to call this behavior out. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
On August 20 2022 01:23 Liquid`Drone wrote: Why are you saying bj is antiwax? His position, simplified, is 'the vaccines are so effective that vaccinated people don't have to fear covid, thus, now that everyone has had the option of getting vaccinated, we can live our lives just like we did precovid, and fuck the idiots who don't bother vaccinating'. You can maybe think this is heartless towards the immunocompromised or whatever but it's certainly not antivax. Then he also disregards the 'but what about spreading covid' argument because vaccinations offer very limited protection against being infected by omicron. That, again, is not antivax - it still offers good protection against severe illness. Unfortunately, the thread has become rather political and personal. Maybe that's what gets most regulars here excited about and keep the thread alive. But for me, the thread is most interesting and informative when people are simply exchanging their experiences about COVID (which is what the OP intended, I believe). I'm not sure that there's even a need to exchange scientific data with such rigor here - again, this is a place to share experiences, not to get legitimate medical information and advice (surely there are other platforms out there). Anyway, I'm agnostic about most discussions going on here. Doesn't affect nor influence me, one way or another. While some users here have post useful medical information, ultimately I'll still consult my local doctors before making any important lifestyle decision. But I am somewhat bemused why some take on some crusade to influence minds, to the extent of being hostile and determined to shut down other people. My suspicion and concern is that some people have been scared away from exchanging experiences in this thread due to level of hostility. That's a shame, and a big loss. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8632 Posts
On August 20 2022 14:30 RKC wrote: Unfortunately, the thread has become rather political and personal. Maybe that's what gets most regulars here excited about and keep the thread alive. But for me, the thread is most interesting and informative when people are simply exchanging their experiences about COVID (which is what the OP intended, I believe). I'm not sure that there's even a need to exchange scientific data with such rigor here - again, this is a place to share experiences, not to get legitimate medical information and advice (surely there are other platforms out there). Anyway, I'm agnostic about most discussions going on here. Doesn't affect nor influence me, one way or another. While some users here have post useful medical information, ultimately I'll still consult my local doctors before making any important lifestyle decision. But I am somewhat bemused why some take on some crusade to influence minds, to the extent of being hostile and determined to shut down other people. My suspicion and concern is that some people have been scared away from exchanging experiences in this thread due to level of hostility. That's a shame, and a big loss. this post hits the nail on the head. unfortunately its the inevitable result of having a bunch of veteran users that are older. 90% of the users that regularly engage in discussion here also engage in the pol threads. the politicising of any discussion topic that isnt game related is a pity, especially because the evident outcome is tl continuing to lose more of its rightwing userbase. at least the pol threads are dedicated to discussing politics, but in threads like this perhaps its better to just leave people to their thoughts. i dont get what the point is of attacking people for their views. youre not going to convince anyone otherwise on tl and ultimately what does it matter if the person you're engaging with has a different view to you or not. in the end it just discourages people from remaining in the community or giving their 2 cents, as has happened with many users already in a left leaning site. i certainly dont think blackjack is completely wrong in his viewpoint. for me its a matter of idealism vs realism. being morally obligated to push for something even if its unachievable vs the question of why inconvenience everyone to push for something that is unachievable. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
If you want something on topic: It is noticeable that events including many people has been on hold for a long time, maybe we'll be back in a year. Other than that, the latest wave seems to have calmed down, but a few collegaues got knocked out for about a week by it, despite triple dosis. I only see a few masks a day, mostly tourists. I am pretty sure I still haven't caught the virus. If I did, my whole family would have had to be asymptomatic or close to that, which I find unlikely. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8632 Posts
On August 20 2022 17:59 Artisreal wrote: Mind pointing out what exactly is political and not facts getting in the way of some posters feelings ? the vaccine isnt a 100% preventative measure against covid. this much is clear and no one in this thread disputes this. then naturally the discussion that comes after it is how much risk do people consider to be acceptable, and whether such risk should be managed at a personal or societal level, or both. this discussion doesnt have a clear answer and is likely to be influenced by your inherent political biases. for example people on the left will likely argue towards there being a higher social responsibility, mandates being a clear example of that. people on the right are more likely to argue towards higher personal responsibility, hence the arguments that people should make efforts to mitigate their own risk and let others choose to manage their risk individually. you can throw tantrums all you like about how one viewpoint is clearly correct and the other is wrong, but its a fruitless argument. the reality of most of the heated discussions here is at its simplest form, a left vs right discussion, and you will never come to a consensus. like rkc previously pointed out, its not just a matter of fact finding and science. people have different values and were brought up in different cultures. people will have different ideas of what they consider to be an acceptable level of risk and therefore the question of how society deals with this risk will throw up many different answers. with a topic like covid, politicised discussions in unavoidable. in fact the discussion about what should be done is highly relevant and important, however this thread has fallen into the trap that the pol threads always fall into. the higher number of left leaning users in the site slowly but surely starting to pummel the user on the opposite end, regardless of whether that perspective is valid or correct. people are allowed to be wrong, even on the left. but on tl i dont think we would ever know if people on the left were in the wrong. and for what its worth, i certainly dont identify as a right wing user and although i dont engage in much discussion, i didnt typically agree with many of the hard right users on various topics (eg gun control) in the past. i still think its a pity that they couldnt deal with the majority and either left of their own accord or got banned for their views on a site that is actually supposed to be a gaming community, not a left wing echo chamber. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10421 Posts
On August 20 2022 09:49 Magic Powers wrote: You're misreading my comment because you think everyone is attacking you. I'm not questioning you, but the data you're relying on, and by extension this means that you're posting bad information. You're incorrectly putting the claim out that one study proves that the vaccine doesn't protect against infection and therefore fails to do what it's supposed to. That behavior is objectively reckless and intellectually dishonest. You can angrily shake your first all you want, this is simply a fact. Firstly, just because one study shows 8.8% protection doesn't mean that's an accurate figure. It has not been confirmed, it's early data, and other data shows much higher levels of protection. Real-life confounding variables are a thing and cannot be ignored. We're not comparing apples to apples, as the policies and thus people's behavior have changed over time. Moreover, there are regional differences and therefore a study conducted in one region may show very different results than a study of the same nature in another region. Such limitations are mentioned in the studies you're posting, but you're omitting that fact. Secondly, the vaccines are doing their job. You're expecting something from them that is not typically expected. The fact that they even protect against infection to a significant degree - starting with 83% during the first month - is nothing short of a miracle. The fact that protection drops over time and can also be overall lower against a specific variant is expected and therefore not information that leads us to conclude that the vaccine doesn't protect against infection, unless you think most vaccines should have magical properties. Your train of thought is illogical and unscientific. Thirdly, you're always selectively omitting the most protective effects of the vaccines, whether you realize it or not. This is why I call you an anti-vaxxer, because you're selectively focused on the downsides of vaccines, and never care to post anything positive about them. Fourthly, Omicron is not the final variant. By continuously putting the idea out there that the vaccines aren't significantly protective against infection and are therefore failing - which is false - you're creating a false impression of the vaccines. Over time people get to believe that it makes the most sense to no longer get vaccinated, or to delay vaccination out of uncertainty over the data, since you're only posting the negative information. This would lead to more infections, more hospitalizations, and more people losing days and weeks of productivity. You are being reckless. You are an anti-vaxxer. And I will not hesitate to call this behavior out. So just to be clear you're doubling down that the 8.8% VE against Omicron is bullshit because your study, which only looks at Delta, shows 22%. Even though we all know, including the authors of your analysis, that VE against Omicron is lower than vs Delta. 8.8% is lower than 22% so that checks out. So you think it's what then? 18%? 15%? Or you think it's magically better than vs Delta? Whatever you think maybe provide some evidence to back up your claims. Because I provided 4 different sources that look at VE against Omicron and they all concluded in the range of 0-10% after several months and you've provided *checks notes* 0 sources that look at VE against Omicron and say anything different. You don't get to just hand wave away scientific articles as reckless junk science because "trust me bro, I know science." If you have evidence that VE against Omicron is better than 8.8% after several months then provide them instead of providing something on Delta. Frankly what I think happened is you didn't even read your own source and didn't realize Omicron was not looked at. Then you were too embarrassed to acknowledge it so instead of you took the route of obfuscating and deflecting with this wall of text. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10421 Posts
On August 20 2022 18:59 evilfatsh1t wrote: the vaccine isnt a 100% preventative measure against covid. this much is clear and no one in this thread disputes this. + Show Spoiler + then naturally the discussion that comes after it is how much risk do people consider to be acceptable, and whether such risk should be managed at a personal or societal level, or both. this discussion doesnt have a clear answer and is likely to be influenced by your inherent political biases. for example people on the left will likely argue towards there being a higher social responsibility, mandates being a clear example of that. people on the right are more likely to argue towards higher personal responsibility, hence the arguments that people should make efforts to mitigate their own risk and let others choose to manage their risk individually. you can throw tantrums all you like about how one viewpoint is clearly correct and the other is wrong, but its a fruitless argument. the reality of most of the heated discussions here is at its simplest form, a left vs right discussion, and you will never come to a consensus. like rkc previously pointed out, its not just a matter of fact finding and science. people have different values and were brought up in different cultures. people will have different ideas of what they consider to be an acceptable level of risk and therefore the question of how society deals with this risk will throw up many different answers. with a topic like covid, politicised discussions in unavoidable. in fact the discussion about what should be done is highly relevant and important, however this thread has fallen into the trap that the pol threads always fall into. the higher number of left leaning users in the site slowly but surely starting to pummel the user on the opposite end, regardless of whether that perspective is valid or correct. people are allowed to be wrong, even on the left. but on tl i dont think we would ever know if people on the left were in the wrong. and for what its worth, i certainly dont identify as a right wing user and although i dont engage in much discussion, i didnt typically agree with many of the hard right users on various topics (eg gun control) in the past. i still think its a pity that they couldnt deal with the majority and either left of their own accord or got banned for their views on a site that is actually supposed to be a gaming community, not a left wing echo chamber. I don't know if that's necessarily true Sermokala on this very page posted "Even the thing he keeps asserting what the point of vaccination is, being the end of people getting covid, is still a good thing and would be true if people actually got vaccinated." A few pages back NewSunShine posted "And if everyone got the vaccine a year ago, transmissibility of the virus would have plummeted, and if not die off completely, it wouldn't have had the chance to mutate into Omicron and BA5 like it has. It would be over by now. Nobody would be dying anymore." Some people here genuinely think if it weren't for the antivaxxers we'd basically have eradicated COVID by now. To that end, their hatred or disdain for the antivaxxers could be considered quite normal. It's just a shame that these beliefs are fairly irrational and even more a shame that I'm the only one in this thread challenging them. | ||
|
Symplectos
Luxembourg42 Posts
Some people here genuinely think if it weren't for the antivaxxers we'd basically have eradicated COVID by now. To that end, their hatred or disdain for the antivaxxers could be considered quite normal. It's just a shame that these beliefs are fairly irrational and even more a shame that I'm the only one in this thread challenging them. That is quite a strong claim. The theoretical idea that COVID might have been contained, and perhaps even eradicated, if a much larger percentage of the world population had "instantly" been vaccinated, is a valid claim, which can be proven by mathematical modeling. This has happened in the past, and the mathematical models of how such diseases spread have become very accurate. Now obviously this has not happened "in reality", and it was probably just wishful thinking - as theory is often not applicable to the real world, for a myriad of reasons. Challenging theories and having discussions about various ideas with colleagues is my day to day life, but what I have a very hard time understanding, is why so many people, outside of academia, diverge from the scientific principle when doing so. Those "challenges" often have an emotional or personal note, and are not based, as they should be, on publicly verifiable evidence. It would benefit everyone if discussions would follow the scientific principle again, and not be fueled by anger and aggression fueled by so many media outlets. Other than that, I have to agree with a few of the posters above, that this thread was the most interesting when reading about the experience of other people, and not just fighting about who is read or wrong. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3843 Posts
On August 20 2022 19:17 BlackJack wrote: So just to be clear you're doubling down that the 8.8% VE against Omicron is bullshit because your study, which only looks at Delta, shows 22%. Even though we all know, including the authors of your analysis, that VE against Omicron is lower than vs Delta. 8.8% is lower than 22% so that checks out. So you think it's what then? 18%? 15%? Or you think it's magically better than vs Delta? Whatever you think maybe provide some evidence to back up your claims. Because I provided 4 different sources that look at VE against Omicron and they all concluded in the range of 0-10% after several months and you've provided *checks notes* 0 sources that look at VE against Omicron and say anything different. You don't get to just hand wave away scientific articles as reckless junk science because "trust me bro, I know science." If you have evidence that VE against Omicron is better than 8.8% after several months then provide them instead of providing something on Delta. Frankly what I think happened is you didn't even read your own source and didn't realize Omicron was not looked at. Then you were too embarrassed to acknowledge it so instead of you took the route of obfuscating and deflecting with this wall of text. Does Pfizer protect against infection, yes or no? | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
On August 20 2022 20:27 Symplectos wrote: That is quite a strong claim. The theoretical idea that COVID might have been contained, and perhaps even eradicated, if a much larger percentage of the world population had "instantly" been vaccinated, is a valid claim, which can be proven by mathematical modeling. This has happened in the past, and the mathematical models of how such diseases spread have become very accurate. Now obviously this has not happened "in reality", and it was probably just wishful thinking - as theory is often not applicable to the real world, for a myriad of reasons. Challenging theories and having discussions about various ideas with colleagues is my day to day life, but what I have a very hard time understanding, is why so many people, outside of academia, diverge from the scientific principle when doing so. Those "challenges" often have an emotional or personal note, and are not based, as they should be, on publicly verifiable evidence. It would benefit everyone if discussions would follow the scientific principle again, and not be fueled by anger and aggression fueled by so many media outlets. Other than that, I have to agree with a few of the posters above, that this thread was the most interesting when reading about the experience of other people, and not just fighting about who is read or wrong. I'm definitely curious to know about the 'what if' scenarios through scientific modelling (which I know isn't perfect, at least not until we get more data and better technology). What if mandatory or more forcible vaccination had been widely adopted across the world? How many deaths or cases would it have prevented? Would the virus had not mutated into variants so quickly and drastically? What if the labs never developed vaccines at such great volume and pace? How different would the world be today? Would most societies still be under lockdown or heavy restrictions? All these are truly hypothetical thought experiments that most scientists would struggle to answer, let alone most of the laypeople here. But it's something refreshing that may make a good discussion in this thread (so long as we don't stray too much into local politics and just stick to generalities on public health and culture). | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3843 Posts
First, I'll simply list what the science says (including Omicron): Against death: "First month after a booster: very strong protection." "Second month: very strong protection." "Third month: very strong protection." "Fourth month: very strong protection." "Fifth month: very strong protection." Against severe disease: "First month after a booster: very strong protection." "Second month: very strong protection." "Third month: very strong protection." "Fourth month: very strong protection." "Fifth month: very strong protection." Against hospitalization: "First month after a booster: very strong protection." "Second month: very strong protection." "Third month: strong protection." "Fourth month: strong protection." "Fifth month: strong protection." Against infection: "First month after a booster: strong protection." "Second month: good protection." "Third month: decent protection." "Fourth month: little protection." "Fifth month: very little protection." And then BJ presents these findings in his own way: "See? No protection against infection. So the vaccine is not as effective as people say it is. My argument is supported by that final line in the data." Now please do the math. How narrowly exactly does BJ have to hyperdirect our attention to get from all the good news to the bad news, which even then only partially supports his stance? How much does he have to selectively ignore all the good news? He has to ignore 18 total lines of good news and focus on 2 lines of bad news. This is a 90% rate of deselection. For his general argument (vaccines not as effective as claimed) he has to ignore 3 total brackets of good news and focus on 1 bracket of bad news. This is a 75% rate of deselection. For his specific argument (low protection against Omicron infection) he also has to ignore 3 lines of good news (against infection) and focus on 2 lines of bad news. This is another 60% rate of deselection. I will not debate this anymore. BJ's hyperselective focus on bad news is undeniable. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  19015Calm  9524Hyuk 2467Sea  1554Bisu 1255Jaedong 554EffOrt 415actioN 311ToSsGirL 160Rush 132[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games singsing1131 ceh9746 C9.Mang0388 Happy383 Pyrionflax287 crisheroes258 Mew2King172 DeMusliM64 SortOf28 Trikslyr21 Organizations Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
BSL: GosuLeague
Hejek vs Aeternum
Semih vs TousaN
Replay Cast
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Harstem vs SHIN
Solar vs Cham
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Reynor vs Scarlett
ShoWTimE vs Classic
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
SC Evo League
Road to EWC
SOOP Global
Future vs MaNa
Harstem vs Cham
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
