Coronavirus and You - Page 621

Against infection:
"First month after a booster: strong protection."

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.
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.

On August 20 2022 22:58 Magic Powers wrote:
So that EVERYONE can see it. This is how BJ argues to make his anti-vaxx points:

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.

On August 20 2022 22:58 Magic Powers wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
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."

+ Show Spoiler +
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.

On August 21 2022 01:16 Magic Powers wrote:


Active antibodies protect against infection. They fade over time because the host flushes things out that it doesn't need. This is an important function of the host and completely normal.
Right after recovery from infection or after a completed vaccination program the antibody count peaks. More defenders = better chance of total immunity. A single virus particle is much less likely to break through 1000 defenders than through 100 or 10 defenders. This initial line of defense is therefore key for protection against infection.

The second line of defense are T-cells and memory B cells, which only respond after the host detects an infection. They protect well against the disease by rapidly producing fresh antibodies, but less so against the initial infection.

Boosters trigger the host to produce more active antibodies, thus returning protection against infection to the same/similar level as after the previous vaccination.

https://www.astrazeneca.com/what-science-can-do/topics/covid-19/waning-immunity.html

BJ: Well I disagree with that argument because even most vaccinated people have little protection from transmitting the virus to others at this point and here are the studies to prove it

Them: OMG HOW COME YOU ONLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT TRANSMISSION. WHY DONT YOU TALK ABOUT PROTECTION AGAINST SEVERE ILLNESS YOU ANTI-VAXXER

Then repeat at step 1. Around and around we go for all of eternity or until people can stop being triggered by news that the vaccines are not infallible.

On August 21 2022 06:30 Symplectos wrote:


Didn't you just prove why the position you defend is irrational? Nobody thinks that vaccines are perfect, we all know, or should know, how vaccines work by now. In the end, it is a game of chance.

This has been discussed ad nauseam, it is thus not really worth getting into it again. At this level though, it seems straightforward: the vaccine slightly lowers the infection rate (even though only minimally so after a relatively short time), and greatly reduces the risk of hospitalization, thus leads to an overall lower workload for the healthcare system.

If you assign 0 value to people being able to make decisions for themselves and decide what they put in their body then yes it's irrational to oppose vaccine mandates.

On August 21 2022 06:43 Symplectos wrote:


You are interpreting things that I have not written. People can decide what they want to do, and they can decide what they put in their body (many people eat at McDonalds after all, and Cola seems to sell quite well). Their decisions, however, may still be irrational.

I also haven't said a word about mandates.

On August 21 2022 07:03 BlackJack wrote:


Sorry, I was confused by your statement "the position you defend is irrational"

I'm not defending their decision to not get vaccinated. I'm defending their right to not get vaccinated. Subtle but important distinction. But that's often how it works. You can defend free speech but not defend everything people decide to say with their free speech.

On August 21 2022 07:27 Magic Powers wrote:
On another note I'd like to remind people that BJ is biased regarding the vaccine mandates.
On the one hand he wants people to choose for themselves what they put into their bodies.
On the other hand he has never addressed the counter argument that people should also be able to choose for themselves whether or not they have to live and work side by side with unvaccinated individuals.
Since he defends only one side of this argument, this further shows his anti-vaxx bias.

On August 21 2022 07:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
If the booster's transmission prevention rate drops to something ineffective after, say, six months, aren't the first six months still a good enough reason to get the booster?

On August 21 2022 07:40 Simberto wrote:


I am getting very confused by this argument because i always read BJ as Boris Johnson.

On August 21 2022 07:37 NewSunshine wrote:

But then when you jump in every single time with "but free speech" every time someone raises an issue with someone spreading propaganda or hate speech, it's not just the right to free speech you're advocating. You're also advocating for freedom from consequences for that speech. That's another distinction. If people are going to make the choice to subject others to their dangerous health decisions by exposing them to an infectious disease because they're not vaccinated, there should be consequences for making that choice.

Having the right to make a terrible choice does not handwave away the consequences for making that choice. That goes for anything, and should be doubly so for something that endangers yourself and others.