🇳🇱
@kino I am neither anti-vaxer nor pro-vaxer when it comes to covid. Being new technology I feel its reasonable for people to be cautious, but at the same time there are no significant risks that have popped up.
That said I think the general issue with it is quite clear. If you are the only one vaccinated out of a crowd you are safer than if you werent vaccinated at all, but you are at higher risk than if the entire crowd is vaccinated. So the issue in their minds, and a valid one, is that your choice is increasing their risk.
@kino Vaccines increase protection, but they dont make you immune. Others who arent vaccinated have significantly high viral loads and thus are more capable of spreading the disease. So by others not being vaccinated it increases the risk of everyone, including those vaccinated.
at this point, the only real remaining argument for vaccination (within the context of COVID) is that vaccinated individuals may exhibit lesser symptoms if infected, ergo having a greater chance of recovery, and furthermore reducing hospitalization rates.
so, contemporaneously, it really just seems like vaccines are only for the benefit of the vaccinated and don't really do anything insofar as stopping spread. if you're vaccinated then you're better off, but if someone chooses to refuse vaccination they are only detrimenting themselves and not risking the safety of others. at most one could argue they are being irresponsible since their infections will be more severe and may require greater attention and hospitalization.
@kino Looking at just Delta varient is what we would call cherry picking the data. Putting aside if the viral load is the same on delta itself, which is debatable, the fact remains that on the original virus there is no debate that it significantly lowers viral load and therefore having the crowd vaccinated does, in fact, provide greater protection.
@kino Who said anything about ignoring delta varient... vaccination of a crowd protects everyone even if it only protects partially, its still protection, full stop.
That said it is true it isnt as effective agaisnt variants as we hoped, we didnt have these variants when the vaccine was created. As a result we will have to create vaccines for the variants. But if antivaxers arent playing along then we cant expect that to work either.
As for your analogy, its more like saying "Someone got a virus once even though they were using a virus scanner, therefore no one should use virus scanners"
in either case, playing along or otherwise, the result is just going to be a variant vaccine treadmill which is always behind
@kino Not necessarily. That depends. The vaccine treadmill only occurs when you cant read herd immunity quickly enough. Variants arise most strongly when you have high vaccination rates that are short of herd immunity enough that R0 is still high.
So anti-vaxxers not playing along, if they are a significant portion of the population (and they are) will absolutely create that treadmill. We can only see success if people get on board, and they arent/wont.
variants arise most strongly when you have high vaccination rates of drugs that don't actually do what traditional vaccines do and instead render an entire population as a giant petri dish
in many respects the countries that did nothing are better off than the countries which are still going through draconian measures to try and fix things
Thats unlikely to be why. Eating rotted food and other things that might invoke your immune system wont carry over to viruses.
The horrid conditions at the time and its effect on the immune system is why you dont have autoimmune diseases, but wont effect your response to a virus all that much.
@kino No it never meant that, though natural infection can contribute to herd immunity in some special cases, generally it is not a major driving factor.
A simple counter example is smallpox. It was around for thousands of years and natural immunity never got us even close to herd immunity. Then vaccines came around and we eliminated it.
General natural immunity wont get you herd immunity for many reasons and the reasons can differ from disease to disease, but a disease will usually evolve in a way that its natural cycle will make sure herd immunity cant occur (or else it never would have evolved int he first place).
The reason herd immunity cant occur naturally with covid, for example, is because your immune response is perportional to the severity of the infection and can fade with time. So natural infections usually wont protect you unless its so severe as to wind you in the hospital, in which case it likely will. So most people wont have enough of a immune response to create a herd immunity naturally.
Yes that is the problem. The only way to avoid that is to get everyone vaccinated very quickly to get ahead of the varients, and thus reduce the need for boosters. Which resistance to vaccinating it may not be doable though.
Medicine cant and wont predict the future. The fact that they change what they say as they learn more is a good thing. We are dealing with a new virus that didnt exist prior to just 2 years ago. Its understandable out understanding of it and how to fight it needs to be an evolving process, I cant fault them for that. But it also means it is ok to doubt some of the assumptions.
every time they get it wrong just say its an evolving field and when its six jabs an hour in the eyeball well it's a novel scenario.
@icedquinn @freemo @kino
It _is_ true though... Look at lobotomies- they were considered the answer until medical science changed.
I trust fields that change and improve their outlook when new information arises far more than I would one that claims to be right from its inception and be infallible.
Trope is just an oft repeated idea.. it isnt meant as a negative term.
I dont like the WHO's political handling of this shit.. yea i dont like they reworded the website. But the fact of the matter is natural immunity doesnt usually cause herd immunity. It can usually be a factor, but not hte mechanism for herd immunity. My issue is the who eliminated the details rather than explaining that.
The replication crisis is **mostly** limited to psychology. It can be seen on a much smaller scale in other discipline but not nearly as prolific. Still its important to make sure if you sell something as fact that it has been replicated across many studies.
That same page reiterates what I said, that the majority of the replication crisis has been observed in psychology. Has a whole section devoted to it..
Not pathetic at all. That is the system working in that case. Remember they didnt ask scientists if they failed to replicate peer-review conclusions, only if they failed to replicate at all. Thats the process we expect, someone does an experiment, someone else replicates, then someone else, and then they all compare notes to see if something is valid or not. Then they draw conclusions. This is how it **should** go down.
The issue with the replication crisis, and where it is very much real, is when something that has become established (that is it has been publised, peer reviewed, and replicated) fails replication.
No not always because its published. It can be part of the peer-review process, or pre-peer review. Scientists often call others in to review their work even before formal peer review
You will always have some people who manipulate the data to sell their agenda. Thats why its important you understand how statistics work so you can spot it when they do.
Agreed the political environment causes people to spew propaganda for their agenda from all sides.
Not really the case here. We had 4 years of trump trying to do everything in his power to legitimize one side, now we have Biden doing the same from the other. Both political sides try to legitimize the propaganda on their side and are equally guilty of said propaganda.
"
when we don't follow the instructions the result is different"i think it still actually worked though, just not as well, because stimulating the temporal lobe does do weird shit.
@freemo @kino
>The vaccine treadmill only occurs when you cant read herd immunity quickly enough.
The covid are non-sterilizing vaccines. Herd immunity will never be reached no matter how much you vaccinate.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=243127
Furthermore, there are animal reservoirs. Felines, ferrets, and (possibly) deer can get and transmit Covid. So even if herd immunity in humans was achieved, new generations could still be infected by wild animals. This is why a vaccine against rabies is pointless.
No thats incorrect, for that logic to work there would need to be a reservoir with a >1 R0.. animal reservoirs most likely are <1 R0 and are only sustained due to human contact right now.
That said we dont know anything for sure, that includes how hard herd immunity might be to achieve. We can at best make educated assumptions. So you could be right, but more likely your wrong.
it WOULD be useful to your narrative for that to be true, but I have seen no evidence to suggest it.
>That said we dont know anything for sure, that includes how hard herd immunity might be to achieve
you can't achieve herd immunity with non-sterilizing vaccines
It would be helpful to **your** narrative for the R0 >1, but I have seen no evidence to suggest that to be true. Feel free to share it if you have some. Otherwise making any assertions about animal reservoirs is just makeup nonsense. For that to be on the table someone needs to show a >1 r0 among animals and what ive seen has all shown animal viral load to be very very low.
that's like defending the functionality of a program because "it worked great on windows 95. if you're going to focus on later operating systems then you're cherry-picking the data!"