🇳🇱
@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.
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!"
@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
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.
Supporting the vaccine, given the effective history of vaccines in the past, very much should have been the favored side at the time. Things have become a bit more nuanced now, but generally still makes sense to favor vaccines over anti-vaccines.
The world doesnt always need to be split down the middle on every issue.
> generally still makes sense to favor vaccines over anti-vaccines.
There is a safety calculus involved. I am not anti-vax but I think that people have good reason to be hesitant (even if their specific reasoning is often not good.)
Yup mRNA vaccines are a relatively new technology. They do work similar to old vaccines though in the sense that they cause a marker protein to flood your blood stream without the actual virus. But the delivery of that protein is a new process yes.
+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@freemo @Moon @Telvannichad @kino
science done right works rather well. it's just that "science" currently is so dominated by the interests of money that it's process doesn't work anymore. if you don't have the "right" results, your funding is cut etc.
it's really not a problem of science but of society.
Nothing is further from the truth. Science has not been bought by money, it has not failed. Nor does funding get "cut" in the manner you speak. Funding is secured **ahead** of the science and garunteed regardless of the outcome.
This trope is getting old and there is no reality to it of any kind.
@freemo
you'll just get no funding anymore in the future ;)
the problem is that publicly funded science is depending so heavily on getting funds "per project". the fixed sum to spend on whatever you deem to think is interesting is rather limited.
>science done right works rather well.
Science is always self-correcting, but typically only on the time scale of decades or centuries. When the influences that are causing some systemic bias fall away, those old biases can be eliminated, but current work is always subject to current biases. Maybe money, but I think more typically in Science it's clout and ego.
"Science advances funeral by funeral" - Max Planck
"Science advances funeral by funeral"
- Max Planck
👌
then try to apply that standard to one that someone just pissed in to a tube in the basement five minutes ago.
it's so safe everyone involved has given themselves liability protection too.
@Telvannichad @kino
"
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
