COVID Developments and News

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Atropine

I have gone by the other definition of just "slippery slope" rather than "slippery slope fallacy".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

I do see your point. I was going by the other defnitition involving incremental steps towards something.

No worries here man. I guess could just say "normalizing bad behavior can lead to more bad behavior."

That is the fallacy. Associating different activities as bad behavior and saying you cannot allow one because it would allow the other is not sound logic.

Some people might say the cat jumping on the lap is bad behavior, in which case I would disagree with that particular statement. But I don't disagree with trying to prevent "bad behavior", or that jumping on counters is bad behavior. So the slippery slope fallacy says if you allow one, the other is inevitable. It avoids discussion of why a cat jumping in a lap is bad behavior by instead broadening the scope and increasing the abstraction of the discussion.

In my experience, groups of people come to conclusions much more efficiently when they precisely define the scope of the issues, and much less efficiently when they cannot do that.

[reni]

Originally Posted by Atropine

That is from July...
As of September 1...here is more current info
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/25/h...s-vaccine.html
Expect those numbers to climb.
I still think COVID is more dangerous than the Vax.
But if someone already caught and recovered from COVID, the would have natural immunity.
That changes the equation.

Well, the NEJM study has a sample size of less than 1% of the EMA study.

Also both studies state that the majority of cases occur within 14 days of receiving the vaccination, so there's absolutely no evidence that the numbers are increasing over time.

Contrast this with 30% of student athletes having heart damage after COVID-19 infection: https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/ohi...ed-to-covid-19

[Atropine]

Originally Posted by reni

Well, the NEJM study has a sample size of less than 1% of the EMA study.

Also both studies state that the majority of cases occur within 14 days of receiving the vaccination, so there's absolutely no evidence that the numbers are increasing over time.

Contrast this with 30% of student athletes having heart damage after COVID-19 infection: https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/ohi...ed-to-covid-19

In medical journals the myocarditis rate is more like 1 in a 1000 vs the original 1 in 1,000,000.

I was just saying th vax is riskier than first thought.
I also concede that COVID is worse than vax.

The question is...should a person who already got COVID be mandated to now assume the risk of the vaccine since they survived the initial infection and presumably got natural immunity.

I agree, people who haven't caught COVID, great for them. They should probably get the vaccine.

People who already caught COVID...why should they take a 1 in 1,000 or a 1 and 10,000 chance if there isn't a benefit?

EDIT: as of 41 minutes ago, the study I read claiming 1 in a thousand corrected itself and found an error in its data.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/med...cid=uxbndlbing

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Atropine

In medical journals the myocarditis rate is more like 1 in a 1000 vs the original 1 in 1,000,000.

I was just saying th vax is riskier than first thought.
I also concede that COVID is worse than vax.

The question is...should a person who already got COVID be mandated to now assume the risk of the vaccine since they survived the initial infection and presumably got natural immunity.

I agree, people who haven't caught COVID, great for them. They should probably get the vaccine.

People who already caught COVID...why should they take a 1 in 1,000 or a 1 and 10,000 chance if there isn't a benefit?

My opinion on this matter is that vaccines are a known baseline, whereas there are more unknown variables in developing antibodies against a live virus. It's like an accredited degree. Sure, you don't need a degree in software to learn how to code some shit up, but having a degree says you meet some known minimum baseline of knowledge and understanding. That baseline is important when you are trying to manage millions of data points.

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

also you're discounting the fact that natural antibodies AND vax is the best level of protection.

nor is there any reason to believe that if you had covid that you'll remain protected indefinitely.

[EAGLE5]

Just a friendly reminder that anecdotal evidence and personal feelings are not firm bases for science. Anybody who ignores ample scientific evidence, including massive statistical studies, and instead makes life and death decisions from anecdotal evidence and their own feelings is at best a dangerous fool who, in these days of COVID, is often an inadvertent killer.

In other words, fuck your feelings.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Atropine

In medical journals the myocarditis rate is more like 1 in a 1000 vs the original 1 in 1,000,000.

I was just saying th vax is riskier than first thought.
I also concede that COVID is worse than vax.

The question is...should a person who already got COVID be mandated to now assume the risk of the vaccine since they survived the initial infection and presumably got natural immunity.

A study published in JAMAonline on 4 October claims the rate is 1/174000.

[p1l0t]

Is ignoring natural immunity good science though? Or do we selectively choose when the science fits and ignore it when it doesn't?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[spike021]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

Is ignoring natural immunity good science though? Or do we selectively choose when the science fits and ignore it when it doesn't?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Science tells us we have legs for going to places by walking/running. So why do we selectively choose to use the science of building a car when we could be running or walking everywhere?

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

Is ignoring natural immunity good science though? Or do we selectively choose when the science fits and ignore it when it doesn't?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

being far more generous than i should but i'll ask you to define "ignoring natural immunity"

[Capt Spaulding]

The opposition to vaccines is based a series of faulty premises which wind up being woven into unsound arguments. Going through each post and playing liars Whack-A-Mole with each gets really tedious. So think about it this way. The vaccines are not perfect. But should we allow the perfect to be the enemy of the very good?

Let’s say a vaccine is 90% effective. If you take 1000 unvaccinated people and expose them to a sufficient quantity of virus that all will get sick, we have 1000 cases of virus. Some may be asymptomatic but all will be contagious and capable of spreading virus to others.

Now, suppose we fully vaccinate all 1000 before their exposure. If the vaccine in 90% effective, 100 will still get sick. And those 100 will still be contagious. But, 900 of the 1000 will be neither.

There are people, on and off this board who want us to focus on the 100 and ignore the rest. They will tell us that we can still get sick even if we are vaccinated. They will tell us we can still spread the virus even if we are vaccinated. Both have an element of truth to them But both are grossly misleading. Both are deliberate attempts to mislead. Both are lies.

[EAGLE5]

One of my favorite things is people cherry picking their science. 10 studies one way but one study the other way? Go with the one study that validates your feelings. That study got withdrawn? It must be a conspiracy, not shit science. The documented reasons for the withdrawal? The fact that the actual scientists chose to withdraw their paper? The fact that a doctor lost his license over falsifying results? Conspiracies by an evil government. Some people are just stupid. No amount of evidence is going to fix stupid. Sadly, stupid is also dangerous.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

The vaccines are not perfect. But should we allow the perfect to be the enemy of the very good?

We never have in the past. No vaccine has ever been 100% effective on an individual. This is verified by the CDC.

Vaccines are the best defense we have against infectious diseases, but no vaccine is actually 100% safe or effective for everyone because each person’s body reacts to vaccines differently.

Here's some comparisons between common vaccines.

[wbradley]

I heard a physician saying the large majority of myocarditis cases in younger adults is treated with Tylenol or similar medication and is acute and short term.