I’m not saying it isn’t on him. I’m saying you don’t counter Carlson by saying he’s doing the disinformation. That’s obviously not going to work and and seems counterproductive. Probably he isn’t going to try to get Biden’s public health people on but they should publicly talk about what he’s saying and invite themselves on. If he refuses, laugh at him and point out his cowardice.
What studies have been done indicating that people who have recovered from Covid should get vaccinated? I was under the impression we don’t really know how long natural immunity lasts (or, for that matter, how long the vaccine immunity lasts).
You shouldn’t call out tucker but you should go on his show and… call out tucker? What am I not understanding here?
1 Like
Do we know that people with a previous infection have less immunity than vaxxed people? Do we have any kind of data or study for that? Because people have been getting infected a lot longer than they’ve been vaxxed, and I haven’t heard much about a huge wave of second or third infections. I’m actually curious about this one.
Obviously no one knows the long long term effects of the covid vaccine - so we have to look at previous vaccines. That one is definitely JAQing off.
Teenagers die from covid. Have any died or gotten debilitated by the vaccine? That one is also JAQing off unless you have real evidence there’s any hazard whatsoever from the vaccine.
1 Like
You should engage Carlson, not reflexively dismiss what he’s saying as disinformation.
Not gonna engage with a guy who spreads blatant racism.
So when I go on his show and he says a bunch of bullshit, am I allowed to dismiss him? Or do I have to carefully explain to a dishonest piece of shit exactly why they’re wrong when they’ll completely ignore that explanation and never admit they’re wrong?
3 Likes
It depends on if you want to convince his audience or not. If you want to convince people you’d engage with what he’s saying. Like, somehow you think the point is convincing Carlson? Lol?
1 Like
So for the next 50 shows we’re he goes on to be a reprehensible piece of shit the minute or so I talked will really make a difference on his audience.
Well then. Sure.
1 Like
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1418016654580199427
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1418017138779082755
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1418019205425868802
The actual answer is to place more limitations on your precious freeze peach. Tucker lied, people died…. he should pay….
Ron Johnson is a well-documented piece of shit, so let’s use Bayes’ Theorem here.
1 Like
Should be way easier to hall him into court and make him state the truth on the record, under oath. If he then goes back and contradicts himself on TV the next day, then you have proof of intent and should be severe consequences.
Sigh. The perfect example. Just get the damn shot at this point.
1 Like
Ironically, this exchange is also a perfect example of what I’m talking about!
2 Likes
I agree this is a pretty important question. Last night, I was reading a FB thread (LOL me) that started with my school district encouraging people to get vaccinated, and that led to an avalanche of anti-mask and anti-vaxx comments. Lots of infuriating nonsense, but one of the comments surprised me in that I was immediately inclined to dismiss it, but it seems defensible:
- People who’ve had COVID previously don’t need to be vaccinated.
I was like “that can’t be true - I recall reading that vaccinations are far more effective than previous infection”. But there’s actually a Cleveland Clinic study that seems to support this idea:
Conclusions Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.
Summary Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined among 52238 employees in an American healthcare system. COVID-19 did not occur in anyone over the five months of the study among 2579 individuals previously infected with COVID-19, including 1359 who did not take the vaccine.
This is a pre-print that has not been peer-reviewed, so maybe it turns out to be wrong. But I very much wanted to counter this anti-vaccine narrative with facts, and I was disappointed that I couldn’t actually find any contrary information. In the absence of competing data, how would you counter the following argument?
“Vaccine requirements are unfair/inappropriate for previously-infected individuals, because there’s no detectable reinfection risk for those individuals. Therefore, employers/schools/cruises/etc. should not be allowed to discriminate against unvaccinated individuals who previously tested positive for COVID.”
2 Likes
There’s no prospective RCTs for previous covid infection.
Pretty much every serious health org is saying people should get the vaccine even if they’ve had COVID. I’d be cautious about relying too much on one study that says otherwise.
1 Like
I mean, I’m not “relying” on it; I believe the same thing (that everyone should get it) and want both my kids’ school district and my employer school to mandate the vaccine. But I feel like this is an example of a very large gray area where there’s a legitimate question with very little empirical evidence pointing towards the “vaccinate everyone” point of view, and that legitimate question could be either asked in good faith or used by anti-vaxxers in a “throwing spaghetti against the wall” effort.
2 Likes
I’d want to know they actually got sick from covid, not just tested positive. Which is hard to quantify of course. Also it gives anit-vaxxers another way to lie about it. I suspect these are the policy reasons why the vaxx is pushed for everyone. But I do think it’s a fair question to ask if a person who previously got sick really needs the vaxx.