What the hell are you talking about? I said the risk of the booster was very low.
lol, that’s an incredible and deliberate misrepresentation of what you actually said.
1 Like
Go on, show where I dramatically overstated the risks associated with getting a shot.
OK:
I’m not getting the booster because I think that someone in my exact situation (vaccinated with breakthrough infection four months ago) has a miniscule covid risk and that getting a booster probably doesn’t lower that risk all that much and has nonzero risks itself.
Right now, the current risk to someone boosted are enormous compared to the risks of getting a booster (especially given that someone getting a booster would not have had an allergic reaction to the prior shots), and generally we’ve seen that the shots are more protective than past infections. Even when we considered 2 shots sufficient, the consistent advice from all experts has been for the previously infected to get two shots.
Sometimes, it feels like he’s desperate to catch certain posters in some sort of “gotcha”, as if that would justify the entirety of his posting history.
I also said before that post
I said that my risk from a covid booster is “miniscule,” which is, I’m sure, something you would agree with. How in the world is that vastly overstating the risk of the booster? And I’m saying that my risk of covid is also miniscule exactly because I’m pro vaccine and think that both the double vaxxed and breakthrough infected and the double vaxxed and boosted have extremely strong protections from serious covid. That’s a pro-vaccine position, obviously!
He’s dug himself in a hole and has to do a lot of work to undo the reputation that he has earned.
1 Like
“Very low” is a meaningless term. There are a whole lot of people out there who think the overall risk of dying of covid are “very low” as a justification for not getting vaxxed at all, which, I mean, are they objectively wrong about their risk of dying from covid being low if it’s 0.1%?
The meaningful usage of low, is low compared with something else. And the risks of dying of covid are quite large compared with dying from the vaccine. They’re even large compared with the risks of the vaccine if you’re vaccinated and infected. Keed’s bait and switch was to hide behind the fact that he said the risk of the booster was low to deflect from the fact that he claimed the risks of the booster were comparable to his risk of covid, which is false.
I said the risk of a booster to me was miniscule.
11 Likes
If we take as gospel, for the sake of argument and simplicity, that a past infection is as good as a booster, and that the risks of omicron when boosted are roughly like delta with two shots, then your risk from omicron right now is pretty substantial! The effectiveness of two shots against delta was 80-85% against infection. You got an infection and said it sucked pretty bad, even without being hospitalized or dying. And yes, they’re more effective against hospitalization or dying, but that’s still on balance with a one in a millionish risk of such a reaction to the vaccine.
Do you think it was accurate to describe both my risk of serious side effects from the booster and my risk of serious illness from covid as miniscule?
As this is the moderation improvement thread, I suggest that any claim that a fellow member is an antivaxxer must result in one of the following options:
- the lengthy ban of the claimer (as we all view antivaxxers to be despicable people and even have a thread basically dedicated to celebrating their death, this is one of the worst personal insults you can use here)
- the lengthy ban of the accused member (i think we should ban all antivaxxers for what should be obvious reasons).
3 Likes
No idea, but wookie called me an antivaxxer in this thread so I’m going to defend myself.
I would consider doing a deep dive into churchill’s posting to see just how deserved his reputation is, except his public profile is hidden, so I can’t filter a thread to just his posts.
That’s just not as easy to read as a single page with the ability to see who replied.
One example I recall but was unable to find in 5ish minutes of searching was a screenshot of a comment thread that was cropped right above a link to a study that churchill claimed not to have seen. A more recent example would be this post:
He’s embedded tweets so it’s not that he doesn’t know how to copy a twitter link and post it so it makes it seem as if he posts screenshots specifically to exclude information.
No, not when one is a couple orders of magnitude larger than the other.
That’s not how you look at the risk! If the booster doesn’t appreciably reduce the risk from covid then it doesn’t matter what the absolute risk of the booster is unless the risk is zero. I was saying that the benefit of the booster was very uncertain and quite possibly nonexistent, and almost surely significantly reduced compared to not having a breakthrough infection.
Umm, no, I made no such claim. I am not moderated differently than others. A quick look through the “key log of moderator actions” shows that to be true. For fucks sake, the moderator who banned me the most was Wookie.