“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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Alright now you’re just lying. I didn’t call Keeed a fucking anti-vaxxer. Go back and reread the fucking thread.
Edit: Since you’re probably not going to do that, I explicitly said that I didn’t think he was an anti-vaxxer, that talking about not taking the vaccine because he was worried of the side effects versus the benefit meant he was vaccine hesitant, and that we should try to convince people who were vaccine hesitant of the benefits versus the risks and not demonize them. I literally did the opposite of call him an anti-vaxxer. Lies like this are why I don’t think you’re posting in good faith.
When did I ever say that being called for a perma or not called for a perma is evidence of anything? For that matter, when have I ever called for a perma of anyone? Once again, my villainy is limited only by your imagination.
This is true, I didn’t have any problems with jman’s responses to my recent conversation in the covid thread. It was a good discussion between the two of us.
It’s entirely possible that it would have zero effect, see the recent study discussed in the covid thread demonstrating extremely robust immunity from hybrid vaccination and infection. And a booster is almost surely of significantly lower benefit compared to someone who hasn’t had a breakthrough infection.
But let’s not lose sight of this: you’re calling someone who got two vaccines, convinced others to get the vaccine, would have gotten the booster if he hadn’t gotten a breakthrough case, and is planning on consulting with his doctor on the timing of his booster shot in a month and a half, an antivaxxer. Apparently because you’re quibbling about some frankly fairly complicated and obscure statistical inferences that very few people are even qualified to make, although I know I am and I think you might be. You’re twisting yourself into a pretzel to call me a vile name and I think it is despicable.
My advice to him was literally “Hey, you might want to talk to your doctor again now that Omicron is a thing, the advice you got from your doctor is probably stale” That’s it. Once again, my villainy is limited only by your imagination. Are you going to keep doubling and tripling down on this line of bullshit that you are clearly wrong about?
There is no such study. At most, there is a study showing an antibody response comparable to two shots against delta in those people. Two shots against delta was 75-85% effective against infection.
It’s because the lead into my accusation was stuff like this:
We know immunity fades with time, with a big loss after just 6 months. Feeling immortal 4 months out is, at the very least, foolish.
“My body, my choice,” “I’m not against vaccines, just vaccine mandates,” “Covid is inevitable, why take precautions,” “Don’t judge me,” are all right out of the anti-vaxxer playbook. And then you capped it off by overstating the risk of vaccination by approximately two orders of magnitude. If you’re genuinely not an anti-vaxxer, maybe try not repeating their talking points if you don’t want to be called one?
