I bet this will be the sentence he ignores.
2 Likes
Because itâs irrelevant to the argument and the statement in dispute.
1 Like
Only if you failed high school bio. The failure to understand that is the entire reason for disagreement
Hey Iâm not the one describing a virus escaping vaccination/immunity as magic, yo.
The fact that you think wookie or me has said something like that makes it unlikely you pass that class
No
Weird. Thatâs exactly how I read it too!
Maybe you guys just donât communicate well?
Anyway, I know what you all argued and wrote. The time for discussion is over. Shoo away now.
Weâve posted follow up and clarification, but you keep going back to a single quotation that you think supports your bullshit rather than pay attention to any of that. Seems like itâs on you at this point. Is that the greatest, most clearly communicative post in the history of the universe? I have to concede it isnât. Is someone who quotes it over and over rather than asking for clarification plainly trolling? Clearly yes.
2 Likes
Well, thatâs a start. Certainly better than Ikes declaring that the post was correct, suggesting Iâm stupid, and then going into an argle bargle appeal to authority.
It is correct, and youâre obviously being deliberately stupid about it. But I concede I didnât make a post that was so clear you couldnât be deliberately stupid about it.
The only thing youâve ever tried to clear up as far as I can tell is that appreciable didnât mean zero. You donât say⌠And trying to suggest that we would somehow be surprised that it spreads less easily by the vaccinated. Much good faith sir.
But I mean if we can all agree now that the virus is spreading amongst and by the vaccinated at appreciable rates, I think we can all move along. Deal?
CN and I have never, not once, said that people who were vaccinated, despite being infected with covid, could not transmit. The post you keep quoting was about churchill highlighting vaccines not preventing transmission but at the same time not concerned with them preventing infection, which was and is bullshit. Infection and transmission have always been hand in hand. There has never been a variant that has transmitted without infection, and it is extraordinarily unlikely that there ever will be.
1 Like
Does either side here feel that the disagreement ITT leads to an appreciable difference in what public policy should be?
If âinfectionâ includes âasymptomatic infectionâ, then âextraordinarily unlikelyâ might be an understatement. I mean, itâs essentially a truism, right?
Not exactly. Contact transmission is possible. Things like c diff and more can be spread that way. Itâs very rare with respiratory viruses.
So, when you say itâs âvery rareâ, whatâs that rare exception with respiratory viruses and how does that work
Droplets transferred from somewhere (a hand or whatever) to mucosal membranes. To take it to an extreme example, youâd probably transfer Covid if someone with Covid sneezed into your hand and your friend licked it clean.
Thatâs not how transmission primarily happens though.
Ha. I typed out almost that same example, but then I thought Iâd just let you respond first.
But if that is the case, wookies post doesnât really make sense. Unless where he said âtransmittedâ what he meant was âprimarily transmittedâ.
If your issue is with language that is qualitative rather than quantitative, as natural language tends to be, fine. We can both be more precisely quantitative. The last time I tried to be more precisely quantitative with you, âlarge compared to the number of vaccinated people who tested positive,â you seemed to have a hard time respecting that. But OK, if you want to be more quantitative in how we talk about words like âsubstantialâ and âlargeâ and âsmall,â that is fine with me, as long as it is reciprocated. As long as you define your âsmallâ compared to whatever, Iâll define my âsmallâ compared to whatever.