If you are vaccinated, why do you care that I am not?

Yawn^7 wrote:

Just look at the age group data for the average person under 30. Covid really isn’t that big a short term threat. Long term is irrelevant because we don’t have long term Covid and long term vaccine side effect data. It only makes sense for me to take my chances getting the disease. You purposely take my words literally or out of context to suit your narrative. I even conceded that if long term studies showed no issues then I’d consider the shot. But hey, give a lib an inch and they demand a mile.

Look at the vaccine adverse event data for the average person under 30? It's even lower than COVID. Even things like myocarditis -- terrifying Big Pharma side effects -- are more common in healthy young adults after COVID than with the vaccine.

It's ok to just be scared needles, or the vaccine or whatever, but trying to paint this as some kind of rational calculation you've made is just failing.

You don’t have that long term data so everything you are saying is just a lie at this point.

Yawn^7 wrote:

You don’t have that long term data so everything you are saying is just a lie at this point.

18-20 months of COVID data

12-14 months of vaccine data

When are we allowed to start drawing conclusions? I assume you'll just say "a bit longer" as long as the evidence still tilts in favor of vaccination... so... forever?

2600 bro wrote:

Yawn^7 wrote:

You don’t have that long term data so everything you are saying is just a lie at this point.

18-20 months of COVID data

12-14 months of vaccine data

When are we allowed to start drawing conclusions? I assume you'll just say "a bit longer" as long as the evidence still tilts in favor of vaccination... so... forever?

Yes, the answer is that we can draw conclusions when the data shows what I want. Until then, it's incomplete.

Harambe wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

18-20 months of COVID data

12-14 months of vaccine data

When are we allowed to start drawing conclusions? I assume you'll just say "a bit longer" as long as the evidence still tilts in favor of vaccination... so... forever?

Yes, the answer is that we can draw conclusions when the data shows what I want. Until then, it's incomplete.

Also it seems accumulation of evidence in favor of X does not increase the probability of X being correct.

Bayesians go home DEVASTATED!

This guy is truly a

We are getting the truth slowly but surely.

**********

"Chinese researchers directed the U.S. National Institutes of Health to delete gene sequences of early Covid-19 cases from a key scientific database, raising concerns that scientists studying the origin of the pandemic may lack access to key pieces of information."

"The NIH confirmed that it deleted the sequences after receiving a request from a Chinese researcher who had submitted them three months earlier. “Submitting investigators hold the rights to their data and can request withdrawal of the data,” the NIH said in a statement."

"The removal of the sequencing data is described in a new paper posted online Tuesday by Jesse Bloom, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. The paper, which hasn’t been peer reviewed, says the missing data include sequences from virus samples collected in the Chinese city of Wuhan in January and February of 2020 from patients hospitalized with or suspected of having Covid-19."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-gene-data-that-could-have-aided-research-on-early-epidemic-removed-from-database-11624472105

Funny how I gave my definition of long term data just a couple of posts ago.

You can’t even read a thread properly and you want people to take your opinion on medical issues seriously?

I know you are just a troll but at least put some effort into it.

Yawn^7 wrote:

Funny how I gave my definition of long term data just a couple of posts ago.

You can’t even read a thread properly and you want people to take your opinion on medical issues seriously?

I know you are just a troll but at least put some effort into it.

So we have no data that you deem acceptable yet you are quite confident that the vaccine poses higher risk to you than COVID.

This is an iconic fearmonger move:

1) We don't have enough data on long term effects from COVID, therefore we cannot conclude it's dangerous!

2) We don't have enough data on long term effects from the vaccine, therefore we cannot conclude it's safe!

If you set up your standards of evidence such that nothing will move your priors, then it's pretty easy to get the results you want.

I haven't read through the thread, so this likely may have been said already.

To me, it feels like a group project in school where 60% of the people do 100% of the work. The other 40% who did none of the work still get an A even though they did nothing.

Case numbers are going down because people are getting vaccinated. Things are opening up again because people are gettinfg vaccinated. Those who are able to get the vaccine but refuse are just freeloading off those who are doing their part. They get the (social) benefits of the vaccine without doing their share.

I am not upset at those who aren't getting the vaccine. I am not afraid of getting Covid from them either. Rather, I am annoyed by them.

The Unkle wrote:

I don't get it.

You think the vaccines work and you are vaccinated.

What threat am I to you?

I'm vaxxed and I don't care at all if anyone else is.

I also wore a mask when the CDC said I should. And I stopped wearing a mask when the CDC said fully vaxxed people don't have to.

All the while, I haven't cared at all about who wears masks, who is vaxxed, any of it. Who cares.

Harambe wrote:

Yawn^7 wrote:

Funny how I gave my definition of long term data just a couple of posts ago.

You can’t even read a thread properly and you want people to take your opinion on medical issues seriously?

I know you are just a troll but at least put some effort into it.

So we have no data that you deem acceptable yet you are quite confident that the vaccine poses higher risk to you than COVID.

This is an iconic fearmonger move:

1) We don't have enough data on long term effects from COVID, therefore we cannot conclude it's dangerous!

2) We don't have enough data on long term effects from the vaccine, therefore we cannot conclude it's safe!

If you set up your standards of evidence such that nothing will move your priors, then it's pretty easy to get the results you want.

Again, you put words in my mouth. I never said the vaccine is a higher risk. If you cannot read properly don’t bother responding.

I would actually argue that a higher zero prevalence would make me less concerned about Covid going forward. As it is I would suspect that amongst the unvaccinated population they have approximately an equal chance of having been infected in the past and being infected in the future, roughly 37.5% each, which makes that 10% also work in both directions.

Yawn^7 wrote:

Harambe wrote:

So we have no data that you deem acceptable yet you are quite confident that the vaccine poses higher risk to you than COVID.

This is an iconic fearmonger move:

1) We don't have enough data on long term effects from COVID, therefore we cannot conclude it's dangerous!

2) We don't have enough data on long term effects from the vaccine, therefore we cannot conclude it's safe!

If you set up your standards of evidence such that nothing will move your priors, then it's pretty easy to get the results you want.

Again, you put words in my mouth. I never said the vaccine is a higher risk. If you cannot read properly don’t bother responding.

If anything, Harambe is making you sound smarter. I’d be quiet were I you.

Sorry, seroprevalence got converted to zero prevalence in my previous post.

The Real Man criteria need to be updated.

Real Men aren't sheep who do as they're told by the corrupt politicians and media.

Lots of sheep here. Bravo to the real men.

dp fanatic wrote:

You can make the word Kunt from some of the letters of your username

Coincidence?

I reported your post.

Just curious to see if posts that fall below the level of lower moron will be allowed to stand.

Yawn^7 wrote:

Harambe wrote:

So we have no data that you deem acceptable yet you are quite confident that the vaccine poses higher risk to you than COVID.

This is an iconic fearmonger move:

1) We don't have enough data on long term effects from COVID, therefore we cannot conclude it's dangerous!

2) We don't have enough data on long term effects from the vaccine, therefore we cannot conclude it's safe!

If you set up your standards of evidence such that nothing will move your priors, then it's pretty easy to get the results you want.

Again, you put words in my mouth. I never said the vaccine is a higher risk. If you cannot read properly don’t bother responding.

Pretty sure the risk of serious damage to people under age 30 is higher from the vaccine than the virus