Support NeoGAF

[ManaByte]

Just bought KISS tickets for the first week of September. Things better not shut down.

 

[caffeware]

 

[Deleted member 17706]

The question a skeptic asks is "Which experts are right,"

I don't think this is accurate. I think a true skeptic would not care so much about the individual making the claim (unless that is particularly relevant to the likelihood of their being right), but care more about whether or not the claim being made is correct or not.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I remember this one from a few months ago. I don't think it ever got quite cleared up as to why, but for whatever reason, for the purposes of the convalescent plasma treatment, they accepted donations only from people with "natural immunity." Combined with a warning from the UK government that the vaccinated and unvaccinated required different antibody tests, people speculated that the antibodies generated by the vaccine were not the same as those expressed via natural immunity mechanisms. I'm not sure if this ever got properly explained.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Read up on the Dunning Kruger effect. The least qualified among us are the most likely to overrate their expertise because they lack the understanding to even recognize their own mistakes, and therefore think they don't make any. - Your words

I really don't think you're getting the point here. Unless you are a subject matter expert the only people you should be listening to are subject matter experts. Those people might not always agree but they are always better than listing to idiots.

 

[SF Kosmo]

I don't think this is accurate. I think a true skeptic would not care so much about the individual making the claim (unless that is particularly relevant to the likelihood of their being right), but care more about whether or not the claim being made is correct or not.

Unless the skeptic in question is actually qualified to answer that question, that would be an extremely unproductive approach

I used the analogy above of choosing between different doctors or treatment plans versus performing your own surgery. The prior is skepticism, that latter is idiocy.

We're talking about science here. The idea that laypeople are going to have meaningful insights into immunology that every doctor has somehow missed is absurd. Scientists are wrong sometimes, but this is always elucidated by more science, better science, not unqualified contrarianism.

A big problem is that scientists do not know everything there is to know about human biology. They don't even know everything there is to know about the immune system.

But they do know more than you. And everyone else with zero qualifications or training.

It doesn't mean they're always right, but we should be making our decisions based on the best available information, and not spiraling out into some kind of epistemological crisis where any and every belief is equally true.

 

[Rentahamster]

I just want to say, your effort to keep on posting saner logical response is commendable. People like me lurk, because we don't have the strength to debate with people who respond with strawman and whataboutism when it comes to the necessity of vaccine. Keep up the good job.

The world isn't America, not everyone is watching CNN/Fox, but the whole world is in a pandemic right now. Spinning it into issues of mind control & rights is just mind boggling to anyone outside of USA.

Thanks!

I'm glad you think it helps. I've been to many places in the world and have seen many different cultures, and appreciate how each culture deals with social issues. I've experienced many examples of cross cultural misunderstanding and miscommunication, and so it doesn't surprise me when different populations don't quite see eye to eye on particular issues.

Being an American myself, whose personal identity and values hinges very strongly on maximizing freedom, health, and happiness, I'm optimistic that a pro-vaccine argument can be made that has a basis in those values.

 

[Rentahamster]

Scientists are wrong sometimes, but this is always elucidated by more science, better science, not unqualified contrarianism.

I think an error that many people are committing is that if the scientific recommendation changes, it's necessarily because of deception, incompetence, or malice. It's a very uncharitable way of viewing the situation. Sure, that could be possible, but the more likely reason is that the best practices change as new information is gathered. We're always learning and evolving.

How do we know which is which? Well, when the CDC told us in the beginning not to wear a mask, that was not a good thing to do. They later said they did that because they didn't want to limit the supply of PPE to health care professionals. In hindsight, that was a pretty dumb thing to do since it precipitated a huge amount of confusion in the populace. East Asian countries have been wearing masks for years because it works. Additional experiments that show the effectiveness of masks shows it works. Verdict? Possible incompetence or bad strategy. They should have known better.

Just recently, when the CDC said vaccinated people don't need to wear masks anymore and then reversed that recommendation, people might think that is suspicious. Is it though? New research comes out that shows that vaccinated people can be infected and spread the delta variant asymptomatically, so it makes sense to reverse that decision. With new information comes new evaluations. Verdict? Is it malice? Is it incompetence? Probably not, because the Delta variant is so new and needed lots of study to see how it behaves in different situations.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Unless the skeptic in question is actually qualified to answer that question, that would be an extremely unproductive approach

I used the analogy above of choosing between different doctors or treatment plans versus performing your own surgery. The prior is skepticism, that latter is idiocy.

We're talking about science here. The idea that laypeople are going to have meaningful insights into immunology that every doctor has somehow missed is absurd. Scientists are wrong sometimes, but this is always elucidated by more science, better science, not unqualified contrarianism.

But they do know more than you. And everyone else with zero qualifications or training.

It doesn't mean they're always right, but we should be making our decisions based on the best available information, and not spiraling out into some kind of epistemological crisis where any and every belief is equally true.

This is way too general to really comment on, but if you're saying we all need to abdicate any and all critical thinking unless we are ourselves ordained experts in whatever the specific subject is, I will just say that I do not agree with your views.

 

[12Goblins]

South African study shows high COVID protection from J&J shot

Johnson & Johnson's (JNJ.N) COVID-19 vaccine is working well in South Africa, offering protection against severe disease and death, the co-head of a trial in the country said on Friday.

www.reuters.com

 

[Rentahamster]

This is way too general to really comment on, but if you're saying we all need to abdicate any and all critical thinking unless we are ourselves ordained experts in whatever the specific subject is, I will just say that I do not agree with your views.

I think the broader point is that it's important to recognize the limits of one's own expertise in any given field, so that while you can do a lot of self study in that field in order to bolster a layman understanding of it in order to better understand and to better critique the expert opinions, you should also know enough to realize what you do not know or do not understand and to not delude yourself into thinking that you do. Which is why the example was some kind of surgery. You might want to read up on the procedure in order to better learn about the process and what the experience will be like, but you should know well enough that you're not going to do enough internet research to be able to do the surgery better than the surgeon themselves, and to be able to recognize that as one of the opportunities where it makes sense to let the experts take care of this one.

Of course, this does not mean that you turn off all your other critical thinking skills. Maybe the surgeon you selected was a scam artist, so you would need those to detect such a thing. But that does not mean they always will be, and you need to know how to temper one's feelings so that reasonable skepticism doesn't turn into unreasonable suspicion. On either end of the extreme you'll be blindly following someone who may or may not be qualified either from blind faith or blind distrust. It's best to confirm with oneself what is the reason for believing the things that we do and if those reasons are justified by the available evidence.

 

[SF Kosmo]

This is way too general to really comment on, but if you're saying we all need to abdicate any and all critical thinking unless we are ourselves ordained experts in whatever the specific subject is, I will just say that I do not agree with your views.

Not any and all. Just that which we aren't equipped to do ourselves (like, for example, sophisticated scientific research). Wisdom is often more about knowing the bounds of one's knowledge than the quantity of that knowledge.

People are kind of bad at that in general. They overestimate their own abilities and opinions consistently.

But all of our progress as a civilization has been about compartmentalizing and organizing knowledge. No one can know how everything works top to bottom and we shouldn't try it fool ourselves into thinking we do. We should know what we can as best we can and for everything else we should know who to defer to.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I think the broader point is that it's important to recognize the limits of one's own expertise in any given field, so that while you can do a lot of self study in that field in order to bolster a layman understanding of it in order to better understand and to better critique the expert opinions, you should also know enough to realize what you do not know or do not understand and to not delude yourself into thinking that you do. Which is why the example was some kind of surgery. You might want to read up on the procedure in order to better learn about the process and what the experience will be like, but you should know well enough that you're not going to do enough internet research to be able to do the surgery better than the surgeon themselves, and to be able to recognize that as one of the opportunities where it makes sense to let the experts take care of this one.

Of course, this does not mean that you turn off all your other critical thinking skills. Maybe the surgeon you selected was a scam artist, so you would need those to detect such a thing. But that does not mean they always will be, and you need to know how to temper one's feelings so that reasonable skepticism doesn't turn into unreasonable suspicion. On either end of the extreme you'll be blindly following someone who may or may not be qualified either from blind faith or blind distrust. It's best to confirm with oneself what is the reason for believing the things that we do and if those reasons are justified by the available evidence.

Yeah, if that's all that he meant, then I certainly agree.

 

[pel1300]

Wow that’s interesting because most Aussies I’ve met are really cool but you seem intent on being a sanctimonious asshole. Maybe it’s a you problem?

It's not just him. I've met so many people from Australia and his behavior is pretty common. They often call themselves "laid back" and happy people - like the people of Hawaii. But really I lost count the number of times I've seen them lose their temper so easily.

Now mind you my experience is from being a former world traveler. Maybe it's just the ones who travel.

Also I just put Funkmiller on ignore. Can't stand the dude.

 

[xellos2099alpha]

I really don't think you're getting the point here. Unless you are a subject matter expert the only people you should be listening to are subject matter experts. Those people might not always agree but they are always better than listing to idiots.

Potential issue would be hidden agenda.

 

[Loki]

The spike protein is what makes COVID so deadly compared to a while bunch of other coronaviruses that only give us the sniffles. The spike protein can only mutate so much without losing its ability to interact with the ACE2 receptor, so targeting the spike protein makes sense. Using a whole capsid doesn't really help as the rest of the capsid is not as essential to viral function.

May not be as functionally useful, but it still provides more bases for comparison/immunological attack than narrowly focusing on the spike protein does, especially since most of the extant mutations have been mutations of the spike protein and not any of the other portions of the virus. It is simply common sense than an immune response based on X points of comparison will be better and more robust than one based on a single point of comparison. I don't see how this is even debatable.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Potential issue would be hidden agenda.

On an individual basis, perhaps, but the entire scientific community? Never.

Like there were a handful of people with obvious conflicts of interest that tried to discredit the lab leak stuff early on and were pretty successful at persuading the media for a bit but that breaks down when other scientists do the work, not because of Alex Jones saying dumb shit in between reads for off label dick pills.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

Potential issue would be hidden agenda.

heh, this is well timed post. As a first world concern I was just thinking on the subject of affected corporate interests influencing public health in media and lobbying. Cold and Flu treatment manufacturers and all the related stuff that could be lowkey anti measures/mrna since cold and flu rates have gone down. And from the sounds of these mRNA vaccines once they're better established we have the cure for the common cold.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

On an individual basis, perhaps, but the entire scientific community? Never.

Like there were a handful of people with obvious conflicts of interest that tried to discredit the lab leak stuff early on and were pretty successful at persuading the media for a bit but that breaks down when other scientists do the work, not because of Alex Jones saying dumb shit in between reads for off label dick pills.

Wait, are you saying that coordinated lab leak theory discrediting (Lancet letter, etc.) was overturned from within the scientific community? In this case, what was the applicable field of expertise and who from it "did the work?"

 

[poppabk]

May not be as functionally useful, but it still provided more bases for comparison/immunological attack than narrowly focusing on the spike protein does, especially since most of the extant mutations have been mutations of the spike protein and not any of the other portions of the virus. It is simply common sense than an immune response based on X points of comparison will be better and more robust than one based on a single point of comparison. I don't see how this is even debatable.

Haha. You know little of the immune system it seems, common sense doesn't come into it, the immune system evolved it wasn't designed. There are a while bunch of jerry rigged loops and feedback loops that keep us on the right side of our immune system killing only foreign invaders vs killing us.
Strength of binding is the most important factor, weak binding of an antibody or a TCR can result in a suppression effect. Binding of a B-cell which doesn't produce neutralizing antibodies can actually make an infection worse as the virus then infects the B-cells - which is why dengue fever is worse if you had a previous infection with a slightly different version (also why the vaccine was a bust).
For an analogy: it's like sending 30 spies with skills from untrained to pro into an organization versus sending in two pros, 30 is not better than 2 in this case.
But that is an insanely simple way of looking at it, just for T-cells you have the interplay between CD4 and CD8 T cells including Treg cells that suppress the immune system, cytoline storms where the immune system is working too well etc etc.

 

[sinnergy]

Just bought KISS tickets for the first week of September. Things better not shut down.

Things will shut down .. better was to keep some rules , you might had a change to see KISS

How old are you? 60?

 

[adj83]

But they do know more than you. And everyone else with zero qualifications or training.

It doesn't mean they're always right, but we should be making our decisions based on the best available information, and not spiraling out into some kind of epistemological crisis where any and every belief is equally true.

You seem to have made this pretty personal and you have assumed that I have zero qualifications or training in any applicable area. You are wrong.

Anyway, I did listen to my GP. He told me not to have any of the vaccines currently available because of a pre-existing condition.

 

[Rentahamster]

Wait, are you saying that coordinated lab leak theory discrediting (Lancet letter, etc.) was overturned from within the scientific community? In this case, what was the applicable field of expertise and who from it "did the work?"

Yes.

Virology, epidemiology, zoology, genetics, investigative science journalism, national security intelligence, etc.

Yuri Deigin, Nikolai Petrovsky, Richard Ebright, David A. Relman, Robert Redfield, Milton Leitenberg, Donald G. McNeil Jr, Rossana Segreto, Nicholson Baker, Josh Rogin, W. Ian Lipkin, Ralph Baric, everyone who signed this letter: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/covid-origins-letter/5c9743168205f926/full.pdf

Among many others, and amid many man-hours of discussion, debate, cross-referential research, and investigation.

 

[Rentahamster]

Saying "almost all (more than 9 in 10) COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths have occurred among people who are unvaccinated" is misleading when citing data in which at least half of the cases, hospitalizations, and deaths occurred before even 5% of the population was vaccinated.

I do not think the vaccines are mostly effective or even particularly good at preventing infection, at least with the Delta variant, and I believe that will only become clearer as time goes on. With that said, I am not denying that there is definitely a protective effect against severe symptoms, needing to be hospitalized, and death that appears to scale up with age.

This isn't as misleading as you think it is. It still contains relevant and useful data, and the methodology is transparent and fully shown.

There is lots of evidence that the vaccines are effective at reducing transmission of the delta variant.

Massachusetts coronavirus breakthrough deaths: 73% had underlying conditions, median age was 82.5

New data from Massachusetts public health officials reveals that a significant majority of fully vaccinated people who died after a coronavirus breakthrough infection had underlying conditions that…

www.bostonherald.com

The 7,737 breakthrough cases is 0.18% of the 4.3 million fully vaccinated people in Massachusetts.

“Breakthrough cases in Massachusetts are incredibly low, and those hospitalized or who have died are even lower,” the DPH said in a statement. “All available data continue to support that all 3 vaccines used in the US are highly protective against severe disease and death from all known variants of COVID-19. The best way to protect yourself and your loved ones is to get vaccinated.”

Is that misleading because they're counting all the cases since vaccination started? If you think so, then you can always parse the data to suit your needs.

Massachusetts breakthrough coronavirus cases jump 1,364 in one week, state’s daily infection tally up 883 amid delta spike

Nearly 200 fully vaccinated people in Massachusetts tested positive for coronavirus on a daily basis last week, as the rate of breakthrough infections pick up in the Bay State.

www.bostonherald.com

Between July 10 and July 17, the state reported 716 breakthrough infections — a daily average of 102 cases.

Then the following week, officials reported 1,207 breakthroughs — a daily average of 172 breakthrough infections. Last week, the daily average increased to 195 cases.

The week of July 10-17 had 716 breakthrough infections. There were 1,844 cases overall. Over 60% of the population is fully vaccinated, yet the majority of cases were from unvaccinated people.

The week of July 17-24 had 1,207 breakthrough infections. There were 3,343 cases overall. Over 60% of the population is fully vaccinated, yet the majority of cases were from unvaccinated people.

Here is a video by a doctor in mid July that summarizes all of the studies so far that study the efficacy of the vaccines at preventing infection.

If you think that the vaccines are not particularly good at preventing delta infection, I don't know where you're getting that from or from what data you're basing that conclusion on. As time goes on, perhaps the situation will change. However, in the here and now, the data overwhelmingly shows a protective effect against delta infection.

 

[FunkMiller]

By what measure, or is this just more anecdotal notions you've conjured up from memes and satirical works to make yourself feel less inadequate US hegemony?

Regardless, being deeply religious does not exclude someone from believing in science, so it would be incumbent upon you to not be, as a previous poster stated, a "sanctimonious asshole" about it.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...ligious-than-adults-in-other-wealthy-nations/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...ayer-u-s-is-an-outlier-among-wealthy-nations/

And I never said being religious precludes a belief in science. I said that it is incorrect to characterise the USA as a skeptical nation, when it is a very religious country.

Are you embarrassed by your nation’s high level of religiosity? Or are you in denial about how much more religious it is when compared to the other major developed nations?

And do you really believe that I, or anyone else in those countries, feels inadequate to you folks in the US? And you speak of US hegemony, as if you’re countries soft power hasn’t slipped greatly in the recent past. Do you understand your country at all, when it comes to how it’s viewed by the rest of the world?

 

[Rentahamster]

I said that it is incorrect to characterise the USA as a skeptical nation, when it is a very religious country.

Yup.

Most religions, and particularly the most common religion in the USA use faith as a fundamental tenet of belief in order to, so aptly, "keep the faith".

Faith is definitely not a tool that you will find in the toolbox of applied skepticism.

 

[FunkMiller]

But what you have been commenting on IS the skepticism of America, i didn’t try to make that argument. Now it’s flipped to Americans are religious and will believe anything so that’s why they’re skeptical? Pick an argument please.

It just doesn’t make sense. If Americans were really so credulous they wouldn’t be questioning the official story. Your religious connection is bunk. Also since you don’t live here you probably don’t realize how anemic christianity has become in much of the US.

Yes. The statement made was that America is a sceptical country. It isn’t. Because it’s very religious. Have you even bothered to read the previous posts properly?

You’re actually trying to say you think Americans question official stories? When so many of you believe what’s written in a two thousand year old book?

And you‘re another one who thinks America isn’t that religious. It’s insane. The warped view you guys have of your country is incredible. Whether you like it or not, you are absolutely seen as an exceptionally religious country.

The USA is a country replete with people that are brought up to unquestioningly believe in things based in no evidence. This includes things read on social media about Covid.

 

[TheDreadBaron]

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...ligious-than-adults-in-other-wealthy-nations/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...ayer-u-s-is-an-outlier-among-wealthy-nations/

And I never said being religious precludes a belief in science. I said that it is incorrect to characterise the USA as a skeptical nation, when it is a very religious country.

Are you embarrassed by your nation’s high level of religiosity? Or are you in denial about how much more religious it is when compared to the other major developed nations?

And do you really believe that I, or anyone else in those countries, feels inadequate to you folks in the US? And you speak of US hegemony, as if you’re countries soft power hasn’t slipped greatly in the recent past. Do you understand your country at all, when it comes to how it’s viewed by the rest of the world?

Speaking for the rest of the world again I see, you just don’t quit huh? Yeah there’s a long history of christianity in the US, and many people will say they are christian, but it’s not what you’re imagining. It’s more cultural than pure blind faith especially in current year.

To answer your question, yes it’s clear you feel inadequate.

 

[TheDreadBaron]

Yes. The statement made was that America is a sceptical country. It isn’t. Because it’s very religious. Have you even bothered to read the previous posts properly?

You’re actually trying to say you think Americans question official stories? When so many of you believe what’s written in a two thousand year old book?

And you‘re another one who thinks America isn’t that religious. It’s insane. The warped view you guys have of your country is incredible. Whether you like it or not, you are absolutely seen as an exceptionally religious country.

The USA is a country replete with people that are brought up to unquestioningly believe in things based in no evidence. This includes things read on social media about Covid.

God you’re a real arrogant prick, and you don’t know half as much as you think you do about the US, stop embarassing yourself.

 

[TaylorSwiftFan]

South African study shows high COVID protection from J&J shot

Johnson & Johnson's (JNJ.N) COVID-19 vaccine is working well in South Africa, offering protection against severe disease and death, the co-head of a trial in the country said on Friday.

www.reuters.com

For comparison, what are the odds of dying if you’re not vaccinated?

 

[FunkMiller]

Speaking for the rest of the world again I see, you just don’t quit huh? Yeah there’s a long history of christianity in the US, and many people will say they are christian, but it’s not what you’re imagining. It’s more cultural than pure blind faith especially in current year.

To answer your question, yes it’s clear you feel inadequate.

You genuinely believe this, don't you? You're so caught up in the imaginary picture you have of the USA in your head, that you think the rest of us are jealous of you, or feel in some way inadequate.

To clarify: there's a huge amount that's great about the US. But there's an awful lot wrong with it as well. Most notably for this current conversation: healthcare. Your healthcare system is pathetic. That's how the rest of the developed world sees the way you treat medicine in the USA. You think we'd be envious of that? Or feel inadequate? You're in a fantasy land!

And yes, I do think I have a better handle on how the rest of the world perceives the USA than you do, given that I've been lucky enough to travel extensively, and am - you know - outside of the USA, which you are not.

You've called me an arrogant prick, but don't you think the real arrogance here is your genuine belief that other nations in the developed world are jealous of your country? Especially at a time when healthcare is so much in the spotlight?

 

[EviLore]

Let’s deescalate and keep it civil. Thanks.

 

[FunkMiller]

It's not just him. I've met so many people from Australia and his behavior is pretty common. They often call themselves "laid back" and happy people - like the people of Hawaii. But really I lost count the number of times I've seen them lose their temper so easily.

Now mind you my experience is from being a former world traveler. Maybe it's just the ones who travel.

Also I just put Funkmiller on ignore. Can't stand the dude.

Shhh. Don't tell him I'm half British. He'll have an aneurysm.

...oh, I'm on ignore. Sigh. One less non-believer I can't convert

Let’s deescalate and keep it civil. Thanks.

No worries, chief.

TheDreadBaron :

 

[reksveks]

Personally i think the US is more skeptical and religious but not sure how they are related. I suspect there is a slight causation of being religious and skeptical of experts but think is some more underlying issues that's being exploited in the social media age and with the current media landscape the user has.

 

[DeepBreath87]

All I can say about the religious vs skeptical stuff is that having people who’s understanding of religious people is based on what they see in media/internet profiles make broad claims about the nature of religious people is like me making broad claims about scientists because I took a few biology class and saw Fauci on TV. Most of the people making the claims don’t have a ton of actual experience with American religious people. I don’t think that generally they have any idea what they’re talking about, so I wouldn’t take them very seriously on the subject.

As to why people might not trust certain experts or scientists, I think part of it is that science has been allowing bullshit politics to push them around. Now obviously, this is a separate subject. But when you have medical schools being scared to use “gendered language” and pretending we don’t know the difference between a male and female human being, you start to get concerned that maybe “science” isn’t so pure as an institution. Maybe that’s drawing too broad a conclusion, but serious people need to put the breaks on that kind of shit. It definitely damages my faith in the scientific community and makes me question the what comes out of it.

If science is a search for truth, that truth should be unvarnished.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

This is a really good example of a spectrum of political leaders in Canada(Ontario) and their Covid platforms being influenced or not by fringe elements(unsure of their religous status except to say possible given problems reported in Alberta with religious groups) related to Covid making a pitch at individualism and the Charter as a means to refuse setting up mandated vaccines in workplaces. Putting all sorts of set medical practice at risk. Oversight & science kept a leader and policy in check. A disappointing, myopic, mistake, but at least it was owned.

videoPlayer

toronto.ctvnews.ca

The leader in charge is still in charge, that's who they voted for.
The strip club bit is some nice relief and context. Ease the pressure a bit.

 

[Rat Rage]

A Florida radio host who railed against Dr. Fauci and vaccines has died from COVID-19

After contracting the virus, friends said Dick Farrel texted them and urged them to get the vaccine.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[reksveks]

But when you have medical schools being scared to use “gendered language” and pretending we don’t know the difference between a male and female human being, you start to get concerned that maybe “science” isn’t so pure as an institution.

I don't know if you accept there are a couple of conditions that means that you can't always use gonad to define males vs females, it's the same of chromosomes. That's definitely not typical in humans but it does happen. Highlighting that fact does sometimes annoys people.

The next question after that is how do you account for those people when you are making statements.

 

[DeepBreath87]

eh. Never mind. Not the right time or place.

 

[reksveks]

eh. Never mind. Not the right time or place.

I didn't see your original comment but I did have some hesitancy in posting my comment in a covid related thread. But to bring it back to topic, science is complicated and isn't fixed and sadly that doesn't work in our media consumption where we want everything to be static, simple and went it changes, the public loses confidence in the experts.

 

[DeepBreath87]

I didn't see your original comment but I did have some hesitancy in posting my comment in a covid related thread. But to bring it back to topic, science is complicated and isn't fixed and sadly that doesn't work in our media consumption where we want everything to be static, simple and went it changes, the public loses confidence in the experts.

The problem is that the science changing has a direct impact on people’s lives right now. And the things these scientists are saying aren’t being treated as their “educated, reasonably best assumptions based on available data.” They’re being treated as some sort of gospel that will save lives. At least for a few months until they hand down a new gospel that throws out the old one.

I get that science kind of works that way. New information should change our minds. The problem is the consequences of the stuff the scientists are saying. We closed business and schools. We strapped masks to our faces. We put shots in our arms. We have profoundly effected people’s lives. All based on the idea that these people are reasonably certain. So when it seems like their opinions shift with the wind, it rightly gets people concerned because we treating these people’s “scientific opinions” based on available data as fact and allowing them to run our lives to a greater degree than is actually appropriate.

 

[Rentahamster]

More evidence of the vaccine's protective effect on infection from the delta variant.

Like I mentioned in an earlier post, the cumulative data is helpful, but does not paint the whole picture in terms of delta specifically. For that we need localized recent data. Here it is. Even though the majority of the population in California is vaccinated, the majority of the infections are occurring in the unvaccinated.

19% of California COVID cases are breakthroughs

Aug. 7—About 19% of recent documented COVID-19 cases in California are breakthroughs, and state data shows that those who have been fully vaccinated account for an increasing portion of positive tests. The number, which contradicts a repeated public portrayal that...

www.seattletimes.com

About 19% of recent documented COVID-19 cases in California are breakthroughs, and state data shows that those who have been fully vaccinated account for an increasing portion of positive tests.

The number, which contradicts a repeated public portrayal that breakthrough cases are negligible, can be easily misinterpreted. To be clear, this is not an indication of some sort of vaccine failure. Quite the contrary.

Breakthrough cases were expected. State data still suggests that unvaccinated people are nearly five times as likely to be infected as those who are inoculated. And almost all the hospitalizations and deaths are among unvaccinated people. Vaccines remain the most important tool for fighting the pandemic.

Rather, the rising proportion of breakthrough cases suggests that even people who have been vaccinated are potentially significant spreaders of coronavirus, especially the delta variant. It reinforces why vaccinated people should also wear masks in public settings.

Breakthrough case rates are a sensitive topic, one that some health officials are trying to avoid and which has sparked a lot of handwringing in the media about how to report it.

The fear is that misinterpretation of the numbers will dissuade people from getting vaccinated. But, without the data, the important push for everyone to wear masks is weakened.

This past week, much media attention has misleadingly focused on a Kaiser Family Foundation survey of breakthrough data from the 24 states that are tracking breakthrough cases. It found that the cumulative infection rate for vaccinated people since the start of the year is well below 1% in all reporting states. Thus, the narrative has downplayed breakthrough cases.

But cumulative 2021 data is not helpful information for confronting the current surge driven by the relatively new delta variant. Which is why the daily breakthrough case rates are important.

Thus, for the week of July 31, the statewide average daily rate for vaccinated people was 7 per 100,000, double what it was two weeks earlier, and for unvaccinated it was 33 per 100,000.

To be sure, the data, like most of the COVID-19 case data we have, is limited because it relies on test results. Thus, it probably underrepresents breakthrough cases because infected vaccinated people are more likely than unvaccinated to be asymptomatic and consequently less likely to seek testing.

Randomized testing is needed to understand the prevalence of breakthrough cases more accurately. But now that we have surpassed 10,000 daily cases in California, it’s no longer insignificant that roughly one in five are from those who have already completed their shots.

The more people get vaccinated, the less likely the virus is to spread, and the quicker we can put an end to this pandemic.

 

[FunkMiller]

More evidence of the vaccine's protective effect on infection from the delta variant.

Like I mentioned in an earlier post, the cumulative data is helpful, but does not paint the whole picture in terms of delta specifically. For that we need localized recent data. Here it is. Even though the majority of the population in California is vaccinated, the majority of the infections are occurring in the unvaccinated.

19% of California COVID cases are breakthroughs

Aug. 7—About 19% of recent documented COVID-19 cases in California are breakthroughs, and state data shows that those who have been fully vaccinated account for an increasing portion of positive tests. The number, which contradicts a repeated public portrayal that...

www.seattletimes.com

The more people get vaccinated, the less likely the virus is to spread, and the quicker we can put an end to this pandemic.

Thank you for the amount of research you’re putting into this

 

[Jaysen]

A Florida radio host who railed against Dr. Fauci and vaccines has died from COVID-19

After contracting the virus, friends said Dick Farrel texted them and urged them to get the vaccine.

www.businessinsider.com

Awww what a shame.

 

[Rentahamster]

Additional thoughts on the OG vaccines and their reduced but still effective protection from Delta:

Some people might think that the vaccinations are useless until we can develop a vaccine or a booster shot that directly targets the delta variant. They are wrong.

Here is a key element that not a lot of people seem to realize - being infected with the delta variant itself and then recovering from it would theoretically train your immune system to protect you more specifically from the delta variant in the future. All those people who are vaccinated, get a breakthrough delta variant infection and don't even realize they have Delta or only experience slight sniffles from Delta, are then protected from future Delta infection (in theory) via natural immunity, and with very little risk of harm to themselves.

Now I'm not saying that people should go outside and purposefully infect themselves with Delta like it's some kind of old-fashioned chicken pox party. I'm saying that the OG vaccinations, even if they're not as effective at stopping you from getting the delta variant, will still more than likely minimize the degree of harm you experience from it, and you'll come out the other side with (theoretically) a delta variant "booster shot". Therefore, even if it were true that the OG vaccines don't do squat in preventing infection, the OG vaccines are still effective against the delta variant in that roundabout way. While our cases would still be high, we would be able to greatly reduce the amount of ICU beds needed in hospitals, since that is one of the main goals of "flattening the curve" anyway.

 

[RJMacready73]

I gotta say it cracks me up seeing reports of anti-vaxxers dying of covid.. y'all got far too much stupid inside your borders and this is the spaghetti monsters way of thinning the herd

 

[Toots]

The denomination is entirely immaterial. America is a deeply credulous and non-skeptical country, as proven by its high levels of religiosity. It’s farcical to anyone outside it to suggest otherwise.

If you truly believe this you’re an uneducated sophist. Religion is for credulous people? Have you heard of Pascal’s bet? Denomination doesn’t count? So what about pastafarianism?

i think you really should put water in your wine, and don’t go talking for anyone else but you. If your argument is sound it can stand on its own and doesn’t have to be some kind of genkidama where everyone on earth but US citizens give you their voices so you can finally shut the « bad guy » up…

to sum it up, calm down, speak for yourself, don’t wish ill on others.

Edit : I just saw Evilore plea for civility so I replaced « dumb » by « uneducated » and I developed so it wasn’t just an ad hominen attack.

 

[Zarkusim]

Re skeptism and religion. Do Americans still have a problem with evolution？

 

[Rentahamster]

Re skeptism and religion. Do Americans still have a problem with evolution？

As of 2019, according to the Gallup Poll, 40% of Americans think that humans were created in their present form by God.

40% of Americans Believe in Creationism

Four in 10 Americans have a creationist view of human origins, while 33% believe humans evolved with God's guidance and 22% without it.

news.gallup.com

Majorities of Protestants (56%) and those who attend church at least once a week (68%) believe that God created humans in their present form. Meanwhile, 59% of those who do not identify with any religion believe in evolution without any intervention from God.

Those with a college degree are much more likely to believe in evolution than creationism, while the opposite is true of those without a college degree. However, even among adults with a college degree, more believe God had a role in evolution than say it occurred without God.

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings – [ROTATED: human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life and God guided this process, human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of...

news.gallup.com

 

[Loki]

Haha. You know little of the immune system it seems, common sense doesn't come into it, the immune system evolved it wasn't designed. There are a while bunch of jerry rigged loops and feedback loops that keep us on the right side of our immune system killing only foreign invaders vs killing us.
Strength of binding is the most important factor, weak binding of an antibody or a TCR can result in a suppression effect. Binding of a B-cell which doesn't produce neutralizing antibodies can actually make an infection worse as the virus then infects the B-cells - which is why dengue fever is worse if you had a previous infection with a slightly different version (also why the vaccine was a bust).
For an analogy: it's like sending 30 spies with skills from untrained to pro into an organization versus sending in two pros, 30 is not better than 2 in this case.
But that is an insanely simple way of looking at it, just for T-cells you have the interplay between CD4 and CD8 T cells including Treg cells that suppress the immune system, cytoline storms where the immune system is working too well etc etc.

Your points are noted, and it’s clear that you have more than a layman’s understanding of immune function. However, I would like to point out that the considerations you highlight do not preclude natural immunity being more robust/durable/effective than vaccine-induced immunity. That is to say, all else being equal (i.e. if the binding strength is roughly the same or greater, or if the other features/benefits of natural immunity as compared to vax immunity - such as the ability to recognize/neutralize other viral moieties - are enough to outweigh a slight difference in binding affinity), natural immunity should be superior to vaccine-induced immunity for the reasons I mentioned. Note that I said “should be.” Data is still coming in on that front, but from what I’ve seen thus far, particularly recent papers on how exceedingly rare reinfection has been, it appears that this is in fact the case.