Now, to be clear that's a confounded number. The vaccinated are also likely to be taking other mitigation strategies seriously. So the vaccine itself will be somewhat less effective than this.
Nonetheless, this is pretty damning for the horse paste set. In decades to come we'll wonder and think and study how this all went so horrifically wrong.
We ban accounts that do this. If you don't want to be banned, please don't do anything like this again—not just your root comment here, but your many other aggressive comments in this thread. In fact it seems like every single one of the 10 comments you posted to this thread has badly broken the site guidelines. That sort of spree is beyond bannable offense. I don't want to ban you, so please restrain yourself from doing this in the future.
No matter how right you are or feel you are, no matter how wrong other people are or you feel they are, it is not ok to destroy the ecosystem like this. I'm sure you wouldn't set fires in a dry forest or in a public building, so please don't set them here. And please don't pour fuel or throw additional flammables in there either.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
p.s. Lest anyone misunderstand this as somehow cryptically taking the other side of the argument—I'm not. I'm simply concerned with preventing users from burning this place down. It doesn't matter what color the flames are.
I'll take the hit on the responses, though. It's very hard to leave things like that alone, but I'll try.
I compulsively edit everything I write - sorry if that was confusing. And thanks for the kind reply—I appreciate it, and believe me I know how hard it is.
It could also be true that vaccinated people are willing to take greater risks now that they knowingly have a level of protection.
The vaccines aren't risk-free; the damage of covid looks plainly to be orders of magnitude worse, but papering over any potential risk of vaccines is doing everything a disservice.
Getting people inoculated is important, but the chilling effects of this kind of short-circuiting is worrisome.
Lots of people are pro-mask, pro-mask-mandate, and still wary about the vaccine.
The latter were wearing their masks and being cautious. The former clearly aren't. While they're both "unvaccinated" they don't have the same behavior here.
The new Pfizer drug, with 89% efficacy, is a protease inhibitor targeting 3CLPro. Ivermectin seems to also work as a protease inhibitor targeting 3CLPro. Repurposing a drug that we know is safe means it came be deployed very rapidly. New and unknown drugs can take years before all side effects are known.
If anyone is interested in hearing an informed opinion on Ivermectin check out Dr. John Campbell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufy2AweXRkc
Are you saying people were not taking veterinary formulations of this drug (for which there is zero evidence of efficacy) without a prescription or any kind of supervision beyond what they read on Facebook? Because that's the takeaway I got.
Again, at some point we're all going to have a big reckoning as to why this kind of discourse you're engaging in became so prevalent.
It's not like we don't have an idea how to manage or understand infectious diseases. The linked article is about an extraordinarily effective control mechanism. Yet... horse paste. (And people on HN trying to defend horse paste as anything other than sheer idiocy by citing research they don't understand and that isn't even correct.)
Ivermectin taken more frequently than approved for has side effects including your intestinal lining falling off and looking like worms in your poo.
Hopefully we will investigate why almost all (rare) deaths after vaccination can be attributed to only 5% of lot numbers, a statistical anomaly with no easy explanation since this power-law curve appears in the data for both mRNA (Pfizer, Moderna) and non-mRNA (J&J) shots. Could the reason be variance in manufacturing or distribution?
Since someone is inevitably going to criticize VAERS as a data source: it would be trivial for CDC to release a comparable non-VAERS analysis from Vaccine Safety Datalink, their non-public surveillance dataset. While VAERS is flawed due to self-reporting, there are legal penalties for submitting false information, no legal penalties for failing to submit an adverse event report, and bureaucratic and time overhead for each submitted case. So there are also arguments that VAERS is missing data.
It's never enforced.
https://rumble.com/vokrf7-sen.-johnson-expert-panel-on-feder...
Note also that people that input spurious VAERS entries might invent most of the entry, but not know the format of a lot number, and thus copy one from some other entry.
Given the importance of this topic, 8,000 isn't a large number for a "manual recount" audit that would cross-reference with hospital and death records, to eliminate any fake data which may be present. We can then add the records from CDC Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), which is a separate, non-public database entered by medical professionals only.
lol, it might take decades to massage public consciousness for a desired outcome in the state's interest, but it certainly doesn't take that long to get a handle on the actual issues: institutions used up all their credibility on transparently obvious misinformation. It started with the WHO, an organization already hurting in that regard (Mugabe the goodwill ambassador... hard to top that kind of contempt), misrepresenting their Wuhan fact finding efforts. Then you had US politicians calling early efforts xenophobic and encouraging people to gather in chinatown to stick it to the racists, followed by the CDC saying masks weren't effective, before they were, and then weren't - and then double-masking. All while the stats were clearly going screwy, people suddenly stopped dying of anything but covid - the long running influenza tracking efforts were halted (or announced, but then reversed?)... oh, and obviously George Floyd tested positive. Mentions of "herd immunity" were scrubbed from the CDC's site, and the word "vaccine" redefined. So that is what went wrong: you can't expect appeals to authority to work when the authorities have seemingly gone out of their way to present themselves as liars who are trying to manipulate you by any means available to them.
Before: "Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."
After: "Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."
http://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.go...
But what is immunity, other than an immune response to the disease?
> ...unfortunate communication missteps.
That is one hell of a euphemism for being caught out in a lie. Fauci admitted to Congress that he intentionally lied to the public about the effectiveness of masks in order to manage people's behavior. Of course he tried to make his admission as confusing and unquotable as possible, which might be why you aren't aware of it: "...there was a paucity of equipment..."
I get the whole excuse about employing deceit in the furtherance of some greater good... but the problem with that kind of policy is that it can only possibly be used once - and after that you are left no other tools, because you can't be trusted. Do I think that was the motivation for most of this? Sure, why not... but I also know that it is a very convenient way to dodge responsibility for expanding federal power beyond what many imagined even possible while also funneling a huge amount of money. There is a reason why the mega-wealthy are coming out of this economic catastrophe with so much more than they had going in.
It's also confounded by urban vs rural. All else being equal, I'd expect rural people are less likely to get it because they interact with fewer people. So...confounded, very. Which direction? No clue.
Look I agree that vaccines confer a reduction in risk, but you really shouldn't be referring to ivermectin as “horse paste”. That is clearly pejorative misinformation, and is equivalent to calling all antibiotics “cow pills” just because there happen to be antibiotics administered to livestock.
Being embarrassed when someone calls you an idiot isn't being persecuted if you're actually being an idiot. If you don't want me to laugh at you for taking horse paste then don't take it.
It may not be the case in Texas, but I’d imagine the vaccinated are at equal or even greater risk than the unvaccinated because they are able to do more (attending events, school, etc).