So, your argument is that personal choice can be ignored in favour of your personal definition of 'public health'? Take your logic a step further - why can't we just completely ignore your personal opinion of what's a public good or what is 'public health'? Another step further - ignore everyone's opinion of what's public good and have a small group of elites define this for us? Your argument is nothing more than blanket support for literally any top-down policy which labels itself 'for the public good'. Yawn.
So you're just going to pretend that the entire media and political establishment (at least in US) as well as many industries (ex. big tech) are not strongly supportive of big pharma when it comes to the vaccines?
Are you going to pretend people are not being actively censored, banned, cancelled, fired for being vaccine-sceptical?
Do you not believe that the extensively-documented mass manipulation of public opinion is a thing?
If this is the fantasy land you want to base your reasoning in, then I accept that we have different starting points but your reasoning is compelling under your starting point.
The media, political establishment (or at least half of it), and other industries are supportive of vaccine mandates. These loose groups of people can indeed influence the public, and are using this ability to promote vaccines. These premises are uncontroversial.
The problem is that some folks are jumping to the conclusion that they are doing this because they want to sacrifice their own interests to increase profits for big pharma. Either this is for an altruistic reason (hah!) or big pharma is actually more powerful than those people (or, maybe, that isn't actually happening).
I know it's comfortable to think that the world's largest economy is entirely under control of three companies, but I see no compelling evidence that this is the case.
> These loose groups of people can indeed influence the public, and are using this ability to promote vaccines.
There is nothing loose about the US media and political establishments. If you watch mainstream media with any regularity you'd think it was two departments of one corporation.
> The problem is that some folks are jumping to the conclusion that they are doing this because they want to sacrifice their own interests to increase profits for big pharma.
I didn't see anyone make that claim. There are many extensively documented cases of collusion between government and media. 9/11 coverage, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars, virtually any coverage of foreign adversaries (Russia, China, Iran), vaccines, etc. being some obvious examples.
> I know it's comfortable to think that the world's largest economy is entirely under control of three companies, but I see no compelling evidence that this is the case.
Oh yeah, can't think of anything more comfortable to think of!
have you ever sat through the commercials of American TV news stations? pharma has a directly controlling interest in the media. this should be uncontroversial.
I watched broadcast news in America two days ago, in fact, though it's somewhat unusual (I prefer to read news). I do remember some pharma ads. I also remember ads for retail stores, chain restaurants, and tourism (an amusement park, a cruise line, and a more general "come visit place X").
Even if we presume that advertisers are the only stakeholders (forgetting, let's say, investors), I'd disagree that pharma has a controlling interest in the media.
> COVID-19 Antibody Tests cost more than the vaccine (roughly $40 Vs. $16/dose).
That's not a valid reason at all.
> We lack the quantity of Antibody Tests we'd need.
We also lacked vaccine quantity, and many people still do.
> We'd need to set up additional systems and processes to accommodate the testing and proof (which, again, is a cost).
Meh, that's a very weak reason considering it's a small incremental cost to vaccine passports and covid testing.
> The implicit assumption that often go along with these natural immunity proponents is that the vaccine is unsafe.
That's just your 'implicit assumption'.
> Since if the vaccine was safe, the logistical and cost arguments win the day, the only way to make the argument otherwise is to start with the assumption that the vaccine is unsafe and work backwards.
Except vaccine efficacy is much lower than natural immunity and vaccine efficacy wears off over time. We literally have ZERO data on the long-term effects of the mrna vaccines. Plenty of drugs have been found to cause harm 5, 10, 15 years after being approved.
> Therefore, I propose that the argument between natural immunity Vs. vaccine is largely a distraction that people who believe the vaccine to unsafe use to obfuscate their goals.
Your comment here is a distraction. You literally haven't brought up a single fact or data point on vaccine vs natural immunity efficacy.
> Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue
How is it a settled issue when there is literally zero data on long-term effects?
> you're really just discussing if the US should waste money on multiple redundant workflows so that vaccine hesitant people can feel better.
- If the vaccine is cheaper (directly and logistically).
- If tracking the vaccine is easier.
Why add the natural immunity workflow? It doesn't make sense. You've just added a bunch of complexity for no stated payoff. Again, this entire argument hinges on the first question being answered "no" or "maybe not."
You yourself admit that that is your actual reason:
> Furthermore we literally have ZERO data on the long-term effects of the mrna vaccines. Plenty of drugs have been found to cause harm 5, 10, 15 years after being approved.
The "but efficacy" response is confusing at best. If the vaccine does literally nothing for natural immune people, it can still be the logical course of action at population scales for the other stated benefits (logistical, tracking, and cost).
Something you don't know. If you want a sincere discussion you might want to at least admit the obvious.
> If the vaccine is cheaper (directly and logically).
First of all you don't know if it's cheaper. Second, people are free to pay for anything they want regardless of how cheap it is. I'm sure the vast majority of vaccine-sceptical people would readily pay for their own tests.
> If tracking the vaccine is easier.
Why do you keep with the 'if, if , if'? I did not make any assertions or assumptions that intersect with your ifs whatsoever. All of your 'ifs' are completely irrelevant, and I'm guessing by the fact that you start explaining every supposed hole with an 'if', that you understand that you can't even verify the validity of these supposed holes you found.
> Why add the natural immunity workflow? It doesn't make sense.
Because natural immunity is more effective and some people do not want to get the vaccine?
> You've just added a bunch of complexity for no stated payoff. Again, this entire argument hinges on the first question being answered "no" or "maybe not."
I've stated multiple payoffs multiple times already:
- We do not know the long-term side effects of mrna vaccines.
- MRNA vaccine efficacy is lower than natural immunity, and all data points to MRNA vaccines wearing off significantly after 6 months.
- Some people may not want to get the vaccine for other reasons, the actual reasons are completely irrelevant - in a free society people get to choose what biologically active substances they inject into their own bodies.
> You yourself admit that that is your actual reason:
So looks like you did notice one of the reasons I gave you? Interesting that you quoted it, yet completely ignored the substance and failed to challenge or respond to the actual point.
> If the vaccine does literally nothing for natural immune people,
Stop with the 'ifs'. If you don't know the validity of your own point, don't make the point.
> for the other stated benefits (logical, tracking, and cost).
These other stated benefits coming directly from your imagination right? Or are these the 'if' kind of benefits?
'IF the vaccines are a perfect solution, we should forcibly vaccinate everyone.' - cool story bud
Yes I do. The Antibody Test costs $42 and the vaccine costs $16/dose in the US today.
> Second, people are free to pay for anything they want regardless of how cheap it is.
Nobody was proposing that individuals pay for either one of these. The US Government should pay for it using taxes so that even the poorest citizen has access.
> I'm sure the vast majority of vaccine-sceptical people would readily pay for their own tests.
Letting people self-certify as a public health strategy has been problematic in the past and would be problematic here too.
> I've stated multiple payoffs multiple times already:
But they don't add up. Your "list" boils down to:
- It is unsafe (which is factually inaccurate).
- The vaccine may not add to natural immunity (which as I said, being cheaper and simpler than the alternative testing makes it still worthwhile).
- It is unsafe, and we live in a free society (which is factually inaccurate and irrelevant).
You've made zero arguments for why a cheaper and simpler safe vaccine is inferior to a more expensive and complex antibody test regime. That's because your entire argument hinges on "the vaccine is unsafe" and little else.
> Yes I do. The Antibody Test costs $42 and the vaccine costs $16/dose in the US today.
You're ignoring economies of scale, ignoring basic economics (increase supply - price goes down), ignoring the fact that vaccines require 2 dozes - and potentially more, as well as ignoring the additional costs of administering vaccines multiple times. Also, I would like to see where you're getting those numbers from, since a quick google search directly contradicts your numbers:
> The U.S. government will pay Pfizer Inc nearly $2 billion for 100 million additional doses of its COVID-19 vaccine to bolster its supply as the country grapples with a nationwide spike in infections.
> Nobody was proposing that individuals pay for either one of these.
I literally just proposed it to your face 2 times in a row.
> The US Government should pay for it using taxes so that even the poorest citizen has access.
Oh, look at you, so concerned about the poorest citizen that you want to explicitly deny them the possibility to pay for their own tests and force them to get vaccinated against their will. What a champion of the poor.
> Letting people self-certify as a public health strategy has been problematic in the past and would be problematic here too.
Did I say anything about 'self-certify' ? Do you want to respond to my actual statement or just continue with these weak strawmen?
> It is unsafe (which is factually inaccurate).
For the fourth time - show me the data on long term effects. Which part of 'long-term effects' don't you understand?
> The vaccine may not add to natural immunity (which as I said, being cheaper and simpler than the alternative testing makes it still worthwhile).
Another strawman completely unrelated to anything I've said.
> - It is unsafe, and we live in a free society (which is factually inaccurate and irrelevant).
Do you see the words 'safe' or 'unsafe' anywhere in my 3rd point? No? Are you going to continue making these fallacious, insincere strawmen, or are you secure enough with your beliefs to actually defend them honestly?
> That's because your entire argument hinges on "the vaccine is unsafe" and little else.
I've never made a single assertion about the safety of the vaccines other than that we don't know the long term side effects.
No, my entire argument is built on economies of scale. Which favor a vaccine for every person, rather than an antibody test for a subset of a subset.
> Did I say anything about 'self-certify' ?
You argued that people should be able to pay for and provide their own tests. That's self-certification. If you're arguing for the state to do it instead, then we're back to square one (i.e. that the logistics don't favor it).
> For the fourth time - show me the data on long term effects. Which part of 'long-term effects' don't you understand?
You cannot argue these two thing together in good faith:
- Natural immunity provides long term immunity, without long term data.
- We cannot know on the vaccine because we lack long term data.
Pick one or the other. Not both.
> I've never made a single assertion about the safety of the vaccines other than that we don't know the long term side effects.
So you didn't make any except that same one in every single one of your comments?
Attaching vindictive clapbacks to every other sentence from OP is really not a way to help your argument, especially on HN. OP’s argument is clear; we have surplus vaccines, it’s statistically safer than getting COVID regardless of your infection status and cheaper than getting tested for natural immunity, not to mention the cost society needs to bear if your failed die roll lands you in an ICU. I’m not sure what yours is, something vague about a govt-backed immunity testing program that doesn't exist yet. But I’m sure you’ll find a way to call me a turd for not getting it rather than supply details. Surprise me, please.
>No, my entire argument is built on economies of scale. Which favor a vaccine for every person, rather than an antibody test for a subset of a subset.
"Take this medical treatment you don't want because I believe in economies of scale"
"My body my choice, and you can put your economy of scale wherever you want but not in my bloodstream - I'd rather not since I've already had covid"
"bbbut I believe in economies of scale!"
the end
Forcing people to take medical procedures they don't want might be last step in a long chain of things, which include a test for natural immunity due to presence of antibodies.
you're not arguing in good faith and much of your argument is just illogical. There's no reason to do this, it won't convince anybody , in fact it will make most people just ignore you.
right? These word by word break down responses don't ever get anywhere
the whole argument he's making has operates on the presumtion that the vacccine is unsafe, contrary to mainstream scientific opinion. Then the only evidence he has to back that up is lack of evidence on long term effects.
But...the type of which would potentially appease him is only possible with a time machine, so it's literally impossible to appease him
> Every single company that sells things does this.
Nope.
> It is a bit bizarre that your comment, or variations of it, appears for every single Apple release. For those people so jaded and annoyed at the existence of Apple, why not just skip those threads?
For those people so jaded and annoyed at people critiquing apple - why not just skip those threads?
> There's something unique about Apple that draws in the detractors, however (seriously -- just look at the comments! What a junkyard of noise).
Maybe the only unique thing here is your need to defend apple with no arguments other than your own annoyance at apple being criticised?
The covid vaccines do not prevent transmission, and people who are unvaccinated are not intentionally infecting others with covid. Taking the vaccine is also not the same as not driving sober because there are real fatal risks to taking the vaccine. Also, the main risk of death from covid is for people that do have preventable personal illnesses, or serious health issues. The average person dying from covid in the US has 4 comorbidity and only 5% of deaths do not have comorbidity [0].
So, tell me, why should a healthy, young person, who already had covid and went through it no problem, take a vaccine that could literally kill them? Because vaccine passports as introduced in some places will majorly mess up the lives of many people.
I'm not sure what your argument is? That pleasure is what determines if something is ok to do? People have reasons for not taking a vaccine the same way people have reasons for drinking. They have their own reasons, it is their choice.
Comment above me claimed we should have sympathy for unvvacinated people [that have access to vaccine] who die, just like we do sympathize with people who die due to smoking, drinking, etc.
I argued that being vaccinated is not comparable to those, because unlike them, your body doesn't have any urge to not vaccinated. It's very easy to get vaccinated. It's just a stupid decision.
Not getting vaccinated is a stupid decision, but smoking is not? Or you think people are spontaneously addicted to smoking, drinking, drugs? Or you think that people randomly decide to not get the vaccine because they just wake up stupid one day? Guess what, in a free society people can choose what they put in their bodies, regardless of how much pleasure you think they get from it, or how stupid you think it is.
You forgot the second half of the paragraph from your source:
> Human studies show that formic acid is excreted faster than it is formed after ingestion of aspartame. In some fruit juices, higher concentrations of methanol can be found than the amount produced from aspartame in beverages.
Also:
> Aspartame consists of two amino acids—aspartic acid and phenylalanine. When ingested, aspartame is broken down into these amino acids for use in protein synthesis and metabolism. In addition to aspartic acid and phenylalanine, aspartame digestion also yields a small amount of methanol, a compound that is naturally found in foods like fruits and vegetables and their juices. The amount of methanol resulting from consuming an aspartame-sweetened beverage is about five to six times less than that resulting from the same volume of tomato juice.[1]
Since who drinks tomato juice, really, another way to put it is that you'd need about 20 large Diet Cokes (32 oz each, no ice) per day to get the same amount of methanol as from a diet rich in ripe fruits (1000 mg/day).
Methanol basically comes from fermentation or digestion of pectin, so it’s in pretty much all fruits and fruit byproducts in small quantities. It’s really not a problem in small doses, in fact your breath will have a small but measurable amount of it at pretty much all times. You really have to try to get enough methanol to poison yourself.
