Thank God some people still know what’s up.

I agree the claim requires more evidence and it would be foolish to just take it at face value, but even if my intuition told me it was intrinsically safe I wouldn’t place any degree of trust in my own logical conclusions, or discount someone else’s warnings, however spurious.

The burden of proof should never be on the accuser when it comes to safety, in my opinion, or anything else of public concern. And the standard of proof should be higher to show that everything’s ok than to show that it’s not. At least in an ideal world.

I mean, it sounds like you’re saying, “I don’t know how it can be dangerous, therefore it’s not dangerous.”

So… actually that’s not the case. They’re only free at the point of sale. The government buys them. They’ve made money on every single one.

The basic premise is that the community needs to be inoculated enough so that any breakout doesn’t have enough viable hosts around to jump to and dies out before it can gain momentum among a wider population. This benefits others in the community who are still vulnerable for whatever reason and is a legitimate argument for why people should care if other people get vaccinated. If the threat is dire enough it could even be argued that others should be forced against their will. The costs of implementing herd immunity can be quite high, as well as the benefits—but for us to begin even thinking about whether it’s worth paying, we must be sure we can realistically achieve it.

If the level of inoculation among the population is too low the virus will spread. That’s what’s important—that’s why it’s all or nothing. The fact that it’s slower, or that it won’t overwhelm hospitals as quickly, is so trivial in comparison as to be inconsequential. The only thing that matters is that it’s still there. Fast or slow, it will still infect the entire world, and the vulnerable won’t be safe.

Given all of the above, it goes without saying that a vaccine that only stops a virus from making you sick but doesn’t stop it from spreading is next to useless when it comes to herd immunity—that much should be obvious. I would think it should be obvious too that the covid vaccine is one of such a type, but if you’re interested in arguing that here or elsewhere—or anything else for that matter—please know that ridiculing and dismissing others because you think they’re so obviously wrong and incapable of being saved, is in fact the only thing preventing anyone from trying to fix it.

The pharmaceutical companies just give them away out of the goodness of their hearts?

Herd immunity doesn’t exist until a high enough percentage of the population is inoculated, so if you can’t realistically hit that threshold it’s worthless to the community to try and get as many people as you can.

Also, herd immunity only works when the vaccine prevents you from transmitting the disease to others in the first place.

I know this article is about vaccination in general, but many people are going to view it especially in the context of the covid pandemic—so it’s important to note out that the covid vaccine does not satisfy either of the above requirements. Whatever the value may be of achieving herd immunity in any other case, it unequivocally does not apply to covid. I’m not implying that you were saying it did, btw, just advising people—especially the vehement, single-minded detractors and defenders both—not to treat vaccines as if they’re all the same.

Both perspectives are defensible. The question could be interpreted generally on its own, or in the context of OP’s new-user experience. Personally I would lean towards the latter, but that makes an assumption that the] look

God I hate camping

Of course not, but that’s not what Bob and Mike did. Bob and Mike are nearly indistinguishable in terms of military spending, conducting wars abroad, allowing our economy to be plundered, and generally doing jack shit to help ordinary American citizens who are suffering worse and worse as a result.

So yeah. Every single one of them did very bad things, and any differences you can point out are not nearly substantial enough to make any of them worth defending.

Everything Democrats accuse Republicans of is true.

Everything Republicans accuse Democrats of is true.

Biden is bad.

Trump was bad.

Obama was bad.

Bush was bad.

Clinton was bad.

“At least he did X” is not the right thing to focus on.

“But Y was/would have been worse” is not the right thing to focus on.

Yeah, there’s a big difference between “random country” and “home country”.

I experimented with this some time ago and failed because I didn’t have a credit card from the foreign country to pay with. I’m sure this can be circumvented with some effort, but it’s not trivial.

Quite notable, that Bernard.

Your mistake is in thinking that representation in the media/web sphere = representation in the population. White I don’t know the numbers, I reckon that the percentage of the population that doesn’t want a headphone is less than half—possibly much less.

That was nice but early reddit days, before subreddits, were the best days of the Internet.

But that’s literally the way villains behave in the movies.

It doesn’t matter how common the written error is, because the ambiguity is omnipresent in speech and we sort it out every day of our lives, so it will always be easy as fuck.

FYI, both of you are overacting. It’s weird to react to the correction so seriously, but equally weird for you to get so offended by the error. Both of you be better.

You’re currently in violation of the oldest, most sacred rule of secret-sharing, and recommend you amend that per your obligation to the social contract, as a matter of principle.

What’s the basis for that argument, especially in refutation of his detractors?

Hot take: their browser is good.