It’s important to distinguish events that are likely from those which are unlikely. Otherwise you may mislead someone.
Who the poster is and what they've said in the past are completely irrelevant.
Good rule of thumb: Would the rebuttal remain the same if responding to a different poster? If no, then the rebuttal is probably an ad hominem.
There is a whole army of people out there who have a serious problem with accepting reality and it is useful to point out that someone is arguing with someone else who does not accept reality as it is commonly experienced. That saves everybody time, just like we don't feed the trolls we also should not waste cycles on engaging people who refuse to accept evidence anyway. Think of it as a PSA rather than an ad-hominem attack, you are assuming that the argument was brought in good faith, I don't.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
I'm not responsible for flamebait by expressing my opinion. Maybe the moderation system is to be overhauled to account for more diverse opinions ? I observed when I tell things half the time I get points half the time I get downvoted.
Are one-sided debates more fun ? Yes, if you want a reflexion of yourself in a mirror.
In any case I don't try to be this way intentionnally.
Is free speech still a thing ?
In any case if my opinion is not needed here I will go spend energy elsewhere. Community can be toxic and it's becoming the case here.
Re-reading all my comments I stand firm, no aggression there, just opinions.
Best regards, I know your work is very hard !
We're trying to be a specific kind of site. For that we need people to post in a certain way: thoughtfully, respectfully, substantively. If you post that way, you're making a positive contribution. If you don't post that way, then you're contributing to destroying this place (for its intended purpose), which is not in your interest, because the community and culture here are what makes HN worth participating in in the first place.
I'm sure you wouldn't litter in a city park or dump motor oil in a mountain lake, right? You'd treat those resources carefully because you know how valuable they are, and how we all have to hold them in common. It's like that here. I don't see that as an "expressing my opinion" issue—if someone dumped motor oil in a mountain lake and you asked them about it and they said "this is how I express myself", that would not be persuasive.
People tend to vastly underestimate the damage they cause (let's say 10x) and vastly overestimate the damage that other people cause (let's say another 10x), which leads to a 100x bias in evaluating these things. That's why everyone feels innocent and aggrieved and why it's so obvious that other people are the problem. Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear!
If you're interested in reading a much longer explanation, here is an exchange I had with another user who was in a similar situation a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27161491. I took a lot of time to write that out (it's basically an essay) because this comes up fairly regularly. The point is that the issue isn't really a moral one ("don't say bad things") - it's an optimization problem ("how do we sustain an internet forum that doesn't suck"). If you understand that then maybe you'll feel less like the moderation here is against you.
> The vaccine makes the death complications less likely. You might still get Covid after being vaccinated, but you probably won’t get the full vascular infection if you were vaccinated beforehand. That’s all I mean.
I have no idea why this is a topic of debate, no doubt there's some wording error, hooray English. I don't really have anything else to say so I'll leave y'all to it.
Original: Sorry, are you arguing that the vaccine has killed more people than the virus? Because there's no way you have numbers that actually support that. Given that there are now far more vaccinated than infected in America, you'd need to find near on a million vaccine deaths.
If thats the case, and those are confirmed with PCR test, then we are catastrafucked. In the UK double infections are pretty rare. Given the routine level of testing (~1million tests a day) I'd expect to see some sort of indication or worry from the statisticians.
> a couple of which I know are fully vaccinated.
Again, I'd expect this to see some level of data to support double infections in vaccinated people with "normal" immune systems. I'd expect to see that data in the UK or Israel, possibly south korea as well.
I'm sure it happens, but at a scale that we would see in a normal office, suggests something really quite common. But I can't find evidence to support that (I have a lot of doctor friends, who'd i'd expect to get re-infected, especially as they have been more lax with the little PPE they have. )
The last 2 outbreaks have been among the exact same group of people: the office bible study group. That group meets at least once a week in close quarters for an hour or two at a time.
As of right now, at least 5 of the people that are currently out and have positive PCR tests have had it at least one other time in the last three to four months, with another positive PCR test to confirm. Our company requires everyone send in their proof of a negative or positive tests each time they're taken, and you cannot return to work until it's been submitted.
They found a "suspected" reinfection rate at 270 days of 0.8% so yeah, it's pretty rare.
Can you cite nay sources for that conclusion?