"excuse to argue against it" is a very slippery slope.

There should be no excuses required to exercise free speech and free inquiry.

All you've attempted to do here is impugn the motives of those holding a position contrary to your own without addressing their arguments.

So share the argument against if you are so compelled to reject it.

Please also reject all other scientific advanced that have made it possible for you to live a longer life no matter how small those advancements seem to be. For if you choose to reject the scientific community and their solutions than you should then refuse the rest right down to the safety of the roads you drive on now. Making this argument is a luxury of people who are privileged beyond their abilities.

In all honesty, we probably owe the existence of Covid to the scientific community doing gain of function research. We never did find evidence of it in a bat, either in a wet market or elsewhere in Wuhan. We do know it existed in the WIV lab though.

Do you know that the particular strain of Covid-19 was in WIV without a doubt or is it still speculation? You could argue that indeed this was a lapse of protocol through disposal of lab specimens but does that mean we need to condemn an entire group of people for the mistakes of a few within a group that was studying this gain of function? I just don't buy that we should somehow make this into a holy war against an entire country if indeed this was a mistake in the scientific community within that country. If this were to happen in the U.S. (I'm assuming you are American, but this can be applied to anywhere) than who would we have to blame? What about the mistake of dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki? That in itself is a specifically horrific mistake. Even if it is proven that a lab was the origin of this virus will be ultimately forgotten like the people who dropped the bombs themselves and the people that made nuclear bombs a reality. We still pay the price for the mistakes of nuclear armament by the logistics of disposal and the logistics of multiple entities who are now proven to be unstable in the long run that hold that power. This is why biologic warfare is outlawed and why nuclear war is something to be avoided based on our first hand experience of what that could potentially look like for all of humanity. A mistake has many outcomes. Don't assume just because something may have happened it was with intent by proxy.

>What about the mistake of dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki? That in itself is a specifically horrific mistake.

Thanks for the reminder, we can also thank scientists for nuclear weapons.

When the free speech and free inquiry is causing more harm to society than it's preventing, that is a good reason to prevent it.

A healthy society must have a diversity of opinion, and that includes being allowed to be against vaccination and expressing that viewpoint.

The overton window is getting ridiculously narrow right now and it's definitely not for the benefit of society, truth nor probably even for the general health.

The evidence for the benefits of vaccines can speak for itself, so there is really no point in maligning anyone.

But there is definitely a lot of valid debate on who should be vaccinated and how much, and minimizing the overton window will stifle that debate.

You don't understand what is for the benefit of society then. In the case of western societies it's clear that they only ones benefiting from the anti-vax opinion is the healthcare industry. What do you gain from rejecting something that can elongate your immunity and also elongate against the schance that some for profit industry (western healthcare) will take advantage of you when you don't have the ability to object where the outcome of objection is death.

"the outcome of objection is death."

99% of the population recovers, maybe you are engaging in hyperbole?

Do you also count people who have lingering symptoms for over a year (in the UK half a million, or ~ 1% of the entire population so far) or continue to be unable to do their day to day activities (quarter of a million in the UK, or 0.5% of the entire population so far) as recovered? [1]

[1]: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...

The bias of this mathematician and the rest of the Royal Society working group regarding vaccination is irrelevant to the subject of these papers, which analyse how and why misinformation is spread, and how correct information can retain credibility.

Reflexively trying to discredit them while being too lazy to read beyond the headline is a great way of making your own position look highly dubious though.

Dubious assumes that my agenda is based on laziness which is in itself lazy. I read the article and my opinion is in alignment with the question everything that you don't understand camp which is the majority of anti-vax arguments regardless of the efficacy of the thing you are arguing against. No one ever claimed that these "vaccines" where a permanent solution. Everyone intelligent and capable of following along knew that getting "vaccinated" was not going to be for more than 6 months due to the fact that this was a rushed operation. No one claims that this was a tried and true solution and most agree that it was and still is a stop gap until we reach a greater immunity. How you choose to reach that is truly up to you. You can catch the virus multiple times and take a higher chance of possible death or take the vaccine and still catch it with a lower chance. It should be your choice but it also has ramifications for your pocketbook and further chance of "getting ahead" within this western healthcare system that so obviously is a bane to the income potential of individuals. When I argue for "vaccination" I'm not just advocating for your health but for your future income and that you should not succumb to the powers that be that will happily take your money downstream but in larger sums. I find it hilarious that people argue for questioning something that potentially could up their odds for getting bamboozled down the line.

EDIT: it boggles my mind when people argue against censorship yet they hit the down-vote button ever.

As long as vaccination comes with no strings attached, i have no problem with recommending it.

Each individual should be allowed to make an informed decision about taking the vaccine and the booster shots.

Just the same way as we have done with seasonal influenza all these years.

No and this is where I disagree. The people that disagreed with my opinion believed that I was trying to censor theirs with my own. I posted my opinion and a lot of people made assumptions about it without asking questions and made their own response. I have an extreme opinion according to some people. I'm also not the best authority on all of this but the people that pile on are assuming my opinion is an affront to their safety/security. Do I care that these people may have a chance of a high hospital bill if they catch this thing when they could just as easily get something for free to protect them against this disease that right now has high cost of care once that care is codified. Hell yeah! Keep arguing against one thing when it can ultimately keep you safe from catching a cold that is lucrative for the healthcare business at the moment due to political division. My opinion isn't based in propaganda and is based more in a concern for the long term financial ramifications for most. Watch how many people have to claim bankruptcy, furthering their descent into wage slavery after catching something that can be postponed until it becomes endemic.

I see your point, here in Europe it's different, since health care is usually free.

For me the infinite booster shots, is something that i want to skip, as an informed decision based on available data.

That might change further down the road, but i have an equally strong opinion that people should decide for themselves.

The financial viewpoint however, should convince some people that taking the vaccine is a sound choice.

> Can we get an idea of the bias of this mathematician concerning vaccinations? Specifically the Covid-19 vaccines.

> Be vigilant in finding out what the background and intentions are of people making claims such as these.

I swear every time anyone says anything interpreted as "anti vax" the very first thing people do is an ad hominem character attacks. Do you say this about the people pushing mandates hard?

> When hundreds of millions of people have received a vaccination with minimal outcomes of death there is no longer an excuse to argue against it

That's just like your opinion. Even if that's the case people should still be free to choose. There are plenty of people who trust the data and are vaccinated and are against mandates. This will come of as rude but a don't care: people like you are a far bigger danger to society than people who don't believe in vaccine mandates.

If that's my opinion and people are free to their opinions han why should I or anyone else be downvoted? The mere fact of downvoting an opinion is in fact censorship. The exact thing that all of the arguments against mine are railing against.

You're taking an experimental prophylactic against a disease with a 99.9% survival rate. Probably higher if you're under 50. And we still don't really know how safe it is, because the 'gold standard' data (double blind testing) is absent, save for 2 months' of Pfizer data. Your benefit has apparently outweighed your cost. Fine. Mine hasn't. I like to read any and all opinions, regardless of 'bias'. We all have biases, whether we realise or not. I'm intelligent enough to figure them out. I don't need 'we' getting 'an idea' of 'the bias'. I'll probably get flagged/banned/cancelled for my opinion, but such is life.

Even if you're wrong, I think it's interesting that the only lever they think they have to change your mind is "force you." The idea of having a serious dialogue is so far from their minds (maybe because of decades of training in PR disaster scenarios - chemical spills, manufacturing accidents, drugs that kill - where the establishment is unambiguously in the wrong?) that even when they're right, they act like they're wrong.

If the CEO of CNN wanted to convince their toddler to go to the bathroom, they'd start by compiling dossiers to discredit anyone with large bladders.

('They', in this, refers to the media/corporate PR/press release system that is used to determine public opinion.)

Yep, this is the real indicator.

What I'm a bit confused about is why they put so much focus on lecturing folks, demanding things, and so little focus on things that would help.

I wore a mask before anyone except folks in Chinatown where I am. I was told not to believe "misinformation" way back then. This was when they were telling us masks did nothing, only wear if you are symptomatic etc.

Hahaha I was the same way. I rebelled against scientific authority and wore a mask. It was only months later I was called a sheeple doing whatever the globalists wanted for wearing a mask.

It's not an experimental prophylactic if it's fully approved by the FDA https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi...

> 99.9% survival rate

There are plenty of countries where it already killed more than 0.2% of the population.

for reference, https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

Highest percentage of population death with Covid is Peru with 630/100.000

205,112 deaths with Covid for a population of 32 million.

Your bias shows heavily. Where's the double blind trial for covid effects and death rate (which seems to be more around 1%), not to ignore the very present long term effects that affect more people? Why put such a high level of doubt on the vaccine which billions of people took, but not on the disease that prompted its creation?

that's the thing. You can freely talk about covid death rates and long term effects, but you can't do it about the vaccine.

You can, as long as you're not doing it one-sidedly, or making shit up.

Why? Simple: because doing those things is currently destroying human civilization.

> I'm intelligent enough to figure them out.

That's the epistemological problem with misinformation.

How does one know one is intelligent enough if one is trying to evaluate from misinformation? Shouldn't the premise "garbage in, garbage out" apply?

It does not matter how smart we are, the virus is dumb.

As many other people realized too late, you can't negotiate with a virus. "I'm smarter than the scientists" is the wrong poker bet here (and you are risking your life for a small vanity ego boost, none less).

Well, personal experience trump's this kind of argument. I've had two shots and a booster and have yet to catch Delta, Omicron, and it's sub-variant now. I happily go to venues and restaurants knowing I have a certain window to execute that freedom within the confines of science and that when the time comes to require a booster to give me another 6 months or so until a pan-coronavirus vaccine is validated, to be able to live my life more normally than unvaccinated people who have a higher chance of catching it and getting a worse outcome, I will choose the vaccine. Some will argue that they fear nothing and that is their choice. I would rather take any advantage that I can have scientifically to prolong my chances or make it hard for this virus to overcome me. If I can give an opinion that both protects me for a period of time and helps others to not be overcome by the completely unregulated healthcare industry of this country and the exorbitant amount of money they extort from people based on their opinions then I will continue to scream fromt he rooftops in spite of the short sightedness of the arguments against.

I agree, and I like to add there is a difference between censorship of information and stopping propaganda. Some groups make a claim (say against vaccination) which is fine by itself, but when people run with it, amplify it to influence others, then it goes into propaganda territory.

Healthy debates need a good context and a platform that allows for that. I don’t know of many platforms except here in HN and perhaps the debates I had in IRC channels.

There is no difference. Just label anything you want to censor as propaganda.

That is a unsubstantive statement in my view. Who is labeling here, why and what context?

In any context. If someone thinks or knows something is propaganda they should exercise their free speech to point that out.

Not even propaganda should be censored.

Then again propaganda often implies it’s coming from a government. In that case the people and their representatives should have the power to prevent or retract statements if needed.

Maybe not, it is certainly debatable. But propaganda implies (to me at least) it has gone beyond debate. It also implies a tool to influence others. Aka a form of weaponized information. I do think there is a gradient where one could say “this goes beyond free speech” , for instance as in your example.

This is what someone with a high stake in propaganda would say. Fact is, there is a difference.

I'm very curious about the folks pushing vaccines

6,000 scientists signed the John Snow Memorandum which states

“there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection.”

https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/john-snow-memo.html

The CDC director is a signer here.

This is so obviously likely totally false it's mind boggling.

We've been told by experts that

a) masks don't work - despite the fact that they've historically worked against other airborne pathogens.

b) that a cloth mask is fine.

...

and the list goes on.

I ignored this and believed in the "misinformation" of N95 with a vent which dramatically increases comfort and wearability.

Now we are are told that natural immunity from our immune system, which has handled MANY MANY influenzas and diseases of the past, doesn't work against COVID, despite evidence from things like SARS and MERS that the immune system remains pretty darn amazing with longer lasting protection.

You can't actually get hard data on this claim, despite insanely high case rates that should make analysis trivial.

So again a likely lie by the vaccine pushers, that if you've been infected with covid you are are not at reduced risk of re-infection.

I'll give it three months and watch them eat crow again.

Honestly, there is no excuse for this crap from those who insist on lecturing us about "dangers to society". We need honesty, integrity and facts, not lecturing, hectoring and lies.

The gaslighting is so bad:

they: we don't recommend people stick with just the natural immunity because we don't know how fast is wanes.

also they: We do recommend vaccines for everyone, even though their efficacy is 50% after 2 months - because we know exactly what the effect is.

me: But ...but....natural immunity is better all around, even if it's not "known" how much better.

I'm watching the news and opinion pieces and I just don't understand why we're being gaslighted like this, and why people are ok with it.

disclaimer: vaxxed and boosted.

They are not necessarily wrong. (This is an anonymous account so I'll state my qualifications: none regarding medical stuff)

I think coronaviruses we knew before were not immunizing either, which is why people catch the cold over and over (I catch it every year, sometimes twice a year).

What's wrong is pushing simultaneously the view that natural immunity is not very effective against SARS-CoV-2, but that vaccines somehow are, which is indeed a disingenuous proposition on its face.