I have taken more vaccines than vast majority of the population due to my immigration status. Just because someone is criticizing the pros and cons of a medicine doesn't make them anti-vax. You are engaging in an ad hominem attack without knowing anything about me.

You broke the site guidelines repeatedly in this thread. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of how right they are or how wrong other people are or you feel they are. Following the site guidelines is more important, because the survival of the entire forum depends on that. We've also had to warn you repeatedly about this in the past, so it doesn't have just to do with this topic.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

Threatening to ban the person trying to counter vaccine misinformation because he called someone anti-vax. A+ moderation.

I think you may have missed the point a little bit. Being right, or feeling right, doesn't make ok to abuse the site. It makes it more important to follow the site guidelines, not less.

The way to "counter" a wrong view, or a view you feel is wrong, is with thoughtful discussion and good information. Pouring fuel and setting it on fire is not that.

Btw I posted lots of moderation replies in this thread, to people on both sides of the argument who were posting abusively. The community strongly expects us to be even-handed about that, no doubt including the vast majority of the users who agree with your positions. This is a basic principle and should be obvious.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You are consistently replying to my comments, calling me names and then getting mad at me in other comments for me replying back to you. You should read the hacker news guidelines.

It's common for people to feel like there must be brigading when downvotes etc. show up quickly, but a much simpler explanation is that this stuff happens all the time on divisive topics, with no coordination required.

It's also perfectly common for downvoted posts to get upvoted back to positive, as other readers come in. It's actually to be expected for unfairly downvoted posts, since readers will give corrective upvotes regardless of whether they agree or disagree.

If you break the site guidelines, though—which unfortunately you did in this thread, repeatedly—you're going to get downvoted and flagged regardless of whether people agree/disagree or your underlying view is right/wrong.

Of course it's very frustrating to see lots of wrong views, or views you feel are wrong, getting expressed in threads like this. But the site guidelines require all commenters to metabolize that frustration and to remain thoughtful and respectful and substantive in their comments, regardless of how right they are or feel you are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I know there's volatility in voting, but the tone of discussion and vote patterns early in these discussions do not look at all like what happens later. It seems to happen repeatedly on topics of vaccines: thoughtful pro-vax stuff gets downvoted/gray.

There's one thing I particularly disagree with: I do not think labelling a user that posts large piles of anti-vaccine content as "antivax" is ad-hom.

You missed the radio button on page 3 which lets you see the test positivity rates based on vax status too. There too, the vaxxed and boosted score worst:

https://i.imgur.com/m7qihub.png

Please explain why does your data seem to be an entire outlier from Ontario, Alberta, Scotland, UK and Denmark data?

You also haven't explained how that Lancet study for UK has been disputed.

Nor have you explained how a highly vaxxed country like Canada had 60% of the population infected in past 5 months and how that reduced infection and transmission?

> You missed the radio button on page 3 which lets you see the test positivity rates based on vax status too. There too, the vaxxed and boosted score worst:

Again, --- any high school statistics students should know why that rate can be, and is completely decoupled from the actual case rate (non-uniform selection bias-- which is obviously present because the size of the strata doesn't equal their base rates in the population).

We have looked at the actual entire United States data. You are cherry-picking and Gish-galloping. You completely ignore the mountain of evidence that contradicts your view, but endlessly want to talk about specific datapoints which do (most of which you don't even provide). You bury the other side in citations but refuse to look at theirs.

This is not a means to actually reach consensus or have an honest discussion.

> You also haven't explained how that Lancet study for UK has been disputed.

My earlier citation, BEFORE YOU POSTED IT, showed that while viral fragments in plasma is equivalent, the actual transmissibility from shed droplets appears to me lower. Your study's primary argument is the opposite. Further, it discussions transmission dynamics in a household, as if this somehow has import on national case rates which is the assertion you made and keep galloping away from.

It's so thoroughly bogus that it's difficult for me to even engage with. In response to April 2022 data indicating that it is likely that transmission is reduced despite earlier data that viral copy fragments are high... you sent me the earlier data that viral copy fragments are high... and then repeatedly demanded to hear why I thought that the conclusions of that earlier study were disputed. Hello? Hello?

Please don't stoop to flamewar or personal attack, no matter how wrong someone is or you feel they are. Flamewar comments like this one and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32139001 are definitely not ok. Not only is this against the site guidelines, it has the side effect of discrediting your position, which is really bad if you happen to be right.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html