Re:A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health tex...
by aphantastic on Wednesday December 04, 2024 @12:31PM
(#42319745)
So not “anti-vax” but rather “pro-choice”.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health tex...
by llamaimperative on Wednesday December 04, 2024 @12:47PM
(#42319928)
"anti-vaccinating people at the scale required to yield good public health outcomes" is sufficient to qualify for the label, IMO.
Re:A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health tex...
by noworriesnate on Thursday December 05, 2024 @12:30PM
(#42330345)
To be fair, vaccinating all humans, dogs, cats and other animals that can carry COVID-19 was never going to happen before the virus mutated, so you could also apply the label to reality itself.
Re:A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health tex...
by llamaimperative on Thursday December 05, 2024 @12:53PM
(#42330565)
To be fair, that’s not required to yield extremely strong public health outcomes, as evidenced by the extremely strong public health outcomes we saw in reality.
(If you’re about to go on some statistically illiterate sidebar about how the COVID vaccines weren’t actually that effective, you can save your breath)