• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nature says

Good4Nothin said:
You don't know what "anecdotal" means. This was a careful analysis of large quantities of data. Published in Nature, so it got past the editors. You want to simply ignore the facts.
Click to expand...
It has not been peer-reviewed. That's the gold standard for acceptance. Being published in Nature means nothing; the journal lifted the study from an open access site where anyone can post anything-for a fee.

What is open access?

www.openaccess.nl www.openaccess.nl

Adapt

www.fosteropenscience.eu
 
Good4Nothin said:
You are convinced your symptoms were mild after the vaccine. How would you know? It was a different, milder, variant, for one thing. And you also had nature immunity. You don't know the reason it wasn't as bad the second time.
Click to expand...
I don't know for sure why my 2nd infection was less severe but it most likely was from natural immunity boosted by the vaccine.
Gordy327 said:
That makes no sense. Masks are also needed in more congested areas. So how is their efficacy affected by population density?
Click to expand...
That doesn't make sense but is essentially what you're saying.
 
Good4Nothin said:
You are convinced your symptoms were mild after the vaccine. How would you know? It was a different, milder, variant, for one thing. And you also had nature immunity. You don't know the reason it wasn't as bad the second time.
Click to expand...

Kind of like you lied about symptoms after getting vaccinated the 2nd time, got caught, and you then convinced yourself it was the vaccine?
 
grip said:
I don't know for sure why my 2nd infection was less severe but it most likely was from natural immunity boosted by the vaccine.

That doesn't make sense but is essentially what you're saying.
Click to expand...
The 1st infection already primed your immune system to fight off a recurring infection faster, resulting in lessened symptoms. The vaccine also helps with that, as it's supposed to.
What I'm saying is mask efficacy is not affected by population density.
 
Good4Nothin said:
You don't know what "anecdotal" means. This was a careful analysis of large quantities of data. Published in Nature, so it got past the editors. You want to simply ignore the facts.
Click to expand...
You simply dont want to practice what you preach. Eat your damn horse paste.
 
Gordy327 said:
The 1st infection already primed your immune system to fight off a recurring infection faster, resulting in lessened symptoms. The vaccine also helps with that, as it's supposed to.
What I'm saying is mask efficacy is not affected by population density.
Click to expand...
I agree with all that but masks aren't as necessary in less dense areas. That's what I meant by less efficacious.
 
grip said:
I agree with all that but masks aren't as necessary in less dense areas. That's what I meant by less efficacious.
Click to expand...
Ok. Those are 2 entirely different things.
 
snakestretcher said:
It has not been peer-reviewed. That's the gold standard for acceptance. Being published in Nature means nothing; the journal lifted the study from an open access site where anyone can post anything-for a fee.

What is open access?

www.openaccess.nl www.openaccess.nl

Adapt

www.fosteropenscience.eu
Click to expand...

Being published in Nature means it is approved by an extremely mainstream journal. Peer review is not the magic you think it is, and is often vulnerable to groupthink and bias. But in any case, you want to ignore this research because it goes against your preferred narrative.
 
grip said:
I don't know for sure why my 2nd infection was less severe but it most likely was from natural immunity boosted by the vaccine.
Click to expand...

There is no possible way for you to know. It could have been a milder variant, it could have been natural immunity. Maybe the vaccine, maybe not. Why repeat an evidence-free narrative?
 
Good4Nothin said:
There is no possible way for you to know. It could have been a milder variant, it could have been natural immunity. Maybe the vaccine, maybe not. Why repeat an evidence-free narrative?
Click to expand...

Maybe... Just maybe they consulted a physician.
 
Good4Nothin said:
There is no possible way for you to know. It could have been a milder variant, it could have been natural immunity. Maybe the vaccine, maybe not. Why repeat an evidence-free narrative?
Click to expand...

Yes, why do you keep doing that? Ivermectin, vaccines, "Covid isn't deadly" etc....
 
Good4Nothin said:
There is no possible way for you to know. It could have been a milder variant, it could have been natural immunity. Maybe the vaccine, maybe not. Why repeat an evidence-free narrative?
Click to expand...
aliens_a.jpg
 
Good4Nothin said:
There is no possible way for you to know. It could have been a milder variant, it could have been natural immunity. Maybe the vaccine, maybe not. Why repeat an evidence-free narrative?
Click to expand...
Hilarious; and speaking of "evidence-free" narratives, remind us who was convinced her vaccination caused her to get sick, with nothing more substantive than an opinion to support her assertion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom