I am not conflating anything. I posted the article for discussion without my comments.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
From the anti-vaxxers to flat earthers: what makes people distrust science?
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
I agree with the article. Both vacvinated and unvaccinated can spread covid. I also agree with the science that the vaccinated are contageous for a shorter period of time and are more apt not to become infected. I assume covid survivors would fit into the vaccinated category on this issue depending on the severity of the disease.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
I was using the term “you” generically. Substituting "one" for "you," would have the same meaning here. The rest of the reply demonstrates this. It was all aimed at that article.
The point was and is that the author is conflating, thus negating influence, perhaps for the better. His model is not at all a good one to follow, and perhaps the same for his “science.”
BTW, this brings up another point. There was an assertion not long ago that one must agree with any article one posts. This is obviously not necessarily true, and it is certainly not true that one must agree with everything in an article one posts.
I agree, politics is involved. I do agree with the article.
To me saying covid is a New World plan to decrease the population, the vaccine is gene therapy, the virus is a Freemason conspiracy, ect. is along the same lines as any other conspiracy theory.
One reason is science does not seem to solve a problem without creating a new, and often more serious, one(s). Increasing the lifespan --> overpopulation ... greater military technology --> stockpiling nuclear weapons ... faster transport--> polluted air w/ too much CO2 ... the ability to travel in space --> a race to the moon costing hundreds of billions, resulting in great inflation a few years later and many suicides of technologists whose skills were obsolete when we quit going .........
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
LOL. Now that's funny, even hilarious. First, you deny conflating anything, which the author is obviously doing in spades in that article and with tremendous ignorance, and then you say you agree with the article.
Hopefully, you didn’t really mean that last bit but only that you agree with it at certain points.
The author actually dragged Republican attitudes toward the Mueller report into it. What does that have to do with science? Nothing.
He sounds more like a Dem parrot trying to build walls of hostility than someone trying to reason with sound science. He's not a good model to follow.
No. It helps alleviate fear, not mistrust. The commandment is to not fear those who can kill the body; it isn't to trust them.
Richard Weikart: The Dark Side of Science | Evolution News
March for science, you say? Follow the science? Listen to the scientists? Perhaps first ask “What science?” and “What scientists?”
...
As Weikart explains, over the past century and a half, science has been misused to fuel racist policies and undermine human rights. Darwinian ideas helped lay the groundwork for Nazi ideology in Germany. And we shouldn’t imagine the problem was restricted to Nazi Germany. Scientific racism also reared its head in the United States, including in the long-running and infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment.
...
As Weikart explains, over the past century and a half, science has been misused to fuel racist policies and undermine human rights. Darwinian ideas helped lay the groundwork for Nazi ideology in Germany. And we shouldn’t imagine the problem was restricted to Nazi Germany. Scientific racism also reared its head in the United States, including in the long-running and infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment.
Last edited:
What is hilarious is the fact you assume your feelings about something is obvious fact.
I agree with his comments. They do not look at all like a Democrat comment (they look more like Donal Trump a couple of months ago saying all three vaccines are safe, effective, and everybody should be vaccinated).
And he is right. It is not enough just to tell science-deniers they are wrong. You have to think of them as children (not that they are unintelligent but that they misplaced information and make unwarranted assumptions/ conclusions).
You did this, in fact. You assumed the article sounded like something from the DNC. You could not help but place it (and anything about the isdue) into a primary political context.
I have said that I belueve the vaccines are statistically safe and effective against covid. I did not go as far as Trump by calling on everybody to get vaccinated (it is not up to me to decide for others). But I have been labeled liberal for being more conservative than Trump.
That does not matter because conspiracy theorists and science-deniers have created their own narrative and cultures which are loose with facts. Heros of such natitives (like Trump) transcent facts. Anybody who challenges the narrative (other than the heroes worshipped by the group) belongs to the opposing entity (whatever that may be).
Since you are a political conspiracy theorists anybody except your heroes that disagrees with you sounds like a Democrat.
thanks JonC ... I was kinda patrolling (not to be confused with trolling) since you took issue with CNN being a summarily untrustworthy source.
Yes, the cv vaxed can contract and spread the disease. Arguably with greater R factor (or whatever the statisticians say to communicate the degree to which maximum spreading is effected) because of the apparently reduced symptoms. When most have very little symptom to recognize ... and then are reduced from there, of course they'll continue to be "out" spreading ...
vice the non-cv vaxed who apparently get more severe symptoms which will tend to put them in isolation, reducing their R factor/footprint.
So ... as the article says ... this isn't a pandemic of the non cv vaxed ... it's a pandemic of the cv vaxed because they keep sharing it to more people in a given period of time.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
If God controls all, you can trust God in people's actions. Even the bad choices.
Patroling....
....I like that.To clarify, the issue I have with posting articles is when it is done in an argument. I just used CNN because the title showed up well when I cut and pasted the thing. But I do agree with it.
The issue is those who have no antibodies become infected easier and are infectious for a longer period of time. I belueve in this sense it does not really matter if antibodies are via vaccine or virus. The unvacvine who have not had vovud are the ones who most easily spread covid upon infection.
There is a caviet. The vacvinated are most likely to be mildly symptomatic if infected. It is easier, IMHO, for these to spread covid by simply not realizing they are contageous.
We also need to realize that being exposed to sars-cov-2 is not the sane as having covid-19 disease. If a vaccine or prior infection prevents actual infection then I do not see how either could spread covid.
Patroling....
articulate articulate articulate. possibly. I think the condition of "no antibodies" for a never challenged immune system, this is probably accurate. For one which has already had the cell mediated response ... not at all. For one which has been challenged but lacked a cell mediated response ... somewhere in between the two previous.
this is precisely the issue with this really being a pandemic of the cv vaxed, now that such a large percentage of the population has been jabbed. Yet it's still a pejorative to be non-cv vaxed and this is increasing, not decreasing. Folks are declaring non cv vaxed to be like an armed perpetrator --- threating one's life, so stop the threat. see where THIS goes???
true ... but for purposes of contracting and spreading ... being exposed to the virus will generate SOME response if only the innate level. the intensity/duration of exposure will have a lot in determining the immune response ... obviously the health of a given individual's immune system will dictate the effectivity of response.
I agree cell mediated responses are important (more important than antibodies in a way). The benefit of present antibodies is in the possibility of preventing infection (regardless of how these antibodies came about). This is why there is a push for boosters (antibodies decline significantly after 6 to 8 months regardless of how they were acquired). Cell mediated responses (again, regardless of how acquired) is important post infection.
possibly. I think the condition of "no antibodies" for a never challenged immune system, this is probably accurate. For one which has already had the cell mediated response ... not at all. For one which has been challenged but lacked a cell mediated response ... somewhere in between the two previous.
this is precisely the issue with this really being a pandemic of the cv vaxed, now that such a large percentage of the population has been jabbed. Yet it's still a pejorative to be non-cv vaxed and this is increasing, not decreasing. Folks are declaring non cv vaxed to be like an armed perpetrator --- threating one's life, so stop the threat. see where THIS goes???
true ... but for purposes of contracting and spreading ... being exposed to the virus will generate SOME response if only the innate level. the intensity/duration of exposure will have a lot in determining the immune response ... obviously the health of a given individual's immune system will dictate the effectivity of response.
Still, there are "breakthrough" cases with the vaccinated and covud patients who have had vivid two and three times.
The science is never "all there" until it is filled in the rear view.
all the more reason to 86 the mandates. ALL of them. There is PLENTY of idiotic regulation with which private business owners must abide.
being restricted from mandating a cv vax is hardly idiotic. We're not machines whereby the biggest concern is what brand/viscosity of oil to use in an engine.
yes, my opinion is molded by my understanding the jab is FAR riskier than contracting the disease. The only thing in print which indicates otherwise is generated by someone with skin in the jab game; NOT someone with public & individual health as priority number one.
I agree. I do not support government mandates (except, of course, for federal agencies under their authority). Private company mandates should always be left up to the business owner, not the government.
most of the private business mandates are DUE to the govt mandate.
... but on this issue, because of the bad data ... as you said, the science isn't settled ... there's no justification for mandating this cv vax. Incompetence or nefarious motivation are the only options. Neither, clearly, are reasonable ...
If you want me to admit to socialism ... ok fine. But this is a mole hill compared to the EXISTING mountains of socialisms with which private business must comply.
I agree the federal government mandate to private businesses is government overreach.
In full disclosure, I am a big states rights guy and think most of what the federal government does is overreach.
- Status