jpxw

Well nothing is risk-free. But in my opinion in any case the risk of allowing climate change to rampantly continue vastly outweighs the infinitesimal risks of nuclear.

One incident caused by a natural disaster that would never happen in a European country like Germany, the other caused by mismanagement and frankly jaw droppingly pigheaded incompetence which would also never happen in a country like Germany.

Edit: in response to the large number of people bringing up BER and other infrastructure failures in Germany: yes, BER and others may have been bad, but a completely different kind (and magnitude) of incompetence than that which led to the Chernobyl meltdown. They really aren’t comparable.

To be replaced by Russian gas. Great move!

I find that people on here are _extremely_ uncharitable when it comes to anything Apple

Source?

One reason amongst many others is the risk of a vaccine-resistant strain emerging. There’d be a pretty enormous evolutionary pressure for that outcome under those circumstances.

It’s not about whether it improves the situation in China or not. It’s about having consistent principles as a company.

I know nothing about Nim or genomics. Why is it odd that they didn’t include Nim?

I suspect that using past positive tests would make things even more complicated. It’s very easy to underestimate how difficult things are at the “tens of millions of people” scale, particularly for governments.

> You have a government whose vaccine policies are grounded in proper science and medical ethics, reducing the number of vaccine hesitant individuals

Circular argument, no? This point is only relevant to whether natural immunity should be correct if you accept that your own position (natural immunity should be taken into account) is correct.

Vaccinated people are way less likely to get infected.

And I don’t think there’s any evidence that vaccinated people have higher viral loads with less symptoms - that would be extremely surprising if true. I understand that vaccinated people can have high viral loads in breakout cases, but presumably in those cases they’re symptomatic - I don’t recall seeing any analysis of this.

Please feel free to prove me wrong.

Pros vs cons of taking natural immunity into account:

Pros:

- An extremely small number of people who would get side effects now wouldn’t

Cons:

- Logistics: you now need to perform a blood test on every single person in the country, process the results, send out vaccine invites based on the results, and set up some system where people can prove their blood test results. None of the aforementioned components currently exist. You also need to come up with some arbitrary threshold for “enough” antibodies.

- Cost: the blood test costs 4x as much as the vaccine, from what I see in other comments

- Incentives: you risk incentivising vaccine skeptics to deliberately contract COVID

The fact that it’s a personal choice doesn’t mean that both choices are equally correct.

IMHO, unless you’re a hermit, and excluding certain other extremely rare edge cases, the only moral choice is taking it.