ralmeida

Probably some combination of security theater and well-intentioned but shallow, nearsighted and misguided attempt to increase security by reducing a perceived attackable surface area (i.e. likely somebody got scared with "View source" or something like that).

If someone has access to your laptop with a logged-in Gmail account, they could change your password and log you out of your other devices, effectively gaining total control of your account and locking you out.

> if health care professionals were missing PPE as a result

True, but "don't buy masks NOW because the health workers need them" is totally different than "don't buy masks because they are not effective for the general public and can actually be worse" - being either a terribly wrong idea (like the article defends) or outright lying to the public (if the message was told not because it was believed to be true, but as a roundabout way of being extra emphatic to avoid the public hoarding masks and causing PPE shortages for health workers).

Fair enough, but in many cases some attendees attend only by inertia and would be better off declining instead anyway. Which is probably good overall if the meeting is indeed "stupid".

Time can also yield better vaccines, a policy of recurring vaccine doses (like the yearly flu shots), and milder variants that can emerge and become dominant, like some believe is what happened with the Spanish Flu.

And yet your own linked study says, right in the first paragraph, that vaccinated contacts got it 38% less often.

Is it possible that this is not enough, and “virtually everyone will eventually be exposed”? Yes. Is it possible that COVID will become endemic and many (but not all or even most) people will be exposed? Yes. Have I seen any source that makes a strong case for this? Not yet.

> Side effects don't have to happen in the next 6 months.

If you're willing to go that route, the same could be said for COVID itself.

Wikipedia defines "vaccine" as "a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease", which in my view would fit the Pfizer/Moderna shots. Which definition of "vaccine" do you subscribe to that these "treatments" don't fit into?

Also, mRNA is not the only type of vaccine for COVID.

Finally, two more questions: would you clarify which definition of "experimental" you subscribe to? And do you have a source for "testing standards were reduced"?

From a "reducing my risk of dying" perspective, you'd have to balance the risk of dying from taking the vaccine vs the risk of dying from COVID with zero treatments, one treatment, or both treatments.

The numbers could lean either way and would be very sensitive to variations in the probabilities involved - I'm sure it would be very hard to reach any form of consensus on "probability of dying from taking the vaccine". It's also worth addressing wasn't even making the point of which (so-called) experimental treatment has a better likely outcome but rather addressing criticism at (so-called) experimental treatments in general.

From an "unknown risk" perspective, you'd also have to consider that COVID itself could have yet-unknown long-term risks.

It wouldn't be necessarily illogical but would still qualify as "taking part in an experiment trial", as put by the parent post.

To determine if this is a rational strategy or not, we'd have to get real numbers (is it really likely that 1 in 100k people die from taking the vaccine?), and compare that against the reduction in probability of dying from COVID by even combining both treatments.

> it does little to prevent spread

How much, exactly?

> Over the long run we'll all be exposed no matter what we do

Plausible, but your sources don't appear to support that, other than the claim from Mr. Pollard. Is there anything I'm missing?

Citation needed - and note I didn't say it prevents "100% of spreading"

Do you have a source for R0 being _absolutely equal_ in vaccinated vs unvaccinated?