4 ms·

> Yes I do. The Antibody Test costs $42 and the vaccine costs $16/dose in the US today. You're ignoring economies of scale, ignoring basic economics (increase

> Yes I do. The Antibody Test costs $42 and the vaccine costs $16/dose in the US today. You're ignoring economies of scale, ignoring basic economics (increase supply - price goes down), ignoring the fact that vaccines require 2 dozes - and potentially more, as well as ignoring the additional costs of administering vaccines multiple times. Also, I would like to see where you're getting those numbers from, since a quick google search directly contradicts your numbers: > The U.S. government will pay Pfizer Inc nearly $2 billion for 100 million additional doses of its COVID-19 vaccine to bolster its supply as the country grapples with a nationwide spike in infections. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-pfizer-idUSKBN28X1GC https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-pf... > Nobody was proposing that individuals pay for either one of these. I literally just proposed it to your face 2 times in a row. > The US Government should pay for it using taxes so that even the poorest citizen has access. Oh, look at you, so concerned about the poorest citizen that you want to explicitly deny them the possibility to pay for their own tests and force them to get vaccinated against their will. What a champion of the poor. > Letting people self-certify as a public health strategy has been problematic in the past and would be problematic here too. Did I say anything about 'self-certify' ? Do you want to respond to my actual statement or just continue with these weak strawmen? > It is unsafe (which is factually inaccurate). For the fourth time - show me the data on long term effects. Which part of 'long-term effects' don't you understand? > The vaccine may not add to natural immunity (which as I said, being cheaper and simpler than the alternative testing makes it still worthwhile). Another strawman completely unrelated to anything I've said. > - It is unsafe, and we live in a free society (which is factually inaccurate and irrelevant). Do you see the words 'safe' or 'unsafe' anywhere in my 3rd point? No? Are you going to continue making these fallacious, insincere strawmen, or are you secure enough with your beliefs to actually defend them honestly? > That's because your entire argument hinges on "the vaccine is unsafe" and little else. I've never made a single assertion about the safety of the vaccines other than that we don't know the long term side effects. It's pretty cringy how dishonest you are tbh.

Someone1234 5y ago
> You're ignoring economies of scale No, my entire argument is built on economies of scale. Which favor a vaccine for every person, rather than an antibody test for a subset of a subset. > Did I say anything about 'self-certify' ? You argued that people should be able to pay for and provide their own tests. That's self-certification. If you're arguing for the state to do it instead, then we're back to square one (i.e. that the logistics don't favor it). > For the fourth time - show me the data on long term effects. Which part of 'long-term effects' don't you understand? You cannot argue these two thing together in good faith: - Natural immunity provides long term immunity, without long term data. - We cannot know on the vaccine because we lack long term data. Pick one or the other. Not both. > I've never made a single assertion about the safety of the vaccines other than that we don't know the long term side effects. So you didn't make any except that same one in every single one of your comments?
- LegitShady 5y ago
  >No, my entire argument is built on economies of scale. Which favor a vaccine for every person, rather than an antibody test for a subset of a subset. "Take this medical treatment you don't want because I believe in economies of scale" "My body my choice, and you can put your economy of scale wherever you want but not in my bloodstream - I'd rather not since I've already had covid" "bbbut I believe in economies of scale!" the end Forcing people to take medical procedures they don't want might be last step in a long chain of things, which include a test for natural immunity due to presence of antibodies.
- mioasndo 5y ago
  > You argued that people should be able to pay for and provide their own tests. T Where did I say 'provide their own tests'? I'll wait for a specific reference. That's about the 5th time you directly misquoted and misrepresented what I said. Liar. Here's how it works: You go to a government-certified testing location. You pay for your test and get tested. Which part confuses you so much? > You cannot argue these two thing together in good faith: You cannot reference what someone said while at the same time completely changing the wording. I don't understand how you still don't get that. You are just incredibly dishonest. Holy shit. > - Natural immunity provides long term immunity, without long term data. You realise that the ONLY data we have, as cited in the article of this very thread, shows that natural immunity is more effective than vaccines? Do you need me to provide you with more references? Will you admit that you are a dishonest liar if I do? > We cannot know on the vaccine because we lack long term data. Yes, we do not know the long term effects of the vaccine. Do you disagree? I mean, you already stated multiple times that the vaccine is fully safe while also indirectly admitting that we can't possibly know.... which one is it bud? > Pick one or the other. Not both. I think I won't pick either one of your dishonest strawmen. How about that? > So you didn't make any except that same one in every single one of your comments? 'The same one in every single comment' being 'that same one' which you can't even directly quote a single time? I wonder why that is? Maybe it's because you are a liar?
  - ppqqrr 5y ago
    Attaching vindictive clapbacks to every other sentence from OP is really not a way to help your argument, especially on HN. OP’s argument is clear; we have surplus vaccines, it’s statistically safer than getting COVID regardless of your infection status and cheaper than getting tested for natural immunity, not to mention the cost society needs to bear if your failed die roll lands you in an ICU. I’m not sure what yours is, something vague about a govt-backed immunity testing program that doesn't exist yet. But I’m sure you’ll find a way to call me a turd for not getting it rather than supply details. Surprise me, please.
dekhn 5y ago
you're not arguing in good faith and much of your argument is just illogical. There's no reason to do this, it won't convince anybody , in fact it will make most people just ignore you.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mioasndo 5y ago
  Say something of substance instead of alluding to some 'illogical' argument you supposedly found but are unable to identify.
- throwaway192874 5y ago
  right? These word by word break down responses don't ever get anywhere the whole argument he's making has operates on the presumtion that the vacccine is unsafe, contrary to mainstream scientific opinion. Then the only evidence he has to back that up is lack of evidence on long term effects. But...the type of which would potentially appease him is only possible with a time machine, so it's literally impossible to appease him

Someone1234 5y ago

> You're ignoring economies of scale No, my entire argument is built on economies of scale. Which favor a vaccine for every person, rather than an antibody test for a subset of a subset. > Did I say anything about 'self-certify' ? You argued that people should be able to pay for and provide their own tests. That's self-certification. If you're arguing for the state to do it instead, then we're back to square one (i.e. that the logistics don't favor it). > For the fourth time - show me the data on long term effects. Which part of 'long-term effects' don't you understand? You cannot argue these two thing together in good faith: - Natural immunity provides long term immunity, without long term data. - We cannot know on the vaccine because we lack long term data. Pick one or the other. Not both. > I've never made a single assertion about the safety of the vaccines other than that we don't know the long term side effects. So you didn't make any except that same one in every single one of your comments?

LegitShady 5y ago
>No, my entire argument is built on economies of scale. Which favor a vaccine for every person, rather than an antibody test for a subset of a subset. "Take this medical treatment you don't want because I believe in economies of scale" "My body my choice, and you can put your economy of scale wherever you want but not in my bloodstream - I'd rather not since I've already had covid" "bbbut I believe in economies of scale!" the end Forcing people to take medical procedures they don't want might be last step in a long chain of things, which include a test for natural immunity due to presence of antibodies.
mioasndo 5y ago
> You argued that people should be able to pay for and provide their own tests. T Where did I say 'provide their own tests'? I'll wait for a specific reference. That's about the 5th time you directly misquoted and misrepresented what I said. Liar. Here's how it works: You go to a government-certified testing location. You pay for your test and get tested. Which part confuses you so much? > You cannot argue these two thing together in good faith: You cannot reference what someone said while at the same time completely changing the wording. I don't understand how you still don't get that. You are just incredibly dishonest. Holy shit. > - Natural immunity provides long term immunity, without long term data. You realise that the ONLY data we have, as cited in the article of this very thread, shows that natural immunity is more effective than vaccines? Do you need me to provide you with more references? Will you admit that you are a dishonest liar if I do? > We cannot know on the vaccine because we lack long term data. Yes, we do not know the long term effects of the vaccine. Do you disagree? I mean, you already stated multiple times that the vaccine is fully safe while also indirectly admitting that we can't possibly know.... which one is it bud? > Pick one or the other. Not both. I think I won't pick either one of your dishonest strawmen. How about that? > So you didn't make any except that same one in every single one of your comments? 'The same one in every single comment' being 'that same one' which you can't even directly quote a single time? I wonder why that is? Maybe it's because you are a liar?
- ppqqrr 5y ago
  Attaching vindictive clapbacks to every other sentence from OP is really not a way to help your argument, especially on HN. OP’s argument is clear; we have surplus vaccines, it’s statistically safer than getting COVID regardless of your infection status and cheaper than getting tested for natural immunity, not to mention the cost society needs to bear if your failed die roll lands you in an ICU. I’m not sure what yours is, something vague about a govt-backed immunity testing program that doesn't exist yet. But I’m sure you’ll find a way to call me a turd for not getting it rather than supply details. Surprise me, please.

dekhn 5y ago

you're not arguing in good faith and much of your argument is just illogical. There's no reason to do this, it won't convince anybody , in fact it will make most people just ignore you.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mioasndo 5y ago
Say something of substance instead of alluding to some 'illogical' argument you supposedly found but are unable to identify.
throwaway192874 5y ago
right? These word by word break down responses don't ever get anywhere the whole argument he's making has operates on the presumtion that the vacccine is unsafe, contrary to mainstream scientific opinion. Then the only evidence he has to back that up is lack of evidence on long term effects. But...the type of which would potentially appease him is only possible with a time machine, so it's literally impossible to appease him