Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by JanSt 1654 days ago
Read the article. This claim is adressed. It‘s scientific consensus.
4 comments

Yup, case closed.

And on a completely unrelated note:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...

This is such a dumb whataboutism point. Either discredit the data or the argument.
No this isn't whataboutism.

My point is simply that "scientific consensus" has lost some of its brand value.

Further, I'm not an "expert" so even if I did challenge the data or argument, I would be dismissed for being unqualified.

> "Here is the scientific consensus."

>> "What about sugar."

Is the definition of whataboutism.

>Further, I'm not an "expert" so even if I did challenge the data or argument, I would be dismissed for being unqualified.

Not always true. You just need to provide data (or identify an error in their data/methodology/etc.) that is convincing enough to overcome the difference in weight afforded to an expert opinion and non-expert opinion.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is not to say that you are wrong, you very well could be correct, but the onus is on you to prove why your non-expert opinion should be weighted higher than hundreds of experts from various countries.

I don't think the parent is saying "what about sugar?", I think the parent is saying "why should we buy that this is consensus when consensus can be bought and paid for, as evidenced by this story about sugar and scientific consensus?"
In other words, "what about the the time when consensus was bought?".

And my reply would be: if you have evidence that the current consensus has been purchased, I am all ears.

Ironically, this post is next to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29493241.
I can only speak for myself, but i always assume that i don't have all the answers.

Facts that points to a faulty conclusion on my part, will be enough to change the conclusion.

Failure to change views based on facts, is a strange concept when dealing with scientific concepts.

It's not a consensus when anyone who objects is fired from academia.
the science says that one vaccination is still sufficient to prevent severe disease, and that it is uncertain that additional boosters will reduce transmission on a country wide basis- things will still spread among the unvaccinated, booster hold outs, and those whos antibody titers have gone down after 3 months. It is absolutely not scientific consensus, then, that universal boosters are necessary or would be sufficient to end the pandemic.

I absolutely would not recommend getting a vaccine booster shot every 3 months. Your plasma cells are not meant to proliferate to that extent.

Yes, and in addition to that, the regimen of shots and boosters becomes too much for unvaccinated to contemplate. They are more being asked to enter into a new lifestyle, now, contrasted with the request a year ago to take one simple protective action.

In the US, I would like to see the recommendation change to a single Pfizer shot with second shot and booster language changed to that of optimization, rather than necessity. The single shot, even after several months, is still very effective against severe cases. I believe the vaccination rate would increase and that pressing to get our 1+ shot rate above 90% could be a genuine bipartisan rally.