[axiosgunnar]

I agree with this comment and am fully vaccinated as well, and would like to just comment on the

> (To be clear: I’m a fully vaccinated and boosted person that masks consistently.)

Dear COVID scientogists, if you engage in a public discourse where your opponents have to write a disclaimer like this to prevent getting downvoted, you have failed at civic discourses and even if all vaccines were 100% effective and had 0 side effects, your behaviour would still be abhorrent.

[MiroF]

I agreed with GP sentiment (and wrote a similar comment myself), but absolutely disagree with your sentiment.

Being able, but unwilling, to get vaccinated substantially shifts my priors of where your comment is coming from. It is useful information, and I appreciate when people disclose it.

If you replace vaccination with an analogous, more politically one-sided limit case (say [not being a Nazi]:[supporting a policy of Hitler] - in typical Godwinian fashion), you can see why this sort of information would be useful.

[axiosgunnar]

Your line of thinking is a typical ad hominem; you should evaluate an argumentation based on its merits, not what the meatball behind the online handle happens to do in his free time.

[MiroF]

From a Bayesian perspective, the provenance of the information you are basing a decision on is of obvious relevance to how you shape your beliefs.

Ad hom is only fallacious if the information really is irrelevant to the argument [0][1]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/e01b9z/is_ad...