Lurker > adjl

MartianManchild posted...

Calling the truckers terrorists, in my opinion, is rather ignorant.

Once again, they're being called terrorists because they're committing terrorism, not because of what/why they're protesting. If they weren't committing mass violence (forcibly preventing people from sleeping is violent, whether direct contact is involved or not) and causing significant economic damage in an effort to force political change, they wouldn't be terrorists.

MartianManchild posted...

Also if they are such a fringe minority then why does it matter if they are vaccinated?

Because minimizing the risk of importing new infections is a crucial part of controlling the spread moving forward. We can't control other countries' case rates, but we can control who can bring cases back into Canada from those countries. Those at higher risk (the unvaccinated) must take additional precautions (testing/isolation) to offset that risk. Until recently, the economic disruption of requiring unvaccinated truckers to isolate was considered more damaging than the infection risk they posed, so they were granted a specific exemption from the rules that everyone else had to follow, but they've reached a high enough vaccination rate that having this fringe minority isolate upon returning (not that they can leave in the first place, given that the US won't let them in, so it's really a moot point) is no longer a major problem.

It only takes one inadequately-contained case to trigger an outbreak, especially as other precautions are lifted. If you want to avoid that, you need to keep on top of every possible new case.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So I was wrong about other people knowing about it?

No, you were wrong about them hearing about it from Duckbear. You were also wrong about how many other people know about it, but that's beside the point.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I accounted for this. The number of mentions doesn't indicate which mention came first.

I didn't say that it did. I said that it should cause you to wonder if your belief was accurate. Those other mentions also describe empirically verifiable things that Qanon is doing in the real world, as opposed to just name-dropping it, so that should also cause you to question your belief that somebody just saw the name in a Duckbear post and decided to blame random stuff on it for... reasons?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Why? Your assertion is that it would be counter productive. What would be my reason to do that?

It's counterproductive if your goal is to be able to claim Internet victory because technically nobody has proven you wrong yet (mostly because you've established a near-unfalsifiable premise that would be far more work than it's worth to dismantle). If your goal is to gain some basic understanding of the world around you, however, it's quite the opposite of counterproductive. Personally, I think that's a much better goal, but who am I to promote self-improvement over Internet points that you give yourself?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

BlackScythe0 suggested that not trusting reporting about the election is the result of being influenced by a conspiracy theory that qanon is associated with.

Specifically, a certain group of people trust the Qanon conspiracy more than they trust the media because the conspiracy told them what they wanted to believe. That's considerably more nuanced than "Qanon exists, so people don't trust the news anymore."

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I haven't been trying to make a point.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I think QAnon isn't an actual thing and all stories about it are made up by Full Throttle.

That's very unambiguously you claiming that Qanon doesn't exist and was made up by Duckbear. Heck, that's you saying that every story about it is made up by him, which I notice you've quietly walked back now that a bunch of stories not made by him have been brought up. That's a point, dude. You cannot frame it any other way.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You have yet to establish that your other examples are earlier. Thus, this is not a suitable analogy.

Therein, we arrive at the key difference between my analogy and this situation: It's significantly more labour-intensive to find Duckbear's earliest mention of Qanon than it is to find wizards in pre-1965 media. In both cases, literally everybody that isn't you knows you're talking nonsense. Nobody actually needs to verify that belief for themselves or anyone else; the issue is purely a matter of trying to convince you. In the case of my analogy, it would take about 10 seconds to write "LotR came out a decade before she was born," and possibly another 10 to confirm LotR's publication date (Tolkein also did not invent wizards, but that's an easy example that serves the necessary purpose without needing to research the actual history of the concept). Sifting through archived Duckbear topics, however, is very substantial amount of work (he makes a LOT of topics).

The analogy is perfect. The only difference is the amount of effort it would take to prove how stupid your claim is (which subsequently affects how willing people are to exert that effort), which influences nothing about the underlying logic needed to establish the analogy. Nobody cares enough about you to put that much work in, so instead we all just tell you your claim is stupid and give you the resources you need to find that reality for yourself.

Metalsonic66 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/2/7/AAFUswAAC7dT.jpg

I mean, that's one way to relieve dangerous intracranial pressure, but I feel like it might have some side effects.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Which sounds like something I would have said for the sake of argument.

And been wrong.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You called it a broader cultural phenomenon. In which case I expect I would have heard about it.

You haven't heard of most cultural phenomena that are broader than GameFAQs. The vast majority of people have not heard of most cultural phenomena that are broader than GameFAQs, because that's the vast majority of cultural phenomena and nobody has the time to keep up with that many phenomena.

At this point, from this topic alone, you have now heard of it in at least three non-GameFAQs contexts, one of which is a documentary that explores the movement in detail. Exploring any one of those will tell you all but conclusively that you're wrong and need to re-evaluate your belief. The mere existence of three non-GameFAQs sources being provided this easily should tell you that maybe your baseless speculation wasn't on the mark, especially where you can do a modicum of additional research for yourself and find countless others.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So far no one has tried to convince me that Rocket: Robot is responsibly for the drop in trust of news media.

Nobody's trying to convince you that Qanon is responsible for a drop in the trust of news media. Just that it exists, which you have been desperately trying to deny.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Then you do it. Why should I go to that effort for something that won't benefit me?

Because that is where the onus lies for somebody that is making a claim that flies in the face of established knowledge and common sense. You are responsible for proving the point you are trying to make. You have utterly failed to do so thus far.

As for benefiting you, you seem to have a pathological inability to consider the reality outside of your very narrow personal experience in forming opinions. In general, that's very unhealthy and will get in the way of you living an enjoyable life (it likely already has), but you aren't going to overcome that by refusing to try. Let your world view be challenged. When somebody tells you new information is out there that proves you wrong, go look at it. Evaluate it, try and figure out why it's so inconsistent with your beliefs, see if you can find other data to support those inconsistencies... This is the basis for critical thinking. You will benefit from learning how to do that and becoming comfortable with the process. Quite overwhelmingly so.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And yet I continually refute your arguments against it. You say awareness of the qanon is wide spread. I say hardly anyone knows what that is. You say it's responsible for conspiracy theories. I say it doesn't really exist and it's convenient for news media to place the blame on that rather than their own actions.

That's not refuting arguments. That's stating the opposite and thinking that's somehow equally valid to an opinion that is based in logic and empirical reality. Several people have shared evidence of Qanon being recognized in contexts other than Duckbear topics. The best you have managed is "maybe they all just stem from a rumour that started from somebody seeing a Duckbear topic," which is roughly as devoid of argumentative merit as the Chewbacca Defense.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Full Throttle inventing it is based on Full Throttle topics being the place where it has the most recognition and discussion.

By what metric? Have you collected data on the viewership and engagement of other sites where Qanon has been mentioned?

To be clear, what you're doing is roughly analogous to insisting that JK Rowling invented wizards because you haven't seen them mentioned in any other books you've read. Everyone knows the only way you could possibly say that is if you've consumed almost no other fantasy media. That's very obviously wrong, but when people give examples of other, earlier books that feature wizards, you're saying the rough equivalent of "maybe their authors were talking to JK Rowling at some point before she wrote Harry Potter and she gave them the idea." You have no reason whatsoever to believe that your limited experience has been comprehensive enough to be generalized. You have even less reason to believe that your conclusions based on those generalizations are more credible than the conclusions of others that have actually been paying attention.

Revelation34 posted...

You're right. A related illegal action that was skipped to instead renounce a different illegal action is completely irrelevant.

Mostly, there was no context that might imply that murder wasn't illegal, so there was no need to indicate that it was. Similarly, there was no context that might imply that hacking wasn't illegal, so there was no need to indicate that it was. Conversely, "a fundraiser has been set up for protesters' families" might imply that such donations were legal, so indicating that it is also illegal to donate to the families of people to whom it is illegal to donate is useful information for people that might have believed otherwise (particularly where those supporting this debacle tend not to be the brightest fish in the shed).

Revelation34 posted...

Mentioning one is illegal but not the other means supporting the non mentioned illegal actions.

It seems hypocritical to mention that hacking and doxxing are illegal but not murder.

See how that doesn't work at all? It doesn't work at all. Nothing about this is meant to be a comprehensive list of things that are and are not illegal.

Presumably, anyone competent enough to hack one of these fundraisers and doxx their donors already knows it's illegal to do so. The bar for competence is considerably lower for giving money to these terrorists (in fact, the bar for incompetence is quite high), so that assumption is considerably less safe when dealing with potential donors and a warning is reasonable.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I probably went along with something you said for the sake of argument.

It was pretty explicitly "other people know about this? Maybe they heard about it from Full Throttle." I believe my response was "do you really think anyone outside of GameFAQs knows who Duckbear is?", to which you replied with "I don't even know who Duckbear is." My rough sense is that that particular example happened 1-2 months ago, but my sense of time is pretty wonky these days, so I expect that's off.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

To the contrary, I expect the vast majority of people have never heard of a qanon.

What is your basis for expecting that? Furthermore, what bearing do the experiences of the vast majority of people have on something's existence or validity? The vast majority of people have never heard of Rocket: Robot on Wheels for the N64, but that was a great game that doesn't stop existing just because it was obscure.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

They may think I'm wrong, but they didn't say I was wrong.

Subtext, yo.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You're not actually paying attention, are you?

Post #42 - not unprecedented for him to do something unique with the story he posts.

He interjects opinions, not usually information. Occasionally he will create new semantic content, but that's usually because he's so bad at writing that his efforts to paraphrase result in accidentally saying something new/different. It is quite unprecedented for him to fabricate an entire pseudo-organization out of whole cloth.

Moreover, even if he had synthesized this information himself, that's a belief you could very easily verify by looking up the Dailymail article he pulled this topic from:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10503641/QAnon-follower-45-murdered-wife-29-thought-sex-trafficking-CIA-asset.html

Oh look, Dailymail talked about Qanon all on their own in discussing this incident. I guess that means your baseless assumption was incorrect. Who knew?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Or, as I also already posited, it looped back around. Full Throttle posted details about a Daily Mail article and made fun of someone by making up a conspiracy theory they bought into. While someone browses the topic another person looking over their shoulder reads some of it without knowing the context of who Full Throttle is. That person comments directly to a similar news article. Now the news media buy into the conspiracy theory.

Speaking of insane conspiracy theories...

If you genuinely believe that sequence of events is plausible despite everybody telling you you're wrong (since implicit speech seems to be failing, I'll spell it out for you: There is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe that Duckbear made up Qanon), you can do the research to substantiate it yourself. Go to the GameFAQs log site, sift through all topics by Full Throttle and mrduckbear (they are one and the same) to find his earliest mention of Qanon, then find the Dailymail article that corresponds to that topic. I guarantee the article will predate the topic, debunking your theory in its entirety. If it does not, then and only then will I accept the possibility that your belief has any basis in reality. Until then, you should not act like it does any more than you should act like gravity is a repulsive force.

What you have done is come up with an assumption that lines up with your extremely limited personal experience (that is, "I haven't seen anyone but duckbear post about Qanon, so it's probably something he made up") and decided you're comfortable with that and don't want to think about the matter any further. You have not substantiated that belief. You have not put any actual consideration into that belief. You have responded to people challenging that belief by saying nothing more than "It could still be true so I'm not going to change my mind." That's not how logic and empirical reasoning work. That's not a functional, healthy way to live your life and develop beliefs. So stop it.

Ozmose posted...

Surely they've done some heinous destructive act to be labeled "terrorists".

Are you really so naive as to believe that the only way you can cause damage with a terrorist attack is to physically destroy something?

Ozmose posted...

Wasn't making an argument, just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Which is textbook whataboutism.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That would contradict my statement that I've never heard of qanon mentioned outside of a Full Throttle topic. Like I said, I'm unaware of that happening.

If not in this topic (I don't remember and can't be bothered to check), you have on other occasions said something to the effect of "maybe those other people heard about it from Full Throttle."

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

BlackScythe0 said something about KoolAid and watching Fox New. That then evolved into a discussion about trust in media.

Metalsonic66 laughed and said I was no more credible than the news I distrust. Which is fine because I'm not telling people what to think.

Both of these responses are because they think it's ridiculous for you to believe Qanon is exclusively a duckbear.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Even you, adjl, have only implied that it is while lacking any example.

I figured the implication was enough, but if you want a more concrete example, my previous comment that Duckbear mostly just regurgitates Dailymail articles should lead you to the realization that any topic he makes about Qanon probably corresponds to a Dailymail article that discussed it first.

Of course, if you're going to categorically dismiss every news source as being false, citing news sources that comment on the matter isn't likely to sway you, but that's mostly a you problem.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Then why keep arguing over something that doesn't matter?

I don't think it's particularly likely that your beliefs are ever going to have a direct practical impact on the world, since you seem pretty distantly divorced from every issue you have an obviously broken opinion on, but leaving them unchallenged creates the risk that somebody with more pragmatic clout might take them seriously, leading to actual consequences. Basically, you're wrong, and that might cause problems if you confuse somebody else (or try to apply them yourself, as in the case of Covid precautions).

MartianManchild posted...

Real slippery slope against freedom and protesting the government with this move.

Not really. It just sets the precedent that terrorism is not a legal form of protest. That's not slippery, that's perfectly reasonable.

Nobody's being stopped from protesting, they're just being stopped from disabling critical infrastructure while they do so. If every truck blocking the Ambassador Bridge had instead parked on the shoulder nearby, there'd be no need to disperse them.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

What broader cultural phenomenon are you referring to?

Specifically, Qanon being mentioned in society at large, but that generally refers to the idea that the goings-on on GameFAQs might influence anything anywhere else.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Has anyone stated that?

Pretty much everyone interacting with you in this discussion has done so, directly or indirectly.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It really bothers you when someone has a thought you don't agree with, doesn't it?

Not particularly. I just don't hesitate to tell people they're thinking the wrong things when they're thinking the wrong things.

Metalsonic66 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/3/6/AAFUswAAC7Ec.jpg

I'd watch the hell out of that.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Didn't I already state this? I've never heard of qanon mentioned outside of a Full Throttle topic so I figure it started with him.

And you actually believe that "I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else, so despite literally everyone telling me it gets mentioned elsewhere and trying to explain the reality of the situation to me, I'm going to believe that Duckbear made it up" is a rational thought process? Because it's really not. You not seeing it mentioned elsewhere just means you haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere. In a vacuum, that might support the assumption that it's just a GameFAQs thing (though even then, almost nobody comes here, so the notion of any broader cultural phenomenon originating here is pretty far-fetched), but when other people are telling you that assumption is wrong, you should at least be taking that as an indication that you should look into it further to confirm, even if you don't immediately accept that you're wrong.

As I said earlier, you could very easily substantiate this belief, if there were any actual reason for you to hold it. Go do that. Insisting on holding it for no other reason than "it seems like a plausible assumption, based on my extremely limited knowledge and experience of the matter" is just dumb.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

No, but I do see something of a double standard here. BlackScythe0 argued that people can be grouped with qanon without knowing about qanon. So I will argue that people can become aware of qanon without learning that it was a fabrication for a topic like this one.

And what is the basis for this theory? Before attempting to explain, it may be useful for you to know that Duckbear pretty much just regurgitates what Dailymail posts, rather than creating any news content himself. It may also be useful for you to know that GameFAQs is currently the 282,116th most-visited site on the Internet, so it's not exactly influential on a broader cultural scale.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

There is no qanon. It was made up by Full Throttle as is everything he has attributed to it.

Do you actually believe that anyone outside of GameFAQs pays any attention to Duckbear at all?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Being uninformed is still better informed than misinformed.

Not if you try to jump to conclusions from your lack of information.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I think QAnon isn't an actual thing and all stories about it are made up by Full Throttle.

This is a belief you could very easily substantiate, if you were interested in thinking about the matter beyond "this is the most comfortable assumption for me to believe in." You should probably do that before committing to it like this.

Zeus.

The_Viscount posted...

Oh, good lord... are you seriously using mental illness as an insult now? Is there no low you won't sink to?

How in the name of Lucifer's wrinkly scrotum did you get that from what you read?

captpackrat posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/8/8/AAQwHjAAC6sQ.jpg

Glad to see I'm not the only one that thought Mouthful Mode was straight nightmare fuel.

captpackrat posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/8/6/AAQwHjAAC6sO.jpg

If I were ever going to engage in vandalism, targeting anti-homeless architecture would be my first priority. It's just so disgusting that so many cities would rather spend that money making the problem worse than solving it. This has got to be one of the worst examples of it, given how it's masquerading as being pro-accessibility:
https://www.reddit.com/r/HostileArchitecture/comments/dvza98/anti_homeless_bench_covered_up_as_a_wheelchair/

Seems legit.

Even the basic premise is obviously nonsense. Yes, I'm sure people are afraid to voice opinions because their anonymous video game message board account might get "cancelled."

MartianManchild posted...

I get PMs here like that all the time.

Included in this post is a picture of everyone that believes you.

What an odd obsession Mr. Cruz has.

I can never decide if it's sad or funny to watch certain users try to express support for this debacle without actually expressing support for this debacle.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The expectation is extended family, like the rest of the world that isn't above having good family dynamics.

"Childcare isn't a problem if you make sure you have an unemployed cousin to exploit!"

Yeah, not so much. Unless we're going to say that only children and/or people that move away from their home town shouldn't reproduce.

captpackrat posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/2/0/AAQwHjAAC6Fs.jpg

That's not a great graphic. Which bar does each number correspond to? Why doesn't each bar have a number? Really, they just tried to shove too many different variables into a single infograph, which made a mess.

keyblader1985 posted...

How can these people be so close to the point and still refuse to see it?

Because they fundamentally disagree with it and are therefore more interested in discrediting it by pointing out supposed hypocrisy than actually thinking about what that supposed hypocrisy means.

kind9 posted...

Do you not know what critical thinking means, or are you just not very familiar with Joe Rogan? I used to watch his show a lot and I would never call him a critical thinker.

It's easy to get confused between critical thinking and being critical of thinking.

captpackrat posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/2/2/AAQwHjAAC4Fm.jpg

When they say it's got a shelf life of 250 million years, they don't mean 250 million and 1.

I like his desperate attempts to necro this topic when everyone with the interesting memes has already moved on to the other one. How long before we can just report him for mass bumping?

MartianManchild posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/0/4/AAb2N0AAC1-8.jpg

You can still get pregnant with any contraceptive, and using a condom in addition to another form of contraception is always going to provide a greater reduction to the risk of pregnancy than any one form alone and is therefore not the worst idea if you really don't want to get pregnant. Much like the clumsy analogy you're trying to make, perfect prevention is impossible (except through the method that I expect you're employing), so you use available precautions to reduce the risk to acceptable levels.

MartianManchild posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/4/4/AAb2N0AAC08Y.jpg

Most science contributes to the bank accounts of the scientists carrying it out. That's how jobs work.

MartianManchild posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/3/3/AAb2N0AACwYB.jpg

Do you think people are somehow automatically protected from Covid while inside their own homes?

rexcrk posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/7/2/AACE4xAACwSY.jpg

To be fair, expecting an extravert to be happy alone is no more reasonable than expecting an introvert to be happy in a crowd. There is a certain satisfaction, however, in seeing extraverts struggle with being pushed out of their comfort zone (that is, being with others) after such a terribly long time of introverts being treated as being dysfunctional if they don't leave theirs.

MartianManchild posted...

I would think with your logical computer like brain, you would realize this is a war that will not be won on a global scale. Youre trying to eliminate a coronavirus. Thats like trying to end the common cold. It will never happen on a global scale. Regionally yes, you can eradicate it, but all it takes is one person going outside the bubble and bringing it back to everyone (basically what we are seeing now with omicron). Do what you feel like you need to do to protect yourself. Wear a mask, social distance, get your boosters, but dont force that on other people who dont want to participate in your futile crusade.

adjl posted...

"People are going to die either way, so why bother trying to reduce the number of people that die?"

Right. Alternatively, the anti-vaxxers and the anti-maskers could stop being idiots and/or psychopaths and join the fight against the virus instead of continuing to fight for it.

You've said nothing that warrants an update to what I said. Eradication is impossible? Okay. Doesn't mean we can't keep it from being a whole lot worse than it has to be, but that's going to entail treating the idiots and psychopaths that are refusing to help like the idiots and psychopaths they are.

MartianManchild posted...

Wonder why people arent also promoting things that actually improve your health and immune system long term

People are promoting those things. They aren't being promoted as official anti-covid measures because they aren't going to be effective as anti-covid measures and therefore it would be irresponsible to give people the impression that they might be. There's nothing stopping anyone else from promoting them as advice for anyone that's looking to improve their overall health, but I also wouldn't say this is any better an opportunity for that than any other time period (except for the first lockdown when a lot of people got interested in home fitness and home cooking, but I think that opportunity has already been capitalized on).

darkknight109 posted...

So yeah, you want to play Russian Roulette with the most deadly pandemic we've had in the last 100 years other than HIV/AIDS?

In terms of Americans killed, it's actually surpassed the raw numbers of HIV (in 5% of the time, no less). Globally, much less so (5.4 million vs. 36.3 million), but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that that will change if Covid is allowed to spread unchecked through impoverished countries for decades like HIV was.

MartianManchild posted...

I was only pointing out how these new variants are being brought over by people who are fully vaccinated and they are not arising here in the US from our unvaccinated population. It appears that these variants will never go away on a global scale, so maybe we should just accept that and move on with our lives. If you want a shot or booster, go get it, but putting out mandates and saying hateful and derogatory things about people who choose not to get vaccinated isnt and will never change anything as far as this current situation goes.

"People are going to die either way, so why bother trying to reduce the number of people that die?"

Right. Alternatively, the anti-vaxxers and the anti-maskers could stop being idiots and/or psychopaths and join the fight against the virus instead of continuing to fight for it.

OhhhJa posted...

Wasn't the entire idea behind the spike protein shots that it would be more effective against variants since all the variants have that protein? What happened with that?

Targeting the spike protein was the best bet because that was the least variable region for the virus. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean it can't mutate, so here we are.

OhhhJa posted...

I'll be sure to get my weekly booster then

Do you misrepresent the opposing position this blatantly when you're thinking about what to believe for yourself, or is this just something you do externally to save face when you're called out for making an ignorant mistake?

OhhhJa posted...

These same people were telling us a while back that the mRNA vaccines were more effective than previous vaccines and that the spike protein would give us super immunity to covid.

You mean before a vaccine-resistant variant emerged that generally reduced the efficacy of the vaccines across the board? I can't imagine what might have changed.

OhhhJa posted...

And that if you got your shots your life would go back to normal regardless of whether other people got theirs.

Nobody ever suggested that. At best, it was expected that being vaccinated would all but eliminate the risk of serious illness/death and that barring the unvaccinated from public spaces would reduce case loads by enough to make further restrictions unnecessary. With half the population still refusing the vaccines, though, and pretty much everyone dragging their heels on treating them accordingly and/or trying to remove other restrictions for the vaccinated before case rates actually drop, the case load has remained high enough to both overwhelm the vaccine's protection in many cases and breed resistant variants to make the problem even worse.

OhhhJa posted...

Fast forward a few months and now they're telling me my shot doesn't last for 3 months lol

It still lasts, it just benefits from being boosted, particularly when it comes to dealing with variants that didn't exist when the original two-dose schedule was devised. Even without considering that, though, this sort of change in recommendations is the sort of consequence one can expect from the shortened development time: If your study only lasts six months, you can't collect data on how effective the treatment is after six months. Extrapolation can help, but it only goes so far.

OhhhJa posted...

What's different about my booster? Why did my two shots 6 months ago not suffice?

As the name implies, it boosts your response. This is not an unusual concept; most vaccines you've received have one or more booster doses, including some that require lifelong boosters (mostly just Tdap, which gets a booster every 10 years). Your two shots won't suffice because the immunity has waned (which is expected of any vaccine) while the crisis is ongoing and new factors have been introduced that mean that diminished immunity is no longer enough.

So again (since you didn't answer it the first time), I ask: What is your basis for believing that a booster will provide no greater immunity than you've currently got from your first two shots?

OhhhJa posted...

Is this a serious question?

Absolutely. What basis do you have to believe that - despite evidence to the contrary from immunologists and epidemiologists studying the matter - a booster will provide no greater immunity to you than you've currently got from your first two shots (presuming, of course, that the recommended amount of time has elapsed since your second shot)?

OhhhJa posted...

Because I've had two boosters in the same year already lol. I think my immune system remembers

Why do you think that?

OhhhJa posted...

But what good is a third dose going to be for me if the problem is allegedly those who won't get the shots in the first place

What makes you think both can't be beneficial?

MartianManchild posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/2/1/AAb2N0AACtyN.jpg

That is indeed how population health works, yes. Vaccines don't work for people that don't take them, and herd immunity cannot be achieved unless enough people get the vaccine.

I'd ask why every anti-vaxx meme creator doesn't seem to understand anything about vaccination, public health, or reality in general, but I think we all know the answer to that question already.

OhhhJa posted...

Well, if we wanna get into the subtleties of this, I could argue that a lot of people go to church to stay sober or to cope with other issues, and closing churches could be a net negative on the overall mental health of the community. AA is famous for this concept

Fortunately, virtual services exist and have been offered by most churches, giving those that depend on churchgoing for their mental health the option to attend even with in-person services unavailable. It's not a perfect solution, no, but it certainly alleviates a lot of the problem.

To clarify, I don't think that closing churches is without consequence. For many, church is as much about the community aspect as it is the worship, and missing out on that does have an adverse effect on their mental health. It's just a lot easier to deal with people being kinda lonely than it is to deal with hospitals being clogged up by a bunch of seizing alcoholics, so there's absolutely no basis to claim that closing churches and not liquor stores means there's a grand conspiracy afoot that doesn't actually care about people's health.

MartianManchild posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/4/7/AAb2N0AACtOr.jpg

Makes you wonder why he decided to start now.

OhhhJa posted...

You can buy alcohol at gas stations or grocery stores in most places

Sure, but then you've got all the usual demand being concentrated into a smaller number of places, which is generally worse for public health. It makes enough sense to leave liquor stores running with extra precautions, rather than shutting them entirely.

MartianManchild posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/4/7/AAb2N0AACtG3.jpg

Withdrawing from alcohol can kill you. Withdrawing from church means you get to sleep in on Sunday mornings. Leaving liquor stores open seems odd at first glance, but it makes sense because of the problems that would arise if they were closed.