Remix clone Hacker News

The thing is neither climate change nor vaccines are political opinions or views. They are hard scientific facts and you are absolute moron if you try to twist them into political views.

▲

mdp2021 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Unfortunately, the expression 'hard scientific facts' does not represent general reality. Academically. (I.e.: "things are not that simple".)

▲

didntcheck 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Science informs policy, but it doesn't create or judge it. Science can help you predict the effects of vaccinating every adult in a population, but it can't say whether you should mandate that

This is hopefully incredibly obvious stuff, but unfortunately during the covid era "trust the science" was used to mean "my particular policy views are objectively correct and above criticism", and "antivax" targeted at people who had a vaccine themselves, but just did not believe it should be coerced on others

And is it still controversial to say that the efficacy of covid vaccine was a lot more disappointing than we were basically all expecting? Despite the revisionism of "well we never said that" (even when they did). Or that the apocalyptic predictions of lockdown-lifting were just a tiny bit overstated

	▲	ben_w 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> And is it still controversial to say that the efficacy of covid vaccine was a lot more disappointing than we were basically all expecting? As "controversial" means "prolonged public dispute or debate", necessarily so. But I think also incorrect compared to the scientific discussion at the time. Not necessarily false compared to the political discussion or the newspapers etc., but the actual researchers themselves, who understood the reports and didn't get all their information from misleading summarised headlines like the rest of us: """What that means is if you had a hundred people who got coronavirus, this vaccine would have prevented 95% of them. So if that same 100 people had been vaccinated, only five of them would have got coronavirus. And that's the number that I really look for to start off with. Now, when all of these studies were being designed, they said that they wanted to be able to get a vaccine that had a vaccine effectiveness of greater than 30%. That was the number that they were targeting. If they had a vaccine effectiveness of greater than 30%, then this would be a good result. And to have a vaccine effectiveness of 95%, that's huge. That's so much more than we ever could have hoped for. And it's such a big result. And the other studies have also had really good vaccine effectiveness estimates.""" - https://www.numberphile.com/podcast/jennifer-rogers > Or that the apocalyptic predictions of lockdown-lifting were just a tiny bit overstated You reckon? Emergency breaking is unpleasant, but it means you don't hit something that will decelerate you even harder. This is the UK inquiry after the events, obviously the US is going to have had a different situation: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz9py388z17o
	▲	nextlevelwizard 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If you don't take vaccines you are a fucktard