The volume of criticism for posting verifiable facts that might be misused in illogical arguments, is really frustrating.
It's as if we need to post a disclaimer in advance that we agree with the consensus first in order to post a fact like OP.
For example, OP's fact correlates with the recent study that demonstrated that getting one shot of Moderna and one shot of Pfizer was more effective than getting two shots of either.
...and none of that is a surprise to virologists, because a diversity of antibodies is obviously going to be more effective at combating infection, and more importantly, provide broader protection against variants.
...but instead OP gets downvotes because of the fear that some imbecile is going to repost this all over Facebook in order to convince people to not get vaccinated.
Think about the consequences of this reflex. We cannot talk about the truth in-depth because less informed people might be mislead by misinterpreting it. This diminishes the quality of our conversations. It puts a cap on the intelligence of this community.
...and when you first identify this phenomenon - you begin to recognize it all over the place on social media. True verifiable facts being downvoted because they might maybe work against the "greater good" agenda in a less sophisticated forum. ...and that ultimately causes a dumbing down of the conversations - something very noticeable on Reddit and Twitter.
This isn't just some random fact. It's extremely relevant to the pandemic.
Knowing that previously infected people maintain immunity high levels against variants is important for people making informed decisions about their situations.
What GP is really worried about is this fact being misused to incentivize people NOT to get the vaccine.
> It is not clickbait, (if true) this is just a fact.
And I was pointing out that this statement is based on flawed logic. I wasn't commenting on truth/falsehood or clickbait/non-clickbait. I'm just objecting to incorrectly reasoning from one to the other.
> This isn't just some random fact. It's extremely relevant to the pandemic.
I don't disagree with it being relevant but if one reads just the title of this article and had previously been infected they may believe they do not need to be vaccinated, but that isn't the case.
I disagree and there are also doctors and experts that disagree.
There is no reason to assume medical experts are free of groupthink. There is also no reason to assume the medical industrial and related government regulators are free from corruption. Which makes it all the more important to question the advice we are given by “experts” and ask if it makes any sense. To me it doesn’t.
There is no reason to assume that medical professionals are corrupt in encouraging people to be vaccinated, either. Especially given that the data shows better protection among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.
Totally. The key is, once new information comes in to base decisions on the updated information. I'm glad that our public health officials are doing so.
It is not clickbait, (if true) this is just a fact.