I posted a whole video summary of what Marty got right and wrong. Also, he was right with vaccine spacing that has come up recently as he got his vaccine doses spaced 3 months apart (in FEBRUARY). Why would I personally care about vaccine spacing? I got the one and done shot anyway. Marty was right about taking action early against covid that Fauci went on the air in NYC on Feb 29th telling New Yorkers that they can go on like normal. My personal philosophy is against restrictions in your view, right? Why would I be for restrictions then? I'm not against restrictions when they provide more benefit than harm. I'm for anything that provides more benefits than harm when you do a thorough risk-benefit analysis.I'm still waiting for yours; you made the claim, and so far all you've provided in support are some highly contentious claims he's made that happen to align with your personal philosophy.
Ivermectin is being studied right now for covid, is penicillin?Oh you bet man. Penicillin should also be taken for anything, because it is famous and has won awards. We definitely shouldn't mock people taking it for a virus.
The UK literally did what you're arguing against. There's also the argument for giving more people the 1st dose vs having less fully vaccinated to increase overall protection in the population. Also, it was a known thing that longer spacing yields better overall immunity in the end. There's more nuance in the debate vs merely 2 doses > 1 dose, which is true on an individual level but not necessarily on a population level. Then, all the boosters needed because the spacing wasn't done properly leads to more people in the world not getting vaccinated as soon as they could.Again, you don't really understand what's going on or what's at stake here.
We have data to demonstrate that the protection afforded by a single dose of the vaccine is substantially lower than two (irrespective of the gap). Thus if you're a reasonably healthy person young to middle age, spacing your vaccine is pretty reasonable. If you're elderly, much less so, as it may double your chances of a serious (potentially fatal) covid infection in those months waiting for the second.
Next, Fauci is a trusted, high ranking government official who needs to set an example for the US population, because the US population is full of fucking tools who are suspicious, afraid and complacent about vaccination. So in order to help establish confidence, Fauci goes and gets vaccinated consistent with the established protocol scientifically used in the trials. Thus when Fauci decides when to have his second shot, it's not necessarily because he thinks that's the optimal time to have it for his personal immune system. He's got to consider things that smug wankers like Marty Makary don't.
And frankly, I don't think facile YouTube love-ins with soft interviewers qualify as good data.
You can go issue by issue and find Marty's and Fauci's take on everything if you doubt the accuracy of the info in the video, they hit all the major debates up until that point of where Marty was right and wrong.
Lead by example.Then please, please try to give yourself more admiration.
If the virus spreads meaningfully outside, then super spreader events should happen outside, but they don't.Are you being completely ignorant or deliberately disingenuous?
Are you literally going to argue catching the flu inside is less likely (or equally likely) than catching covid outside?Random gibberish.
Again, where's your data of outdoor transmissions? All you have is that outdoor transmissions can happen in extremely small numbers. Normal breathing outside is not going 3 feet nor does it go three feet inside. Sure inside, it builds up over time and goes 3 feet and further. The natural wind disperses the virus outside. Your example of risk is so wrong. Talk to any infectious disease expert and they'll tell you outdoor transmission is way less and it has nothing to do with people spending less time outdoors. Here's this article about covid infection at a restaurant. If inside and outside were equally likely to spread covid, surely there's at least just ONE example of this happening during outdoor dining, right? Even if 90% of dining takes place inside and only 10% outside, you should have at least one example of this happening outside. Yet none exists. My argument has never been only about the fact there's less outdoor transmission, it's that mechanically viruses don't spread outside because of many factors that infectious disease experts know about. I might as well just say theaters are super safe because there's been like no infections in theaters (because they've all been closed).Yes, exactly. So if you plan on being in close proximity to someone outdoors, maybe consider wearing a mask. We know roughly about the distance of large droplet spatter - that's why social distancing was set at six feet, because it's pretty safe. But three feet is achievable just by breathing (never mind speaking or coughing): that's the sort of distance people might be facing each other over a picnic table.
So, let's use an analogy. In the UK, ~70 people a year die of electrocution, of which ~2 are hit by lightning. A parallel of your argument is that it is safe to go hillwalking in a thunderstorm because just 3% of electrocution deaths per year are due to lightning, and hey, show me the data of multikills that happened from lightning strikes! But actually, it's really not safe to be on a hill in a thunderstorm, as any experienced rambler knows.
There is furthermore additional context. Let's say 99% of infections occur indoors and 1% outdoors. So that means outdoors is ~100 times safer, right? But what if 95% of our time is spent and human contact occurs indoors? Actually, that suggests outdoors is only ~5 times safer than indoors, doesn't it? So without factoring in that sort of context the claim that 99% of infections occur indoors is, on its own, a lot less informative and representative of risk than you think it is.
This is the sort of thing smart and well informed people think about. That's why thank god they are making guidelines, not you.
That's completely unrepresentative of the argument.Since the conservative bi-line on vaccines is that I, as a vaccinated person, am more dangerous than an unvaccinated person, can I call in to work and claim this as a reason to quarantine?
I've also not taken Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, which makes me more of a typhoid mary.
All the studies outside of a flawed Kansas study on natural immunity show it's stronger than vaccination immunity. Look at the Israel data for example. You're also wrong about zero downsides. Studies have shown a single dose provides an uptick in antibodies to those previously infected; however, antibodies is not a sole determinant of immunity either. Antibodies fade (whether you get vaccinated or from being infected) because you don't need them unless you get infected, then you can make more when that happens. However, a 2nd dose literally provides no benefit to a previously infected person, that's what the studies say. So if you force someone previously infected to get fully vaccinated, you're forcing a medical treatment on them that literally provides them with no benefit. Also, Sweden and Denmark have now suspended the Moderna vaccine to younger people, the UK advisory panel did not recommend the vaccine to those 12-15. Some countries are now only doing a single dose to younger people because of the myocarditis issue. So forcing some say 24-year-old to get fully vaccinated after already having covid is providing 0 benefits with known potential downsides. What about the people in the Novavax trial that technically don't count as being vaccinated since it's not approved yet, are you gonna force them to get fully vaccinated again? There's nuances to everything and there's no such thing as one-size fits all. Reducing the debate to "you're killing grandma" or "but but my freedoms" only makes the divide even greater between people.Why is that troubling? The state of a person's "natural antibodies" is not something that can be guaranteed to be present and provide defense against the virus. However, a properly administered vaccine is a guarantee that a person has a certain base level of immune defense (outside of the usual medical outliers that always appear). Additionally, there are zero downsides and provable upsides to getting the vaccine as a person who already has "natural antibodies."