>Does the science say we just blast our bodies with as much mRNA as we can get away with?
Science does not decide things that should be applied population wide. Economics does.
If it costs less for the state (or entities who have invested in state business) to mass vaccinate its population, then it ll be done, even if it fucks you up in ways that you care about, as an individual.
And that is why people should think twice about writing of essential autonomy..
>You'll asymptote, so you'll stop at the point where the marginal benefit of an additional shot is less than the marginal financial cost, marginal opportunity cost and marginal cost of side effects all combined.
But this is already the case for young people and people who already had covid and recovered, but we don't see them excluded from vaccinations based on their risk profile. So I think there is no reason to think that this logic will be applied more truthfully at some arbitrary time in future.
>mutations created in the unvax population benefit from resistance to vaccines.
I cannot see how this is correct. Because it should be the mutations created in the vaccinated that will help the virus to survive in similar vaccinated hosts..because first of all, the mutated virus need to survive in the vaccinated host, and become the dominant one in that host and thus giving it a better chance to jump to another host...
So this mutations must be happening in Vaccinated hosts. In unvaccinated as you said, any mutations that gives the virus immune escape capability does not give it an advantage over the other mutations in the same host, simply because there is no vaccine generated antibodies to kill the other mutations, for it to gain dominance.
Can you share why you think the current vaccines will reduce the mutations when we already know that they only prevent symptoms (not even reduce viral load for some variants).
So given that, why do you think the current vaccines will reduce the chances for virus to mutate.
To me, it appears that the current vaccines will give the exact same chance for the virus to mutate, without the vaccine, but in addition also apply selection pressure to guide the evolution to gain immune escape. So the worst of both worlds.
>it's given the power of the press back to the people
You are mistaken. Social media and things like youtube, just like elections, provide the appearance of power and choice, but just safely let people to let out pent up emotions. Then they safely contain it without it being spilled to the real world to a certain extent, at the same time give the people who participate in them a certain feeling of "doing something", a fallacy that even I am committing right now while I write this comment down..
As Noam Chomsky said "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum".
We already know that youtube and other media like reddit even HN "strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion", and as you said, they also allow very lively debate withing the rest of the spectrum..
>Nothing wrong with fessing up and saying “we made a mistake, here’s the correction”
Sadly if you do retractions, you are not qualified for the name "fact checker". Because "facts" are not retractable.
And fact-checkers are just the tip of the iceberg, and if you care to look, there are many things that are peddled as being "fact" when there is not enough credible evidence to say so..
For example the statement "Vaccines don't cause autism". Any one with two brain cells will know that this NOT a fact, simply because it does not say "Which vaccines".
But that does not prevent people from saying that as a FACT.
I only meant that "some forum that we both are reading"
>The good engineers would all have left and taken a lower paid remote contracting job working from home..
Not many comparable remote positions were available, and not may even probably didn't consider the possibility, because it was so taboo.
This is how bad stuff that existed so long in a society eventually change. 9-5 work in an office is an evil that should not have existed where it could be avoided.
> vast majority of them do not want full remote work.
Great, good for them. But that is not stopping a lot of others from doing so.
>fully remote code monkey, and you may be surprised to find out that the "best people" aren't code monkeys.
Very curious that you have loaded it with the assumption that "remote" implies being a "code monkey".
>they have not blown FAANG companies "right tout of the water".
Sure no one is saying it ll happen overnight. Curious reasoning again, by the way.
>a very small percentage of people put remote work as their number 1
Very curious again, because even in HN there were a lot of stories where people are willing to even resign, to keep the freedom that they discovered with not having to work in strict constraints.
Science does not decide things that should be applied population wide. Economics does.
If it costs less for the state (or entities who have invested in state business) to mass vaccinate its population, then it ll be done, even if it fucks you up in ways that you care about, as an individual.
And that is why people should think twice about writing of essential autonomy..