Sudosysgen, while a number of your assertions would be interesting to debate, they have been very broad and without supporting evidence, which makes any meaningful discussion beyond trading opinions impossible.
Which ones exactly? It's simply true that all VOCs have originated from low vaccination environments.
If you're debating the existence of vaccine-driven VOCs, then there is data. If you are going to debate whether vaccines will cause variants, that's a fundamentally speculative assertion for which there is no hard evidence, only speculation.
Just because someone cites evidence doesn't mean it's actually evidence for what they are pushing. So far we had evidence that : Very ineffective vaccines see eventual immune escape, academic articles that link targeted therapies to immune escape but without any evidence that the current vaccines are as targeted as the examples they took, and evidence that a variant that is less neutralized by antibodies can evolve, without taking into account general reduction of infections that mass vaccine rollout necessary for it to be evolutionarily fit or other aspects to immune response, etc...
That is to say, evidence is not necessarily evidence for one's argument. There is no evidence variants will evolve because of vaccination, and I can't prove a speculative negative as a matter of logic.
I am honestly not debating any issue with you. I was pointing out that the statements you have made in posts above are supported, in those posts, by nothing more than your assertions. They are in effect tautological, nothing more.
While you propose some good points that would otherwise be interesting to debate, without supporting evidence these points are nothing more than strongly held opinions, cleverly defended. In this case, there is nothing to be gained on either side through the debate of opinions- other than satisfaction from preening in the light of one's intellect or the presentation of a clever argument.
sudosysgen|4 years ago
If you're debating the existence of vaccine-driven VOCs, then there is data. If you are going to debate whether vaccines will cause variants, that's a fundamentally speculative assertion for which there is no hard evidence, only speculation.
Just because someone cites evidence doesn't mean it's actually evidence for what they are pushing. So far we had evidence that : Very ineffective vaccines see eventual immune escape, academic articles that link targeted therapies to immune escape but without any evidence that the current vaccines are as targeted as the examples they took, and evidence that a variant that is less neutralized by antibodies can evolve, without taking into account general reduction of infections that mass vaccine rollout necessary for it to be evolutionarily fit or other aspects to immune response, etc...
That is to say, evidence is not necessarily evidence for one's argument. There is no evidence variants will evolve because of vaccination, and I can't prove a speculative negative as a matter of logic.
Banyonite|4 years ago
All of them.
>> It's simply true...
"Everyone knows..."
>> If you're debating the...
I am honestly not debating any issue with you. I was pointing out that the statements you have made in posts above are supported, in those posts, by nothing more than your assertions. They are in effect tautological, nothing more.
While you propose some good points that would otherwise be interesting to debate, without supporting evidence these points are nothing more than strongly held opinions, cleverly defended. In this case, there is nothing to be gained on either side through the debate of opinions- other than satisfaction from preening in the light of one's intellect or the presentation of a clever argument.