[hn976827]

> Like most things with covid, the null hypothesis was inverted. Instead of assuming that like the vast majority of viruses, natural immunity was a thing, they inverted it to assuming that natural immunity was not a thing until proven otherwise.

This is not "inverting the null hypothesis", it's the precautionary principle. The danger is unknown, there were indications that the virus was spreading rapidly and ICUs in certain pockets of the world filled up quickly early on, so it's better to be too careful than not careful enough.

Let's just look back at 1918. 17-50 million dead who'd have loved to have had the option for a more cautious handling of the situation. I'm glad we didn't have to repeat that, even though some of the measures definitely went to far, especially in hindsight.

> Living in Boulder, one of my favorite things was noticing how the same exact people who refuse to eat genetically modified vegetables for produce of any kind elevated a genetic products efficacy above the organic immunity provided by the human body fighting off the actual virus.

What does this have to do with living in Boulder?

Living in a Nordic country, one of my favourite things was noticing how the exact same people that have no problem with GMO food were talking about WHO and Bill Gates running gene experiments on the world populace with mRNA vaccines.

> No matter your position on natural immunity from covid, I think we can all agree that a person refusing to eat genetically modified produce having this opinion is irrational and inconsistent.

Just because you don't agree with their reasons or don't know them does not make their behavior irrational or inconsistent. One could argue that a single shot (or 2-3) with a well-understood mechanism vaccine against a pandemic virus is worth the risk while daily nutrients coming from GMO plants are not worth that risk for personal health and the environment impacted by it. I don't share most of that view, but I don't consider anybody holding it to be irrational. So, no, we can't all agree on that.

> I think I eventually concluded that the vast majority of the public are mathematically and statistically illiterate,

Math education levels in the world, especially in North America, leave a lot to be desired, I agree with that. But let's not call everybody illiterate who is of differing opinion. Especially as somebody who accuses others of ad hominem and may themselves need a refresher for concepts like "null hypothesis".