On [2] he said that natural immunity from getting covid-19 is better than getting the vaccine alone, which is factually correct, as many studies demonstrated (note: may vary by strains, but was particularly the case in 2021/2022). There's nothing crazy about this, and it's very reasonable to say you prefer to evaluate the risk/benefit and take the vaccine accordingly, instead of mandating this for every demographic.
People tend to fall back on tribalism and slap labels on others instead of engaging with nuance or complexity.
> On [2] he said that natural immunity from getting covid-19 is better than getting the vaccine alone,
He was more on the anti vax side than this statement implies, at least that was my take away from the [2] article:
> For unvaccinated people who got COVID-19 and recovered, he said, "Now you’ve got natural immunity and you’ve got no vaccination in you. Can we all agree that that was the winning path?"
[a]
> better than getting the vaccine alone, which is factually correct
You are not giving a metric here so I can not tell why you think it is better. Everything I have read indicates there are more risks, death or long term complications, with covid-19 exposure before vaccination than the other way around. The conclusion of [2] is similar to this.
The original Scott Adam's post not longer exists, is there another place where he recorded why he believed contacting covid-19 before vaccination was the winning path? Without that the quotes look damning against his view point.
Apparently politifact reached out for comment and did not get any:
> We sent emails to an address listed on Adams’ website and at Dilbert.com and an address on his Facebook page. We didn’t get a reply.
Several 2021–2022 studies, especially Delta-focused, suggested natural immunity provided robust or superior protection against reinfection compared to two-dose vaccination alone.
I read the abstract and conclusion of all three, none of them talk about natural immunity with no vaccination being the "winning path" like Scott Adams did. None of them talk about getting covid before getting vaccinated(maybe only optionally) as a better or safer path, not in the abstract or conclusions at least.
[1] essentially says that there is no value for people who got infected by SARS CoV-2 to get vaccinated:
"our findings suggest that once an individual has fully recovered from initial infection, prior SARS CoV-2 infection protects against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and its related negative outcomes. Moreover, the level of effectiveness seemed similar in both the recovered and fully vaccinated cohorts. With a paucity of vaccine doses, this should be one of several aspects that should be considered when deciding whether or not to prioritize vaccination of previously infected adults."
None of that is advise to not take the vaccine and try for natural immunity before getting a vaccination.
In fact the advise here is conditional on "a paucity of vaccine doses" so they may(not clear one way or the other from your quote) recommend vaccines for people who have natural immunity if there were enough vaccines to go around.
"All of the included studies found at least statistical equivalence between the protection of full vaccination and natural immunity; and, three studies found superiority of natural immunity."
> "The anti-vaxxers clearly are the winners at this point, and I think it would probably stay that way," Adams is seen saying in a video clip posted on Instagram. "And I don’t want to put any shade on that, whatsoever; they came out the best."
Please actually read the linked article instead of creating some false narrative about people falling back into tribalism. Additionally, his claim from his quote is predicated on ignoring the fact that someone who has natural immunity from past exposure didn't die. It also overlooks those who may suffer long term side effects from the virus that a vaccine would help avoid.
> [1] The best the fairly obvious house republican "investigation" into joe biden could manage was some vague statements about his son getting paid for having the last name biden, which may or may not be illegal, but certainly seems unethical, but more importantly, ISN'T THE SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Like, it is so incredibly obvious that words fail me that the president being corrupt matters A LOT MORE than his son being corrupt. Like, a lot a lot a lot more.
The key is always feedback loop. If you give the AI the ability to verify itself, then it's able to iterate faster. Sure, it may take many iterations, but at least the iteration spans will be shorter than waiting for a human to validate each time.
I'd be curious to see how Antigravity compares for the same task with its automatic browser agentic validation logic.
> What hurt open source in the past was its inability to keep up with the quality and feature depth of closed source competitors
Quality was rarely the reason open source lagged in certain domains. Most of the time, open source solutions were technically superior. What actually hurt open source were structural forces, distribution advantages, and enterprise biases.
One could make an argument that open source solutions often lacked good UX historically, although that has changed drastically the past 20 years.
For most professional software, the open source options are toys. Is there anything like an open source DAW, for example? It's not because music producers are biased against open source, it's because the economics of open source are shitty unless you can figure out how to get a company to fund development.
What’s more saddening is seeing intellectually curious people who can’t recognize their own biases.
It’s troubling how many accept this half-baked story without questioning the shaky correlations it draws.
It’s similar to what happened when the Maui wildfire started, many people,
and more worryingly, journalists, were quick to blame climate change in their initial reports. That narrative turned out to be inaccurate.
In fact, scientific studies (including those published in the International Journal of Wildland Fire) show that most wildfires are actually caused by human activity. But people love sharing headlines that reinforce their existing biases, even when the facts tell a different story.
There were similar such comments during Covid where people were saddened that people were still debating whether it was a lab-leak or not. Dogmatism, on which ever side, unless maybe in a field like mathematics which is entirely deductive, is not good.
People tend to fall back on tribalism and slap labels on others instead of engaging with nuance or complexity.
reply