How to run a demoparty during a pandemic
category: residue [glöplog]
Also, unlike antibiotics where a single mutation can render a given antibiotic useless, the immune system generates a variety of different antibodies against the virus in response to vaccination (or a past infection). It's well possible that mutations will render some of those useless, slightly reducing the effectiveness of the vaccination (or past infection), but full resistance would require escaping from ALL antibodies at once which is unlikely.
Oh, sorry Gabbie.
The article basically sums up that other scientists don't agree with him at all and that this dude is promoting a different approach to battle the virus, coincidentally one he has been working on for a decade or so. Makes you wonder.
Still, you know... After all these posts you made, i gotta say: You are so full off yourself that you actually think i give a fuck about you and that joke you call an opinion, while i know that the likes of you will deem me "sheeple".
Look... Let's set things straight: I think you are an idiot, in its original sense: someone who only cares about himself - a term that is actually, if i recall correctly, used by Hannah Arendt as well the very same way, since it refers to people not partaking in society in the emerging society of ancient greece, hence being of no bigger use and therefore stupid -, plus, you wouldn't even digest the truth if it was right in front of you screaming at your face. You could actually be a climate change denier, a flat-earther or think i am part of a jewish agenda; that would not surprise me at all. I strongly believe this is where you are headed, since i have had so many discussions with people like you. The way you construct your thougts does not allow being wrong.
You literally said this vaccine could have been created to mass murder people.
Don't you get that? Are you so blind to not see that is literally no proportionality in what we are even talking about? People tell you one thing and basically disprove your shit and you come around with the next "proof" that you are right to doubt.
And, you know... No one even says that we are in a good mood about the vaccines or even like what the governments are doing, you just assume that and claim we think so. I went through emotional hell after being vaccinated. Most of us, if not all, think there have been a lot of mistakes, yet you present yourself as the one seeing the bigger picture, disregarding everything we say. I can't even wrap my head around how ridicolously narcissistic you are. And then you finish your wannabe-opinion with a Hannah-Arendt-quote, thinking that actually makes you look better or wiser.
So: I feel sorry for you, i really pity you. Nothing more, nothing less. And the only thing i can do to cope with that is making fun of you.
"There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking it-self is dangerous." - Hannah Arendt
The article basically sums up that other scientists don't agree with him at all and that this dude is promoting a different approach to battle the virus, coincidentally one he has been working on for a decade or so. Makes you wonder.
Still, you know... After all these posts you made, i gotta say: You are so full off yourself that you actually think i give a fuck about you and that joke you call an opinion, while i know that the likes of you will deem me "sheeple".
Look... Let's set things straight: I think you are an idiot, in its original sense: someone who only cares about himself - a term that is actually, if i recall correctly, used by Hannah Arendt as well the very same way, since it refers to people not partaking in society in the emerging society of ancient greece, hence being of no bigger use and therefore stupid -, plus, you wouldn't even digest the truth if it was right in front of you screaming at your face. You could actually be a climate change denier, a flat-earther or think i am part of a jewish agenda; that would not surprise me at all. I strongly believe this is where you are headed, since i have had so many discussions with people like you. The way you construct your thougts does not allow being wrong.
You literally said this vaccine could have been created to mass murder people.
Don't you get that? Are you so blind to not see that is literally no proportionality in what we are even talking about? People tell you one thing and basically disprove your shit and you come around with the next "proof" that you are right to doubt.
And, you know... No one even says that we are in a good mood about the vaccines or even like what the governments are doing, you just assume that and claim we think so. I went through emotional hell after being vaccinated. Most of us, if not all, think there have been a lot of mistakes, yet you present yourself as the one seeing the bigger picture, disregarding everything we say. I can't even wrap my head around how ridicolously narcissistic you are. And then you finish your wannabe-opinion with a Hannah-Arendt-quote, thinking that actually makes you look better or wiser.
So: I feel sorry for you, i really pity you. Nothing more, nothing less. And the only thing i can do to cope with that is making fun of you.
"There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking it-self is dangerous." - Hannah Arendt
Gotta play DnD now - woohoo!
Let me just say that I appreciate the humourous irony that the sane scientifically backed person in the thread is whose nickname is a literal plague.
I'm pretty glad that this conversation has returned to a somewhat civilized level.
As the thread subject was/is "How to run a demoparty during a pandemic", let me allow to once again point out:
The main goal of a demoparty organizer should be to make sure it's a safe event, both within the bounds of law, but also within the bounds of logic. With a reduced number of sceners AND organizers that are able and/or willing to go to parties, this means that you will have to do more with less resources.
I do think that it's reasonable for a demoparty organizer to say "vaccinated people only, as this makes me feel safe organizing such an event". I would find it less reasonable (but still OK) for a demoparty organizer to say "this demoparty will be vaccinated-only, because the non-vaccinated / anti-vaxxers are evil people who put other's peoples lives at risk".
Once again: I understand it's a complex matter, and people have strong opinions. But please keep in mind that normally a demoparty organizer is 100% focused on creating a great event for his fellow sceners. Pandemic protection is a heavy add-on to shoulder.
If people force their differences on vaccination policies onto the back of demoparty organizers, you will get less parties. If you don't, there will be more parties to choose from, including those who match your vision of policies when it comes to the pandemic.
As the thread subject was/is "How to run a demoparty during a pandemic", let me allow to once again point out:
The main goal of a demoparty organizer should be to make sure it's a safe event, both within the bounds of law, but also within the bounds of logic. With a reduced number of sceners AND organizers that are able and/or willing to go to parties, this means that you will have to do more with less resources.
I do think that it's reasonable for a demoparty organizer to say "vaccinated people only, as this makes me feel safe organizing such an event". I would find it less reasonable (but still OK) for a demoparty organizer to say "this demoparty will be vaccinated-only, because the non-vaccinated / anti-vaxxers are evil people who put other's peoples lives at risk".
Once again: I understand it's a complex matter, and people have strong opinions. But please keep in mind that normally a demoparty organizer is 100% focused on creating a great event for his fellow sceners. Pandemic protection is a heavy add-on to shoulder.
If people force their differences on vaccination policies onto the back of demoparty organizers, you will get less parties. If you don't, there will be more parties to choose from, including those who match your vision of policies when it comes to the pandemic.
Returning to the question of vaccines vs. tests:
People are of course free to use their money as they want, but as a public policy, I would oppose free testing as an alternative to vaccines. The reason is money and resources: a single PCR test costs something like 100-200€, whereas a vaccine shot costs 2-30€. The effect of vaccine is long term, whereas test results are considered valid for something like 72 hours.
Antigen tests are cheaper, but generally less accurate and will mostly give results only when you already have symptoms; a situation when you should not be going to a demo party anyway. At least in Finland, if you go get tested, it's pretty much always PCR.
A pre-emptive PCR *might* catch the disease before you have symptoms, if done routinely to everyone. However, early PCR testing has false negatives (e.g. over 10%, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242958). There is much uncertainty about how well e.g. the delta variant breaks through fully vaccinated (and which vaccine are we talking about here), but the enormous advantage of a vaccine is that it's "always on", and not just a snapshot of time. Thus, during a demoparty that lasts for several days, a negative may turn positive before the end, even due to exposure that occurred after the first day.
So, the cost. For every PCR, we could have something like 10 shots i.e. 5 people vaccinated. PCRs add up over time (a 4 day demoparty? PCR to one guy daily vs. 20 people vaccinated?). No way I would support a public policy of "let's do infinite number of these expensive tests" when we have a cheap and near-permanent alternative. I would rather vaccinate that one guy in Finland and send 19 vaccines to somewhere where they need those, so that the pandemic ends sooner.
I might support free testing for people who cannot get vaccinated "for medical reasons", but the joke here is that so far I've heard of none.
People are of course free to use their money as they want, but as a public policy, I would oppose free testing as an alternative to vaccines. The reason is money and resources: a single PCR test costs something like 100-200€, whereas a vaccine shot costs 2-30€. The effect of vaccine is long term, whereas test results are considered valid for something like 72 hours.
Antigen tests are cheaper, but generally less accurate and will mostly give results only when you already have symptoms; a situation when you should not be going to a demo party anyway. At least in Finland, if you go get tested, it's pretty much always PCR.
A pre-emptive PCR *might* catch the disease before you have symptoms, if done routinely to everyone. However, early PCR testing has false negatives (e.g. over 10%, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242958). There is much uncertainty about how well e.g. the delta variant breaks through fully vaccinated (and which vaccine are we talking about here), but the enormous advantage of a vaccine is that it's "always on", and not just a snapshot of time. Thus, during a demoparty that lasts for several days, a negative may turn positive before the end, even due to exposure that occurred after the first day.
So, the cost. For every PCR, we could have something like 10 shots i.e. 5 people vaccinated. PCRs add up over time (a 4 day demoparty? PCR to one guy daily vs. 20 people vaccinated?). No way I would support a public policy of "let's do infinite number of these expensive tests" when we have a cheap and near-permanent alternative. I would rather vaccinate that one guy in Finland and send 19 vaccines to somewhere where they need those, so that the pandemic ends sooner.
I might support free testing for people who cannot get vaccinated "for medical reasons", but the joke here is that so far I've heard of none.
thank you for your hard work, pestis
According to this financial times article the cost of a single shot of pfilzer was €19.50, moderna is $25.50. This oxfam article reports $28 per shot paid by Israel, $20 paid by Senegal. How does your range start at 2€? That's still cheaper than a single PCR test (€120 in germany) but not in the proportion that you suggest. I don't think anyone actually argued that testing is financially more viable than vaccination, nor that testing should remain free (afaik PCR without solid indication isn't in germany for almost a year now).
Imho the point of debate is to whether or not to make vaccination mandatory first through private sector entities and then likely followed by law, and if testing vaccinated people makes sense considering new variants and the effect on transmission rate by the vaccines. I find it ethically problematic to force someone to take a risk, no matter how small it is.
Imho the point of debate is to whether or not to make vaccination mandatory first through private sector entities and then likely followed by law, and if testing vaccinated people makes sense considering new variants and the effect on transmission rate by the vaccines. I find it ethically problematic to force someone to take a risk, no matter how small it is.
At one point, the prices were:
Oxford/AstraZeneca: €1.78 (£1.61).
Johnson & Johnson: $8.50 (£6.30).
Sanofi/GSK: €7.56.
Pfizer/BioNTech: €12.
CureVac: €10.
Moderna: $18.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/belgian-minister-accidentally-tweets-eus-covid-vaccine-price-list
Sure, they may have changed the prices, but given that 4 PCRs won't be nearly enough if someone will start taking tests every time they want to out, the point stands.
Oxford/AstraZeneca: €1.78 (£1.61).
Johnson & Johnson: $8.50 (£6.30).
Sanofi/GSK: €7.56.
Pfizer/BioNTech: €12.
CureVac: €10.
Moderna: $18.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/belgian-minister-accidentally-tweets-eus-covid-vaccine-price-list
Sure, they may have changed the prices, but given that 4 PCRs won't be nearly enough if someone will start taking tests every time they want to out, the point stands.
Quote:
I find it ethically problematic to force someone to take a risk, no matter how small it is.
At some point it got mandatory to put a seatbelt on when you're driving (!) in your own (!) car, and arguments of people who did not want to be forced to do that were very similar as the ones now used by people not wanting to vaccinate:
https://www.wpr.org/surprisingly-controversial-history-seat-belts
Quote:
Seatbelts aroused heated debate despite increasing scientific research in the 1940s and 1950s affirming their value in saving lives. Among the arguments put forth against seatbelts was that they could cause internal injuries; that they prevented easy escapes from cars submerged in water; and that devices frequently failed. All were disputed by researchers but opposition remained fierce.
Some opponents argued the decision to use a seatbelt should be personal rather than legal. A letter to the Appleton Post Crescent in 1964 stated, "As long as the life risked is his own, I believe the individual should decide whether or not the use of safety belts is wise."
Another letter in the Wisconsin State Journal in 1957 argued the value of seat belts had yet to be proved, especially in cases of keeping people from "being thrown out of the car." Door latches, wrote Sam of Madison, "can accomplish this without preventing speedy escape from an auto going into a stream or catching fire, which are not infrequent events." Some car owners cut the seat belts out of their cars.
There's much more of these arguments and there are basically the same. History repeating.
Quote:
Quote:I find it ethically problematic to force someone to take a risk, no matter how small it is.
At some point it got mandatory to put a seatbelt on when you're driving (!) in your own (!) car, and arguments of people who did not want to be forced to do that were very similar as the ones now used by people not wanting to vaccinate:
https://www.wpr.org/surprisingly-controversial-history-seat-belts
Quote:Seatbelts aroused heated debate despite increasing scientific research in the 1940s and 1950s affirming their value in saving lives. Among the arguments put forth against seatbelts was that they could cause internal injuries; that they prevented easy escapes from cars submerged in water; and that devices frequently failed. All were disputed by researchers but opposition remained fierce.
Some opponents argued the decision to use a seatbelt should be personal rather than legal. A letter to the Appleton Post Crescent in 1964 stated, "As long as the life risked is his own, I believe the individual should decide whether or not the use of safety belts is wise."
Another letter in the Wisconsin State Journal in 1957 argued the value of seat belts had yet to be proved, especially in cases of keeping people from "being thrown out of the car." Door latches, wrote Sam of Madison, "can accomplish this without preventing speedy escape from an auto going into a stream or catching fire, which are not infrequent events." Some car owners cut the seat belts out of their cars.
There's much more of these arguments and there are basically the same. History repeating.
This seat belt comparison is really quite illogical... tbh. I don't inject a seat belt into my body, so it's clearly a good thing to use it to avoid being thrown out of the car in a rear-end collision. The belt does not protect you either if a 50 ton truck drives over your car. Then you're buckled up but pretty dead.
Big daddy D4XX dropping science like coins in a strip club once again and shows us, indeed, that he is incapable of comprehending a simple comparison.
Time to make some beats.
Time to make some beats.
Quote:
We got 99 problems but Bitch ain't one.Time to make some beats.
w0rd.
Quote:
Big daddy D4XX dropping science like coins in a strip club once again and shows us, indeed, that he is incapable of comprehending a simple comparison.
Time to make some beats.
I love you too. :-)
If people who are eligible to vaccination choose not to get vaccinated, party organizers can choose to not want them at their event. And I will choose to only go to those events.
Different rules can be set for those who can not be vaccinated for some medical reason. I would not want to exclude because of that. It's all about probabilities. The term "herd immunity" was coined for exactly this situation: vaccinate everyone who can be, and then the rest will be reasonably safe.
Unfortunately we also must be prepared for anti-vaxxers to lie. I already have experienced this myself.
Another point : Even if "someone" is trying to profit from covid, the relative effectiveness of masking and vaccination is still evident. So while I despise those who profit from and mismanage the pandemic, it is still the right thing to mask and get vaccinated. Hate pharma, not the vaccines.
Different rules can be set for those who can not be vaccinated for some medical reason. I would not want to exclude because of that. It's all about probabilities. The term "herd immunity" was coined for exactly this situation: vaccinate everyone who can be, and then the rest will be reasonably safe.
Unfortunately we also must be prepared for anti-vaxxers to lie. I already have experienced this myself.
Another point : Even if "someone" is trying to profit from covid, the relative effectiveness of masking and vaccination is still evident. So while I despise those who profit from and mismanage the pandemic, it is still the right thing to mask and get vaccinated. Hate pharma, not the vaccines.
v3nom, there's good points to be made but yours ain't one. To this day there's still plenty of people driving without their seatbelt on, just like there's pedestrians crossing the street despite the traffic light being red, others driving a few km/h faster than allowed, the list goes on and on, some even consume illegal drugs every now and then, it's called individual agency, the only way to prevent that would be total surveillance.
I believe the reason why the majority of people wear a seatbelt when driving is because they're educated, not because they're coerced into doing so, the risk of punishment being rather low supports that theory.
So everybody who brings forth a medical reason will be suspected to be a lying anti-vaxxer, nice.
I believe the reason why the majority of people wear a seatbelt when driving is because they're educated, not because they're coerced into doing so, the risk of punishment being rather low supports that theory.
Quote:
Unfortunately we also must be prepared for anti-vaxxers to lie.
So everybody who brings forth a medical reason will be suspected to be a lying anti-vaxxer, nice.
Quote:
Quote:Unfortunately we also must be prepared for anti-vaxxers to lie.
So everybody who brings forth a medical reason will be suspected to be a lying anti-vaxxer, nice.
For a coder, that's a pretty terrible display of formal logic. (Or you're being a bad faith troll performing a strawman, but I wouldn't wanna imply that.)
Quote:
About their vaccination status, to avoid discussion?Unfortunately we also must be prepared for anti-vaxxers to lie.
Gargaj, maybe I'm not getting it, how are you preparing for "anti-vaxxers" lying to you? Everybody can print out some official looking exemption form, are you verifying it? Are you checking for a watermark? Are you checking the issuing doctors name for existence? Check if their name is not on some anti-vaxxer doctors list as there's and will be plenty of doctors handing out exemptions? Are you calling in to verify they issued it? Are you asking the person or their doctor to explain their medical condition to you?
There's no way verify someone's not lying to you about this, so in consequence you have to either trust in people to tell the truth or put everybody under suspicion.
Regarding the "there's no medical reason not to" argument, what about the people with psychological conditions that would rather kill themselves than to be forced to inject something into their body? People that have PTSD from previous medical interventions? People with anxiety disorders? Who's telling them to "man up"? The same people that tell depressed people to cheer up I guess.
There's no way verify someone's not lying to you about this, so in consequence you have to either trust in people to tell the truth or put everybody under suspicion.
Regarding the "there's no medical reason not to" argument, what about the people with psychological conditions that would rather kill themselves than to be forced to inject something into their body? People that have PTSD from previous medical interventions? People with anxiety disorders? Who's telling them to "man up"? The same people that tell depressed people to cheer up I guess.
I'm getting bored of people only offering counter arguments and no solutions. Seems pointless to continue arguing...
Quote:
I'm getting bored of people only offering counter arguments and no solutions. Seems pointless to continue arguing...
The solution has been said hundreds of times. Protects risk groups and continues to live normally.
The solution is educate and trust people to do the right thing?
So what if protecting risk groups means not letting unvaccinated people go to a demoparty... Which is, from what I get from all of this, one of the proposed solutions.
Quote:
So what if protecting risk groups means not letting unvaccinated people go to a demoparty... Which is, from what I get from all of this, one of the proposed solutions.
Not letting people in is house law. I fully support this decision and have never said anything else. I was just trying to point out that vaccinated people can still spread a virus and still infect high-risk groups. I know that sucks. But as Mr. Karl Lauterbach said personally. Vaccination will not protect you from the spread of the virus, especially Delta virus.