Facebook Exec Blames Society for COVID Misinformation (axios.com) 149
Longtime Facebook veteran Andrew Bosworth insists that political and COVID-19 misinformation are societal problems rather than issues that have been magnified by social networks. From a report: Critics say Facebook and other social networks have played a significant role in vaccine hesitancy and the spread of political misinformation. "Individual humans are the ones who choose to believe or not believe a thing. They are the ones who choose to share or not share a thing," Bosworth said in an interview with "Axios on HBO." "I don't feel comfortable at all saying they don't have a voice because I don't like what they said." Bosworth has been leading Facebook's hardware efforts, including those in virtual and augmented reality. Next year he will become CTO for Meta, Facebook's parent company. Asked whether vaccine hesitancy would be the same with or without social media, Bosworth defended Facebook's role in combatting COVID, noting that the company ran one of the largest information campaigns in the world to spread authoritative information.
Facebook took the money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Billion dollar companies get to do just about anything they want . . . they CAN'T however shift blame for the way they made their billions and expect us to swallow it.
Re: (Score:3)
I generally dislike regulation, but Social Media companies have shown a wanton disregard for both facts AND human decency/rights... as long as they earn a profit f**king over society.
... pong (Score:2)
In other news,
Society Execs Blame Facebook for COVID Misinformation
Same old same old (Score:4, Insightful)
$executive at $company blames $problem on everyone other than $company.
Pictures at 11.
Yes, but also yes (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, I can buy that misinformation is a societal problem. People like to repeat what they want to believe.
However, social networks would appear to have massively magnified the problem. Firstly by optimising for engagement which leads to promoting controversial content and secondly by normalising the "sharing" of a post to broadcast it to all of your contacts.
Re: (Score:2)
The dude is a top Facebook exec - Of course he's lying. That's the job description - To deflect from the truth, even for regular operations. You lie so much you believe your own bullshit. Which is also why regulations are a never-ending evolution.
Moderation is not Censoring (Score:3)
We had wacko's who believes in all sorts of crazy crap sense probably before we became Homosapiens.
Progress in human kind has been about moderating and measuring all the information that we get exposed to. Where good ideas and truthful information gets promoted, and spread, while bad information and lies get relegated to a small group.
Social Media in essence gave your Crazy Uncle who no one really believes his own prime time show. In which all the other like minded crazy uncles can gravitate and grow the n
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
CDC also amplified misinformation. Examples: vaccines offer sterilizing immunity so you should get vaccinated so you don't infect those with compromised immune systems. Sanitizing hands with hand sanitizer helps against COVID.
Because CDC just like Facebook is part of the society. Did you have a point?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The claim, you lying scumbag, was that once vaccines are in, infections will be curbed and people will be able to continue normal lives.
I.e. sterilizing immunity was promised. Now, the propaganda spreaders such as yourself will try to twist words until their meaning is whatever they want them to be, and pretend that either this claim wasn't made, or that this claim just didn't mean sterilizing immunity, it meant something that is equivalent to it of course, but it wasn't sterilizing immunity. So I'm totally
Re: (Score:2)
You either don't understand what "misinformation" means, or you are trolling. Given your history here, I'm going with the latter.
KGFY, HAND.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that you think that "misinformation" is the information you don't like, regardless of merit given your history here.
Did you have a point other than to whine about it?
AND Guns don't kill people! (Score:1)
PEOPLE kill people.
By throwing bullets at each other.
What an asshole (Score:3)
Like the information coming from the inside of Facebook doesn't prove that Facebook is about one thing only: "engagement". Facebook shows people what's most likely to keep them on the site and what keeps them coming back. You need an audience to show ads to. If you keep showing impressionable people the most egregious lies to sell more ads, YOU are the fucking problem, asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the Sackler family when they blamed the Opioid epidemic on addicts.
Willful ignorance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He is not wrong (Score:3)
None of this, or the pizzagate conspiracy, ate the responsibility of Fox News. They merely report what is on the minds of the people. We choose to accept it as fact or not. Same thing with social media. Everyone has an opinion. We choose to accept it as fact or not. We choose to accept repetition or reputation as a proxy for truth. No one makes us. We can critically interpret all input and decide for ourselves. We choose to be like a brittle AI and create false positives by limited the scope of our data.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between giving an opposing view point and misinformation.
I am going on the assertion that Fox News is operating like a News Media company and not an Entertainment Company [foxnews.com] and what they are reporting on is true based on what facts they know at the time. So with targeted moderating you can show stories that put your side in the positive spotlight, while painting your opponent as a bad guy. While this is considered propaganda, at least it is based on truth, where a savvy news consumer
Re: (Score:2)
Algos gonna algo (Score:2)
People talking to Fark Buckenberg (Score:2)
FB: "It's not our fault we studied people and made effective algorithms that connect people with this they feel strongly about."
People: "Uhm really? Isn't that just finding emotional triggers for lab rats?"
FB: "We didn't make people believe misinformation. It's not our fault we indirectly profit from views and ad traffic to the extent we prioritise it."
People: "Err'you sure? If a large enough group believes something some people follow blindly."
FB: "Our platform is being exploited by nefarious indiv
For once I agree (Score:2, Troll)
Facebook, nor any other big tech company should not be arbiters of truth. Yes, sure flat earthers are annoying, and covid misinformation is deadly dangerous. However it is ultimately a human sharing that information is responsible, that should be held accountable.
Blaming our societal issues on Facebook is a cop out.
Re: (Score:2)
Blame not just the human who spreads the (mis)information, but also the one that chooses to believe it.
Doesn't matter how loud someone shouts if noone believes them.
Education is the real solution, but that would result in a population that is much harder for anyone (especially the mass media and government) to manipulate, so they ignore the obvious solution.
Critical thinking is important (Score:2)
Three things can be true at the same time:
Facebook has deep pockets and can be shaken down quite profitably by grandstanding politicians eager to show the proles a head on a pike.
Facebook lets the crazies find eachother and amplies the sort of disfunction that would fizzle if confined to a single workplace or classroom or group of irl friends.
The freedom of association is sacrosanct in any society that has even a hope of being healthy or getting healthy and the answer to bad speech must be good speech.
There
People (Score:1)
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." -Agent K
Facebook has removed the reliance we have had on critical thinking. With People now just assuming that since x number of people on their timeline believe something so it must be true.
Not getting off that easily, Facebook (Score:2)
The claim that "political and COVID-19 misinformation are societal problems rather than issues that have been magnified by social networks" avoids the reality that it can be both. These societal 'problems' obviously have been magnified by the social networks, and, IMHO, deliberately so.
And to claim that Andrew Bosworth, for one, might be too 'insulated' from the workings of Facebook, or anyone else deeply involved in these social networks is somehow unaware or 'insulated' from the real workings of these net
Re: (Score:2)
Someone who actually understands the difference between the verbs lose and loose, and can use the latter correctly in a sentence!
I tip my hat to you, sir.
as we all know: movie trailer != movie (Score:2)
the points about individual responsibility, differing viewpoints and democracy are spot on
although it does seem a bit of a stretch to say fb is motivated by these items more than they are being used as a shield for their opaque for-profit practices
and the interviewer -- which I'm assuming is calling itself a journalist -- is so agenda-laden and biased that any belief of non-editorializing is beyond belief
I do wish -- as an individual trying to make an informed decision -- that more transparency about how fb
An inconvenient truth (if I may borrow a phrase) (Score:3)
"I don't feel comfortable at all saying they don't have a voice because I don't like what they said."
Yep. That's it in a nutshell.
Sorry, but freedom is uncomfortable. You have to let other people have it too.
It won't always be you running things. Censorship that can be used for your views can also be used against your views. You have to take the bad with the good.
We still do things about societal problems (Score:2)
Men in Black was right (Score:2)
"Individual humans are the ones who choose to believe or not believe a thing. They are the ones who choose to share or not share a thing,"
Yes. But I'm afraid "Men in Black" was right when they talked about the difference between an sensible individual person and of what becomes of that person when it is part of a larger group.
He drank the Kool-aid (Score:2)
It's a requirement to be a Facebook executive. Suck up to Zuck's twisted version of reality or quit the company.
Not their fault.... :D (Score:2)
It's not their fault for accepting crap and spreading it everywhere, it's people's fault for making crap.
Yes, blame mankind for not being 100% perfect, rather than yourself for not acknowledging the imperfection and designing the technology around the known imperfections so as to minimize the problem.
Facebook is the roomba blaming the incontinent dog rather than taking responsibility for what the roomba did
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it is their fault for promoting crap, which they don't have to do. But they make money the more angry people get because angry people click more and they can serve up more ads, so they incentivize that behavior to make money and that is a problem
Re: (Score:2)
And how to you "design the technology around the known imperfections"? Letting people communicate freely and fighting misinformation are opposite goals.
You described the extreme "free" situation, and I like your analogy with the Roomba. But on the other side you have nothing, because the best way to fight misinformation is to not have information in the first place, like a Roomba that only goes where it is clean.
For a good example of the other extreme, just look at a corporate environment. Nothing is authen
Re: (Score:2)
There are lots of things they could have done, but it would have cost them money. They care about engagement and nothing else. It's no different than being willing to sell anything, even drugs, kidneys, or slaves.
One thing that Facebook could do is to group by issue rather than belief. That is, if someone cares about abortion, show them exactly as much pro-choice as pro-life. IT DOES NOT MATTER that they will hate half of what you show them.
Another thing they could do is to avoid all politics and news
Not completely wrong, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Society has always had misinformation and stupidity. What is new however is an algorithmic billboard that puts this misinformation front and center because it is the best way to get "engagement".
You can't blame society for a problem you specifically designed your product to amplify. You're in control of your algorithm. You have the power to shadow ban / burry misinformation on your platform. Except you do the opposite.
For the clicks.
seen this before ...it is not me it is you? (Score:2)
Willful Ignorance (Score:2)
Which of these two items do you have total control of?
I'd agree, but that's not exonerative (Score:2)
I'd agree that it's FIRST a societal problem, however that doesn't exonerate social networks from their mechanisms that DO exacerbate social, political, cultural, etc divisions.
To be clear: this is ULTIMATELY a social problem.
Let's assume, for example, that American society in the first half of the 20th century was largely homogeneous (it wasn't, not even a bit, but the NARRATIVE wasn't the divisions). This meme of society very clearly left out minorities of all sorts - racial, cultural, sexual, etc - in p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but we haven't been talking at all about Twitter. ...Oh wait, no, I get it. You're all-aboard with the meme that somehow Facebook is the sole (or even primary) guilty party for everything that makes you sad.
IMO this is all just an ongoing weaksauce followthrough continuing to hound FB for 'failing to understand those that were good and right discarded so-called objectivity to fight the orange tyrant emperor to the bitter end'. Even ITALY can see it: (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/ita
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, that's a fair criticism. You're right, I disregarded the shit that FB has pulled in the 3rd world and I shouldn't have.
Other sites moderate (Score:2)
Facebook cannot comprehend moderation and will try and derail any attempt at pointing the finger at them, because it will hit them in the pocketbook if they do have to step up moderation or modify their money making algorithms.
I say regulate facebook until it hurts.
Andrew Bosworth's expertise (Score:2)
This is Facebook's version of Steve Jobs' (Score:2)
"You're holding it wrong"
Pull the other one (Score:2)
Facebook deserves a break. Clearly this is a failure of the education system.
Facebook should sue the government for compensation for the reputation damage.
It is hard to blame society when you are a non negligible part of it. When you bring together a lot of people, you need to organize it well. That includes making sure people behave, which goes surprisingly well for 90% of the people.
Noobs.
Ahem (Score:2)
"Individual humans are the ones who choose to believe or not believe a thing. They are the ones who choose to share or not share a thing,"
Whose algorithm chose what 'thing' to show them, again?
Not so obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
There is plenty of blame for both society and Facebook.
Facebook violated their own policies and rewrote them to allow Trump to keep posting misinformation.
That was not society's decision. That's on Facebook.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A subjective opinion that you happen to disagree with is not "misinformation." That you believe opinions that differ from your own should be silenced is a problem with you, not us.
Re:Not so obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Such opinion presented as fact by Trump is indeed misinformation.
Trump recommends vaccines, they are *his* success (Score:2)
lol he did it ONCE
Nope. He recommends getting vaccinated whenever he is asked. The vaccines are **his** success story, of course he wants people to get vaccinated. What he does not want are mandates, he believes in persuading people to get vaxed.
A comprehension fail would include failure to recognize something an opponent does that is correct.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Millions of doctors and researchers all saying the same thing is not subjective. One dickhead in India making claims on twitter without any research papers is subjective.
Re: (Score:3)
This cartoon says it all. https://i.redd.it/yj9iyclhfk48... [i.redd.it]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not an opinion that there was not material election fraud. It's a fucking fact. It didn't happen.
If you want to argue that, show some god damn evidence, because I'll point to over 30 court cases, all thrown out, zero successful.
Thus, any statement about there being election fraud, outside of little piddly-shit, mostly perpetrated by republicans, is misinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh there was fraud alright but why won't the Texas Lt. Gov pay up on his bounty? https://www.thedailybeast.com/... [thedailybeast.com]
“And the good news I can report from Pennsylvania is that President Trump received 100 percent of the dead mother vote here in our commonwealth during this last election.”
Re: (Score:2)
there was not material election fraud. It's a fucking fact.
Please look and see if you spot any anomalies here. They are so obvious. I don't even need to bring up audits, conducted against the odds and threats from DC, that found a metric ton of fraud. No, CNN will not report that. https://www.informationliberat... [informatio...ration.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you don't "need" to bring up audits, because they found NOTHING. In fact, they found more votes for Biden in Arizona. So you probably shouldn't bring them up.
As for your bullshit link, that's what every time-series graph of an election looks like, the more populous counties get their results in last, because they have more votes to count. And, also unsurprisingly, more populous areas usually vote Democrat, so the blue line will have more of a jump than the red line. And specifically for 2020, it's
Re:Not so obvious (Score:4, Informative)
False claim was regarding collusion (Score:2)
There is evidence that Russians were actively involved in trying to influence the election.
That was not the false claim. The false claim was that the Trump campaign was involved, that they colluded. Mueller definitively said that no evidence that a member of the Trump team coordinated with the Russians, that there was no evidence of collusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Yours is the false claim. Show where that was said so we can all laugh at your gullibility.
The Mueller report, the official report by the US government on Russian interference in the 2016 election, repeatedly. "This Office did not uncover evidence that ...", "This Office did not discover evidence that ...", over and over and over again. No collusion between Campaign and the Russians.
Re: (Score:2)
The Russians did not rig the election, but the Russians DID interfere in the elections and were spreading misinformation and propaganda via social media. However they did not apparently collude with Trump. I think the fact that the name "Trump" got applied to the Russian interference story suddenly made legions of Trump fans extremely angry so that they assume the Trump-less Russian interference was a hoax from the beginning. I suspect some angry Trump fans might also think that Russia itself is a hoax.
Re: (Score:2)
1. nice whataboutism, which doesn't change or actually contend with literally a single thing I said. Fail.
2. Reading comprehension is hard. I was talking about 2020 voter fraud that was found, was nitpicky little inconsequential-to-the-results cases that predominantly was fraudulent votes for Trump. Fail again.
3. Good job attempting to move the goalposts to talk about something not even remotely germane to the discussion at hand - an uncontested election from 5 years ago. Fail one more time.
Basically yo
Re:Not so obvious (Score:4)
A subjective opinion that you happen to disagree with is not "misinformation." That you believe opinions that differ from your own should be silenced is a problem with you, not us.
Trump was a pathological liar, though. Let's take an obvious starting point - his inauguration ceremony. Now, the facts were obvious; there were far fewer people showing up for that one than for Obama's. Instead of letting it go ("I'm not a Washington insider", "bad weather" etc etc), he lied - and called it "alternative facts". And then just continued, as the most corrupt and dishonest president in recent history. And that's the issue with Trump and his supporters - a large part of them are fact resistant. Just look at the Covid handling in the states... Or global warming.
Now, as an actual conservative (European, not the right wing populist Republicans in the US, that has little to do with conservatism now) there are lots of people on the left I disagree with, but we seldom disagree on facts. Sure, we may disagree on the interpretation of them, the selection of them, relative importance, and the angle - and we most certainly disagree on the policy. But not the facts themselves... The US has started failing on the "you are allowed your own opinions, but not your own 'facts'. common ground you need for a society to work.
True problem is believing what you see on facebook (Score:2)
There is plenty of blame for both society and Facebook.
Mostly society, the primary problem is a large number of people going to Facebook, Twitter, etc for news. For trusting what they read on social media. Being so gullible makes you even more of "the product" (as opposed to "the customer") than you would normally be.
Why give lesser blame to Facebook? Because they are doing what they said they would do, connect people. They never claimed to be some sort of news agency that vets and verifies the content. They just connect people and let them say what they say
Re: (Score:2)
They never claimed to be some sort of news agency that vets and verifies the content.
I seem to recall Zuck saying that he wanted to be the source of everyone's news...?
Re: (Score:2)
They never claimed to be some sort of news agency that vets and verifies the content.
I seem to recall Zuck saying that he wanted to be the source of everyone's news...?
Now we're getting into that platform vs publisher section 230 realm. He's presuming individuals post good content and that FB does not need to vet/verify. Vet/verify can complicate their claim to be a platform and have various immunities.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. As far as I can tell, Facebook violated their own policies, then changed their policies under pressure, then violated those too.
But that is not the same as actually making things worse. It was bad before Facebook too.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook violated their own policies and rewrote them to allow Trump to keep posting misinformation.
They kind of had to rewrite them. They never expected a president to be that stupid. But also, they don't want to box themselves into a corner and treat future leaders differently. Hindsight bias might say they did the wrong thing, but I really think they were aiming for political neutrality rather that supporting him.
Re:Obviously true... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obviously true... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just the sounding board.. it's the AI Driven 'algorithm' that helps bring them together and creates a neat echo chamber for them... That is what's been the real game changer this decade.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what I see no solid proof for. I'm old enough to remember a time before the internet, and I used to be a bit of a "fringe watcher", as Martin Gardner called it.
Yes, crazy ideas spread before, too. And they tend to be more potent when people hear for the first time how they present themselves, and find that it's different from how the public presented them.
I think Jan 6th could have happened fine without social media, it was fairly disorganized as "marching on parliament" initiatives go. Even
Re:Obviously true... (Score:4, Interesting)
...and should not be controversial. There was a hell of a lot of conspiracy theories, insane political movements and genocides before social media too.
Your claim doesn't hold weight because the only people who can really study this are Facebook and they have been keeping out researchers and hiding their own research precisely because of the damage that they know they are causing. There have already been enough leaks that what we know is that the outside research is all inadequate. Facebook doesn't take extreme actions to surpress whistleblowers [politico.eu] for no reason.
There were these mad movements even before the internet, too, however they couldn't all get connected up. Every time I bring this up someone tells me "I only use Facebook for my pin collecting hobby - how can that be wrong". It's not wrong, but it's more or less exactly the same case. Only five other people in the world care about your pin collection and normally you would never find them. Only about 20 people would normally believe your crazy "vaccines are microchips controlled by 5G" idea.
Now there are a bunch of new things. Firstly the 20 crazy people get together and agree they need to spread their mad 5G theory. Secondly, Facebook is providing automated ways to manipulate your pin collecting hobby so that they know exactly when you might actually believe the 5G theories, and when that moment arrives they will start advertising it to you for money.
The exact details of what they can and can't do; what works and doesn't; lots of other things we should know are all hidden by Facebook. The fact you don't see decent statistics about it is entirely deliberate.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Facebook studies this is because they worry about it, and even more, worry that it can be used against them in e.g. antitrust proceedings.
Yes, they did. All sorts did. Terrorists, vaccine denialists, political extremists of all shades, they had a roaring time in the 70s and 80s.
I remind you that it's crucial for Facebook's
Re: (Score:2)
My take on "social media" is simple:
- What do they want? Money
- How do they get it? Presenting ads
- How do they increase ad numbers? Making you watch their site
- How do they make you watch their site? Presenting articles similar to what you previously agreed.
Now, compare the "free" time a scientist (STEM) has to the "free" time of non-workers (stay at home moms come to my mind now, but others to be included) or some low-wage workers (because hey...if they've had a good college degree and could use it, they
Re: (Score:2)
- How do they make you watch their site? Presenting articles similar to what you previously agreed.
you should replace "agreed" with "engaged", you get served an ad whether you're critical or supportive
Re: (Score:2)
Don't need to go that far. There's still a conspiracy theory peddled by both official and unofficial sources that hand sanitizing helps in fight against covid.
It's been solidly debunked by scientists in August. Of 2020. And yet it's peddled to this day.
Re: (Score:2)
It's at worst a false theory. It is not a conspiracy theory.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the difference between the claim above and claims that vaccines do more harm than good at the current stage?
Latter is opently decried as conspiracy theory, yet it stands on exact same merit of being incorrect intepreretation of the data. I.e. just like hand sanitizers have some miniscule impact, but it's nowhere near big enough to be relevant, problems with vaccines also are real, but exist in such miniscule numbers that they're not very relevant.
So no. Either both are conspiracy theories, or both ar
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Neither are conspiracy theories. I never said that claims that "vaccines do more harm than good at the current stage" are conspiracy theories. They're just very likely wrong.
Though, for those who believe it, it seems hard to explain why the consensus position would be so wrong without reaching for conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:2)
Then we're in agreement.
Re: (Score:3)
I did not bother trying to figure out if there's any merit to this whatsoever. But if this nonsense spreads, the deaths caused by all the idiots on the road doped up on Benedryl will probably exceed covid. Sharing around this little article, whether or not there's any substance behind it, is even more dangerous than the other covid 'alternative' ideas we had floating around.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, but will it exceed deaths causes by idiots having a jab induced myocarditis linked heart attack while on the road?
So...myocarditis caused by a spike protein binding to the ACE2 receptor, right? Guess what the virus itself also has...and replicates too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Quit sucking your own dick in public. It's embarassing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
~$40 is what it costs for a two does vaccine
~$4000 a MABS treatment.
Paying 100x is on a no-brainer if someone else is paying.
Your last FYI paragraph is straight-out FUD, especially in light of the previous 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay. But it's not a two dose vaccine, it's three. And possibly more, once everyone has taken their third dose and big pharma wants some more money.
You mean like the flu vaccines that are yearly because the virus mutates? Big pharma also makes the monoclonial antibody treatment you're pushing so hard.
Re: (Score:2)
He was saying that nobody's mandated flu vaccines. The story you linked to provides no evidence to the contrary.
Re: (Score:2)
Etesevimab
Drug class: Monoclonal Antibodies
Etesevimab is an investigational monoclonal antibody therapy authorized for emergency use by the FDA to treat COVID-19. It is not yet FDA approved, and the safety and effectiveness of this therapy is still being evaluated.
$3
https://www.goodrx.com/monoclo... [goodrx.com]
If you actually clicked through to the pricing data, that $3 is a red herring. Since it's not available in pharmacies, GoodRX has no data on what the cost is. From your link:
Re:New COVID treatment discovery (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Every single one of those was considered, and are used in some instances. You're just a moron with a keyboard.
Re:New COVID treatment discovery (Score:4, Insightful)
The big one, which should be a no-brain, is monoclonal antibodies. At the first sign of a positive test, that should be given to everyone. Instead we're rationing them till it's too late and calling it a failure when it is too late. It works best early on, not after 10 days.
Antibody treatment is $2100 a pop and requires a hospital bed.
FYI, the current vaccines do not stop the spread. It just masks infection, because it offers limited to no immunity. Four doses coming soon for "fully vaccinated" status.
Masks infection? Are you a special kind of stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because calling people names is very scientific.
They are called "Break Out Cases" and are so common, they shouldn't be called that any longer. But here is the actual source
https://www.bbc.com/news/healt... [bbc.com]
Even if they have no or few symptoms, the chance of them transmitting the virus to other unvaccinated housemates is about two in five, or 38%.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, the current vaccines do not stop the spread.
FYI, staying unvaccinated does not stop the spread, either, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Re: (Score:2)
My issue is this should have been "all hands on deck", and let the various options work themselves out.
The problem with that approach is that the average person will think, 'Hey, I took this horse pill/zinc/whatever, so now I don't need to bother with the vaccine!'... and then they die from COVID.
Re: (Score:2)