Not really. They used the cutoff date to develop a theory. That is, those before the date couldn't get the vax vs those after the date that did.
So far, so good.
However, not everyone after the date got the vax. That is, like tge before date "control" there are a post-date group who also did not get the vax. Oddly, there's no mention how this group fared.
Obviously, they know this group exist. And that the initial theory would be ideal to apply to this group. That didn't happen.
That would be definite. As it is, a key and obvious piece is missing.
It's boring flamebait. I don't disagree with you but I've read this comment a hundred times and it doesn't seem especially necessary in this conversation compared to any other.
You're probably getting downvoted by: 1. antivaxxers (there's a pile of them here on HN). 2. toxic positivity (people who think you are the problem because you're being so negative). 3. reading comprehension challenged (lots of people just don't parse sarcasm and irony well at all). Those three add up to a lot.
First on the list is probably the folks who are tired of reading uninspired political comments about the opposition. Whether I agree with the sentiment or not, I can recognize that it serves no useful purpose. Nobody who reads what I write here is going to change their ideology as a result.
I think you might be getting the down votes because antivaxers will always find a way to justify their vaccine fears, so it is futile to insert them into the discussion when it isn’t about them.
Not really. They used the cutoff date to develop a theory. That is, those before the date couldn't get the vax vs those after the date that did.
So far, so good.
However, not everyone after the date got the vax. That is, like tge before date "control" there are a post-date group who also did not get the vax. Oddly, there's no mention how this group fared.
Obviously, they know this group exist. And that the initial theory would be ideal to apply to this group. That didn't happen.
That would be definite. As it is, a key and obvious piece is missing.
That won't stop 'em. Confidently-asserted lies are more compelling, it seems.
[dead]
[flagged]
It's boring flamebait. I don't disagree with you but I've read this comment a hundred times and it doesn't seem especially necessary in this conversation compared to any other.
I could see that. It's irrational, but people are often irrational.
polarizing people into "us versus them" as the intro sentence has one aim only; not welcome here.
You're probably getting downvoted by: 1. antivaxxers (there's a pile of them here on HN). 2. toxic positivity (people who think you are the problem because you're being so negative). 3. reading comprehension challenged (lots of people just don't parse sarcasm and irony well at all). Those three add up to a lot.
First on the list is probably the folks who are tired of reading uninspired political comments about the opposition. Whether I agree with the sentiment or not, I can recognize that it serves no useful purpose. Nobody who reads what I write here is going to change their ideology as a result.
I think you might be getting the down votes because antivaxers will always find a way to justify their vaccine fears, so it is futile to insert them into the discussion when it isn’t about them.
Some HN'ers aren't very bright, is all.
I take massive downvotes as a sign of my being right.
I got massively downvoted on reddit in 2014 by putinbots, for example. I also regularly get downvoted here when I'm right.
That is both arrogant and 95% of the time wrong. Accordingly, I have upvoted you. Take it how you will.
3 replies →