Yes .... "well, they both help but don't completely prevent it, so doing both is better than just one". Which sounds plausible, but relies on the assumption that these things help, and that the amount of benefit they would bring is enough to be worth the trouble.
And it DOES contradicts anyone who previously claimed that the vaccines would stop the spread, or make you immune.
Yes .... "well, they both help but don't completely prevent it, so doing both is better than just one". Which sounds plausible, but relies on the assumption that these things help, and that the amount of benefit they would bring is enough to be worth the trouble.
And it DOES contradicts anyone who previously claimed that the vaccines would stop the spread, or make you immune.
>> Which sounds plausible, but relies on the assumption that these things help,
This is precisely the sophistry that drives COVID madness- it is ASSUMED every single one of these are highly effective, such that we must punish to the point of fanaticism any notion (or possible evidence) that they do not.
Two useless things do not compound. Zero times zero is still zero. :)
>> and that the amount of benefit they would bring is enough to be worth the trouble.
That would involve a cost-benefit analysis, which is forbidden in Times of Covid.
>> And it DOES contradicts anyone who previously claimed that the vaccines would stop the spread, or make you immune.
The truly creepy displays of the COVID Cult are when they acknowledge that vaccines do not stop transmission or contraction, but "get vaccinated anyway."
There will ALWAYS be a reason why the answer is "get vaccinated," and never a reason why it won't. This, in the logical sense, is Clark's definition of a "destructive cult"- a fixation on a single focal point to which nothing cannot or should not be sacrificed.
Yes .... "well, they both help but don't completely prevent it, so doing both is better than just one". Which sounds plausible, but relies on the assumption that these things help, and that the amount of benefit they would bring is enough to be worth the trouble.
And it DOES contradicts anyone who previously claimed that the vaccines would stop the spread, or make you immune.
>> Which sounds plausible, but relies on the assumption that these things help,
This is precisely the sophistry that drives COVID madness- it is ASSUMED every single one of these are highly effective, such that we must punish to the point of fanaticism any notion (or possible evidence) that they do not.
Two useless things do not compound. Zero times zero is still zero. :)
>> and that the amount of benefit they would bring is enough to be worth the trouble.
That would involve a cost-benefit analysis, which is forbidden in Times of Covid.
>> And it DOES contradicts anyone who previously claimed that the vaccines would stop the spread, or make you immune.
The truly creepy displays of the COVID Cult are when they acknowledge that vaccines do not stop transmission or contraction, but "get vaccinated anyway."
There will ALWAYS be a reason why the answer is "get vaccinated," and never a reason why it won't. This, in the logical sense, is Clark's definition of a "destructive cult"- a fixation on a single focal point to which nothing cannot or should not be sacrificed.