As a serial defender of Covid vaccine severe efficacy who nonetheless argues that no one should take Covid vaccines, please explain this to me.
If the argument against Covid vaccines is that they do not prevent severe outcomes, how is that argument not pro-vaccine?
There is no such thing as "severe efficacy".
And the statemrnt : ". . . do not prevent severe outcomes, how is that argument not pro-vaccine?" does not in any way imply that it is pro-vaccine! It could just as well be making a point that the vaccines don't prevent anything at all!
February was crazy... I went to jail twice! One of those times was a miracle... so strange to have the Blessed Virgin Mary lift you up and make you fall on your butt on the sidewalk leading to, as you would later find out after your lawyer did some discovery, a manager at the grocery store that knows you calling 911 which brought out one of the notoriously, let's say, extra-vigilant, local police to pick you up for public intox and hauling you off to a night in jail that eventually gets you straightened out on the same day that your mother finished praying a 9 day novena for you. And all this jail crap started MLK weekend of 2022 or pretty much the beginning of the post-covid era, so these recent experiences seem to be reiterating an important point about our current broader social circumstances...
A little spirituality can make one's reality a lot more interactive; anyway
I couldn't understand this post at first, but I identified with it in the way that I can often write stuff that to me is extremely penetrating and crystalline which emerges in a moment of inspiration out of a backdrop that temporarily assumes the validity of universally understood truth (not unlike the miracle I've recounted above) Also, probably my greatest pleasure is occasionally being provocative in a way that allows another person to connect some dots in a way that surprises them, and it feels as if elaborating too much would detract from that. Another passion of mine is finding out that I'm wrong... so, it's odd but I feel more kinship with Unglossed than I have with any writing project... other than probably Kafka's "Metamorphosis" and Beckett's "Molloy", which is strange company... I haven't ever explicitly thought that before, Kafka, Beckett... Mowrey?
But going through the comments it's like oh yeah I remember Brian's position now... *a week later* OH WOW, yeah it's like the "turtles all the way down" recounting of how vaccines are trialed in a way that makes their adverse effects practically nonexistent, but one of a more analytical utilitarian persuasion might argue that the net positive would outweigh the negative effects of viruses running amok (this is essentially coded into the trialing structure itself as an ethic that you can't not give someone a vaccine) but you can't be outright about something like that... so for those who wish to be analytically consistent you have to take it back to what even am viruses* in the grand scheme of things.
So in a similar way to the above post, "turtles all the way down" might be said to be a "pro-vaccination" book (at least the first chapter which has the main argument and research outline). Of course, I'm not being a purist, it seems like in your post and here we're kind of pushing the categorization to draw out a point that is ultimately disinvested in the disingenuous parameters of the pro-/anti- vax. Or I might be more radical than I've ever been, shit I don't know, I could just be used to saying nuanced looking stuff like that!
*phrasing courtesy of Rune Soup