Well, yes and no. While they are different topics, both are trying to present facts to back up their viewpoint. Is it a _fact_ that a rhinovirus infection helps fight Covid? Is it a _fact_ that booster shots are necessary, or is the current vaccine regimen sufficient? The facts seem to be changing in headlines faster than I can recall.
> Is it a _fact_ that booster shots are necessary, or is the current vaccine regimen sufficient?
The issue is that the words "necessary" and "sufficient" are left to the reader, and are deeply political.
Some people will argue that we must do every possible thing in our power to save every possible life, so even a 0.01% of increased protection would be enough to make booster shots "necessary" and the current regiment "insufficient".
Some other will accept loss of life, and will even call vaccine shots "unnecessary" since the vast majority of the population - especially the non fragile part - doesn't seem to suffer from covid. In their mind, our our natural immunity itself is "sufficient".
Most people arguing on this subject are actually not arguing over scientific arguments, but are arguing over their own position between those two extremes. And they throw in some numbers / quote experts to sound more scientific than they really are in the vain hope to convince the other part that they are somehow more "right".
I think IMTDb’s point is that it is not the facts that are changing as different people argue for or against booster shots. They are arguing over whether they are “necessary” or “better used to fight variants” which are value judgements. this is a disagreement of which strategy to take, not about the facts.
1. People (especially experts) are legitimately debating the facts, i.e. what the effect of a booster shot is (not "arguing", this is just the normal scientific process)
2. People also have to make a value judgement about whether we shouldn't now first vaccinate third-world countries instead of getting booster shots, based on our current understanding of 1 (although this isn't purely for ethical reasons, the world doesn't really want the virus to spread and mutate in other regions either)
And for both of these orthogonal issues, most people don't fall into any of the two extreme camps described in GP's post.
What you are calling fact is interpretation on statistic.
But the statistics themself are fact.
ex: number of case and hospitalization for vaccinated people vs unvaccinated people.
So when you look at box ploy or histogram those are the facts.
The fact don’t change every week only the interpretation.
The only fact that we can say is really changing is the R0 value of the virus but this is expected because it change over time because of our actions!
It’s more like the current price of a company stock on the NeeYork stock exchange will change every week.
It change when we get new data about that company and reinterpret how much it”s worth
> But the statistics themself are fact. ex: number of case and hospitalization for vaccinated people vs unvaccinated people.
I wish that as so.
The ‘factual’ statistics can be stretched however one wishes.
For example, what does it mean to be vaccinated? Or, for that matter, what does it mean to ‘hospitalized’? Does it mean Covid symptoms necessitated hospitalization? Or, perhaps, everyone in the hospital who tested positive? Does it include ‘recovered’ patients who, for unrelated reasons, are still in the hospital, albeit no longer in a Covid ward?
Etc.
The statistics for this entire fiasco have been garbage. I wish it were not so.
