zlacker

>>ekianj+(OP)
The entire arc of Scott Adams is a cautionary tale.

To go from a brilliant satirist to becoming terminally online and just completely falling off the far right cliffs of insanity is incredibly sad. And unfortunately, this is plight is not uncommon. It is incredibly dangerous to make politics part of your identity and then just absolutely bathe yourself in a political media echo chamber.

>>ryandv+75
What makes it cautionary? From what I can tell, he hardly suffered from what you described. I'm not saying that I agree with everything that came out of Scott's mouth, but I never saw a sign of regret in him in regards to politics.

>>ravens+h7
This was recorded before he publicly came out as racist[1] and anti-vaccine[2]: https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/scott-adams-...

[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/02/23/dilberts-scott-adams-...

[2] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/jan/26/scott-adam...

>>Itoldm+Mx
On [2] he said that natural immunity from getting covid-19 is better than getting the vaccine alone, which is factually correct, as many studies demonstrated (note: may vary by strains, but was particularly the case in 2021/2022). There's nothing crazy about this, and it's very reasonable to say you prefer to evaluate the risk/benefit and take the vaccine accordingly, instead of mandating this for every demographic.

People tend to fall back on tribalism and slap labels on others instead of engaging with nuance or complexity.

>>alexan+CG1
> On [2] he said that natural immunity from getting covid-19 is better than getting the vaccine alone,

He was more on the anti vax side than this statement implies, at least that was my take away from the [2] article:

> For unvaccinated people who got COVID-19 and recovered, he said, "Now you’ve got natural immunity and you’ve got no vaccination in you. Can we all agree that that was the winning path?"

[a]

> better than getting the vaccine alone, which is factually correct

You are not giving a metric here so I can not tell why you think it is better. Everything I have read indicates there are more risks, death or long term complications, with covid-19 exposure before vaccination than the other way around. The conclusion of [2] is similar to this.

The original Scott Adam's post not longer exists, is there another place where he recorded why he believed contacting covid-19 before vaccination was the winning path? Without that the quotes look damning against his view point.

Apparently politifact reached out for comment and did not get any:

> We sent emails to an address listed on Adams’ website and at Dilbert.com and an address on his Facebook page. We didn’t get a reply.

[a] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/jan/26/scott-adam...

>>davora+UW1
> You are not giving a metric here so I can not tell why you think it is better

The studies:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/191/8/1420/6556183

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8627252/

There are many more.

Several 2021–2022 studies, especially Delta-focused, suggested natural immunity provided robust or superior protection against reinfection compared to two-dose vaccination alone.

>>alexan+CI2
> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

> https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/191/8/1420/6556183

> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8627252/

or [x], [y], [z] for ease.

I read the abstract and conclusion of all three, none of them talk about natural immunity with no vaccination being the "winning path" like Scott Adams did. None of them talk about getting covid before getting vaccinated(maybe only optionally) as a better or safer path, not in the abstract or conclusions at least.