Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive July 2, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas

Context —

win. Because there's something in his voice or his presentation or his confidence or I don't know what it is. I don't exactly know what it is, but there's definitely such a thing as command voice, wouldn't you say? Nobody's going to argue with that, right? There is such a thing as command voice, and women have it too, right? It's not a gender thing. Women can have a command voice. If you've ever w…

← Previous segment →

to intentionally get infected. Most people aren't. Some might. Whereas if you get natural immunity, you could make the decision to get vaccinated or not. So they don't work equally in both directions. Are we okay so far? They're not equivalent because in one case you can get both in a logical, rational way. In the other case you wouldn't get both because you got your natural immunity and you say, "No, no more. I don't need any more."

Okay, so there's a little bit of difference. But here's my argument. When it comes to antibodies, aren't more better? Does anybody disagree with that? Having more antibodies would be better. Now we will talk about the risks, so hold that. I'm not going to forget about them. But when you say more antibodies are better than fewer, so what would be the argument not to have both? It gives you more antibodies, right?

So whether you have good natural protection or not, you get a little extra turbo boost. So is the government wrong in saying that being naturally immune, since they can't tell if it's a good one, a good immunity or a weak immunity, and they can't tell how long it'll last, would it not be good risk management, if the vaccines were perfectly safe, and we'll talk about the risk, but if they were perfectly safe, wouldn't it make sense to do both? And that's not the case. There's no such thing as a vaccine that's perfectly safe. But if it were, wouldn't you say that getting a little extra would help you? I would say that's just math. That's just addition. You can't argue that this much immunity is better than this much immunity plus a little extra, right? There's no argument for that. That's just math. It's like money. You know what's better, twenty dollars or a hundred dollars? There's no argument. A hundred dollars is better than twenty dollars. With antibodies, I don't think there's an argument, is there? I mean I'm open to it but I haven't heard one. Isn't more antibodies better?

Right, so it really comes down to the extra risk, doesn't it? Wouldn't you say the extra risk of the vaccination? And I would think that a person who has natural immunity should make their own decision about whether they get vaccinated, because the government can't tell you what y

Context —

our extra risk is, nor can they tell you if you have enough immunity that you're in good shape with or without a vaccination. They're not testing your antibodies or how long they're going to last. They don't know and you don't know either. If the government doesn't know what's up with you and you don't know what's up with you, because you don't know if your natural immunity is the good kind or th…

Next segment → →