Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We have been proven correct about every single one of these things No, you haven't. > natural immunity would provide far greater protection false > vaccines wouldn't prevent transmission, carried a non-zero risk of side effects "Prevent" and "non-zero" are weasel words, that sentence as written is true of literally every treatment and prophylactic in existence forever . But it does reduce the risk of transmission e…
>> natural immunity would provide far greater protection > false True: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965 > vaccines wouldn't prevent transmission, The vaccines were never tested to prevent transmission: https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2022/10/12/pfizer-vaccine-not-tes... -- and indeed they do not prevent transmission, or infection for that matter. Many many people, from Joe Biden to my own mother have be…
Because it's an inevitable thing when people are less ill. It's dishonest to demand testing something like "people coughing less spread less" and then use that to pad the rest of your weak arguments with that - like the last sentence about efficacy (straight after the anecdotal).
> Sweden never locked down, and their outcomes were better than most of the rest of Europe
Emphasis on the "were".
> Scarecly anyone wore the kind of mask that could possibly make any difference. It was security theatre to calm the masses. All a cloth mask does is redirect your breathe out the sides. It doesn't filter anything.
Whose fault is that when the good practices could have been followed but were not? Should have beaten them with a baton? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
> I hope they have, because it help further fortify their natural immunity.
Yikes. The old adage about "what doesn't kill you" should end with "leaves scars" as it's definitely not so cut and dry to only "make you stronger".
> Over and over the claims of the expert class have been proven wrong. They claimed to know things that they couldn't possibly have known, and continue to lie and deflect to this day.
They have been far less wrong than the rest. That is how the process is supposed to work - new evidence comes to light, opinion changes. It's not an ancient belief system based on a book. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of science to expect random sentences (where most nuance has been filtered out from) to be irrevocably true.
There are going to be improvements, better ways to apply the same principles, changes in the underlying assessments, things change. Framing it as the reason why some opposing stance is correct is extremely dishonest and grossly wrong.