61–70 of 77 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I am vaccinated (non-MRNA though). I am just running a social experiment. I am interested in what people think about the document.
> I am just running a social experiment. So you're just a troll. > I am interested in what people think about the document. The "document" is a 300-page book of medical studies. How about you read it and give us a summary?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it should be punishable to call for political opponents to be imprisoned. But derailing a discussion from factual criticism into emotional populism appears extremely harmful to the concept of democracy itself to me: In an ideal democracy, candidates would be elected based on how their political alignment and intended actions match up with voters. But if politicians denigrate their competition instead, a…
>if politicians denigrate their competition instead, and paint everyone outside their camp as enemy/traitor/unvotable, then this essentially frees them from having to compete on policy What? How does the conclusion follow from the premise? That a politician resorts to ad hominem fallacies does not by itself mean that whoever listens to them will act purely on those fallacies over everything else. Moreover, the voters…
This is in fact exactly what happens, just consider the ANC in South Africa, US politics or like literally every conservative party in Europe ever.
Which is why any politician is harmful to democracy that primarily competes with non-policy arguments, appeals to tradition/emotion/faith or similar, and any such appeal or argument is a bit of a red flag for the politician in question (to me, but trying to be objective about things).
- What's your experience in your own country about this?
We have a state National Health Service good enough to give us those nice real statistics, and, whose tasty business volume (if it were a private enterprise), is yearned by economic groups that have the financial muscle to buy constant Fox-like spin on how state health is "supposedly" so superlative bad, and therefore should be privatized.
This paper clearly disproves their narrative - I guess this media narrative is driven 80% by economic interest / ideology - "get rid of the state"; and would even risk 20% by Putin's destabilization efforts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it should be punishable to call for political opponents to be imprisoned. But derailing a discussion from factual criticism into emotional populism appears extremely harmful to the concept of democracy itself to me: In an ideal democracy, candidates would be elected based on how their political alignment and intended actions match up with voters. But if politicians denigrate their competition instead, a…
Well, blame the voters who reward the politicians who use these tactics with their vote?
I'm gonna blame that politician first and the voters that are on the take second, same in this situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The part re excess mortality due to non-covid causes means Fauci killed lots of people. No. To establish that "Fauci killed lots of people" you would have to show that cumulative deaths would have been lower without actions that Fauci was responsible for (=> difficult because you lack a good baseline). This report most definitely does NOT show that. Then, to have an actual case, you would also have to show that tho…
> cumulative deaths would have been lower without actions that Fauci was responsible for Ethically, it is enough to show that his policies killed people. I cannot go into a tobacco factory, kill the night guard, burn the factory to the ground and expect recognition for saving lives. So starting from the position that unjust things were done during COVID, it is now the time to investigate what specific laws were breac…
From what I can see the article makes no effort to separate Covid related excess mortality from direct or indirectly covid related, which would be crucial to support your argument.
Consider e.g.: - Death by delayed/cancelled medical procedures/diagnostics (because healthcare was busy with people dying from covid at the time) - Weaker immune system because of lack of exposure during/after covid
If your hypothesis is "by ignoring covid and skipping lockdowns we could have avoided this excess mortality" then that hypothesis is quite contrarian in first place AND not supported by the facts presented in the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Myocarditis seems to be the one you refer to? Conclusions Regarding mRNA-1273 Conclusion 3-2: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Conclusion 3-10: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273 vaccine and Bell's palsy. Conclusion 5-2: The evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the mRNA-1273…
Yes, this causal relationship with myocarditis is well known by now. However: "In a detailed analysis of nearly 43 million people, the risk of myocarditis in unvaccinated individuals after COVID-19 infection was at least 11 times higher compared to people who developed myocarditis after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine or booster dose, according to new research published today in the American Heart Association’s flagship…
That population didnt exist for very long. Once the conditions became that virtually everyone had at least one shot or one infection, is there any benefit with respect to myocarditis to getting more shots?
* I find it hard to trust data like this because of the immense pressure against side effects being attributed to the shots: pressure both on those impacted (for shame or disbelief or difficulty in knowing), on those doing the reporting (professional consequences, shame, disbelief), and on those in charge of administering the whole thing (monetary incentives, shame, disbelief, etc). That we see a signal at all in those conditions is frightening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this causal relationship with myocarditis is well known by now. However: "In a detailed analysis of nearly 43 million people, the risk of myocarditis in unvaccinated individuals after COVID-19 infection was at least 11 times higher compared to people who developed myocarditis after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine or booster dose, according to new research published today in the American Heart Association’s flagship…
So this shows a short window of time where a seronaive person had higher risk of myocarditis after getting covid than if they first got the shot, right? * That population didnt exist for very long. Once the conditions became that virtually everyone had at least one shot or one infection, is there any benefit with respect to myocarditis to getting more shots? * I find it hard to trust data like this because of the imm…
None of those really exist at the level where these metrics are collected, and myocarditis is a general medical condition that one would get treatment for.
I think it's hard for a lot of people deep into their beliefs to realize that the vast vast majority of the population just doesn't actually care. You get a vaccine. Done. If you then get sick for whatever reason you'll go to the hospital or not. Vaccine isn't even part of the thought process. Medical staff will treat you because that's what they do. Then it will go onto whatever metrics exist. Then later someone pulls the numbers together but they're not the ones collecting them.
There's no grand conspiracy because people don't actually care and it doesn't impact them in any way either directly or emotionally.
edit: As a movie villain once said: To you it was the most important day of your life, to them it was a Tuesday.
[dead]
MRNA - myocarditis, non-MRNA - thrombosis. Plus risk of shoulder injury from a botched injection. Small fucking potatoes against millions dead plus millions more injured. I'm on 5 shots and I guess I'm due for a booster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So this shows a short window of time where a seronaive person had higher risk of myocarditis after getting covid than if they first got the shot, right? * That population didnt exist for very long. Once the conditions became that virtually everyone had at least one shot or one infection, is there any benefit with respect to myocarditis to getting more shots? * I find it hard to trust data like this because of the imm…
> * I find it hard to trust data like this because of the immense pressure against side effects being attributed to the shots: pressure both on those impacted (for shame or disbelief or difficulty in knowing), on those doing the reporting (professional consequences, shame, disbelief), and on those in charge of administering the whole thing (monetary incentives, shame, disbelief, etc). None of those really exist at th…
That sounds reasonable. Although I've read that many cases of vaccine related myocarditis are sub clinical (you don't find it until you proactively look for it, which there is only so much appetite to do).
> There's no grand conspiracy
I think you're typecasting me to some character in your head. I'm not claiming anything about conspiracies. I am pointing at the social and professional stigma around saying anything less than positive about anything related to vaccines. Is it some grand conspiracy to say that exists?
Your response is sort of proof of this: I said something less than positive about vaccines and now you think I'm a conspiracy theorist.