71–77 of 77 posts
Check out Sweden, they had limited/no lockdowns, very high vaccination rate and low post pandemic excess deaths.
Before the pandemic dad was a beast then he watched TV for 2 years and turned into a shuffling hunchback.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * 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…
> 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. 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…
No, you're extrapolating those to wide scale second and third order impact that you have no data or logical baseline to support. Second and third order impacts related to vaccines that override many other higher priorities for short term decision making. You're claiming that a medical professional who doesn't speak out about vaccines will also look at someone having a medical condition, look up their vaccination records, look at if this condition may be related to vaccines, and then change the medical diagnosis they write to not put that condition on their medical record. Endangering the patient's very life through an incorrect medical record. A condition that actually happens more often in those without vaccines that get covid. A condition that happens significantly often on it's own with or without covid or vaccines being involved. Not just a few people but a majority of people to the point of drastically impacting the calculated prevalence of the disease.
I'm not even sure wha to call that mindset. I said conspiracy because the alternatives are even less flattering.
> 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.
No, I called you that because your argument is downright insane and I called you a conspiracy theorist because instead of reflecting on that your response is to call me as part of the conspiracy for merely calling you out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. 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…
> I am pointing at the social and professional stigma around saying anything less than positive about anything related to vaccines. No, you're extrapolating those to wide scale second and third order impact that you have no data or logical baseline to support. Second and third order impacts related to vaccines that override many other higher priorities for short term decision making. You're claiming that a medical pr…
I'm making no claim on whether or not you should be punished for saying less than positive things about vaccines, I'm not making any claims about shadowy forces making this true. I'm just pointing out that it is in fact true.
This and only this is my argument. If you think that is downright insane or has no logical basis, well there isn't much else for me to say.
BTW, in case you missed it, I was somewhat convinced by your point that maybe this doesn't impact metrics like we are discussing above.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go bold or go home. That's a good scientific attitude. Yeah, that myocarditis, it's basically like a flu.
Again, you are way more likely to get myocarditis from Covid than the vaccine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, blame the voters who reward the politicians who use these tactics with their vote?
Sure. But just consider a politician that just straight up buys votes: I'm gonna blame that politician first and the voters that are on the take second, same in this situation.
In most systems voting is secret and anonymous. So even if I wanted to sell my vote, the buyer can never be sure that I actually voted as promised.
Or do you mean 'buying' in the sense of politicians making promises to enact certain policies that specific voters like, if elected? If yes, that seems less like 'buying' and more like straight up democracy working as intended to me. (Even if you or me want to disagree with the outcomes.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
Every vote you get with non-policy arguments means you can make fractionally more policies to benefit yourself instead of your voter base. 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/f…
Alas, no. By and large, people don't vote for policies that are good for them.
People vote for policies that sound good. By and large, they don't really care too much about whether the policy sounds good specifically for them---they are happy to think of eg their country or community. But they are really bad at judging what policies actually work.
So to use your phrasing:
Every vote you get with non-policy arguments means you can make fractionally fewer policies constrained by having to keep promises for bad policies.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter for more background on the argument. (I don't expect my very brief sketch to convince anyone.)