Support NeoGAF

[Chaplain]

 

[bigsnack]

Most of my neighborhood (SoCal) got hit with a "nasty flu" that turned into pneumonia just before Christmas of 2019. I didn't get sick until late January 2020, but I know lots of folks who were sick earlier than that.

 

[Shai-Tan]

Some scientists say it came from a lab, some say it didn't. There is no 100% evidence either way, especially as the full infection route for the natural path is not clear.

With that context, using deductive reasoning off of other facts (came from China, literally came from a block away from a coronavirus research lab apparently doing gain of function research, covered up by the CCP) is perfectly reasonable.

that's not deductive reasoning, that's inductive reasoning, which is dependent on evidence. the form of the argument is that proximity is a strong signal that there is a causal relationship. there are many assumptions built into that inference, that depend on ruling out other possible causes (negative evidence) against what is favorable to it (positive evidence)

 

[infinitys_7th]

The problem with the lab leak story, specifically, is what I outlined before. Experts can be experts in virology but if China withholds access they have to make due with what is most likely incomplete information, which makes their conclusions questionable. The most scientific thing to do would be to suspend judgement and keep asking for the missing information, but they are probably not completely free to do so (as saying the info/access is incomplete would publicly cast aspersions on China) So the problem is multi-faceted, the political component overshadows the scientific one, which is why "listen to the experts" is an unwarranted reduction of the problem.

other than that I agree with what @Zefah and I infinitys_7th have said about freedom to discuss this and not wanting some kind of technocracy

You reframed this well - everyone currently lacks crucial information to fully determine where COVID-19 came from. Obviously even if the virus leaked from the Wuhan lab it's DNA is going to be mostly "natural" because we don't "make" viruses, but modify them (in usually very simple ways) or artificially select new variants in controlled conditions (gain of function). We need more information that is being purposefully withheld by a known bad actor, so skepticism of China and acknowledgment of motive are perfectly reasonable.

 

[Raven117]

Hypotheses are important part of science.

It does no good when certain hypotheses and theories are suppressed and even censored. People seemed to have zero issue to take the claims of the virus coming from wet market at face value. We still have ZERO evidence of it coming from that market. ZERO. Yet people seem to think that's the better option to look at and willing to give an aura of "conspiracy speculation" to any lab leak theories.

We have to be careful of how we treat theories and hypotheses, as one of the best ways to go against science is to attack the hypothesis and not allow it even be tested.

BOOM. This is the whole point.

A point that Shai-Tran, and others, are missing because they can't see how science (especially in this context where science was put under a political lens and asked to work far quicker than the discipline dictates), can be manipulated (in the short term).

 

[Shai-Tan]

Nor did he say it did, but for whatever reason you and a few others seem to think that speculation and hypothesis are the same as claiming something is an iron-clad fact with no room for further discussion.

the person I was responding to compared me to a flat earther for not agreeing that from proximity it's a safe assumption that there is a causal connection unless proven otherwise

 

[DeepBreath87]

Have you actively sought out information that would disconfirm your belief about this, like what virologists have said about likelihood of natural origin? If you did you would hear other plausible explanations that might undermine your high level of confidence (that not even most lab leak proponents would agree with). Because something seems palpable in your mind doesn't make it true

I’ll tell you what I’m open to hearing. I’m open to hearing how this virus went from, apparently a horseshoe bat, to human to human transmission. It’s basically accepted fact that such a thing happening naturally would require an intermediary host for the virus. It was thought be a pangolin, but turned out not to be the case. So I’m open to hearing how it happened.

I will not, however, suspend my rational thinking until then. There is a very clear, likely source for this virus that explains why we can’t find evidence of its natural origin. The WIV. And once more, the odds of this particular virus occurring naturally just down the block from that particular laboratory are so insane that you’d have to be insane not to consider it the most likely source. Combine that with the Chinese government’s actions and it seems fairly obvious what happened. Doesn’t mean a natural origin is impossible. But seeing as we’re having an informal chat here, I think don’t think my confidence is misplaced.

 

[QSD]

You reframed this well - everyone currently lacks crucial information to fully determine where COVID-19 came from. Obviously even if the virus leaked from the Wuhan lab it's DNA is going to be mostly "natural" because we don't "make" viruses, but modify them (in usually very simple ways) or artificially select new variants in controlled conditions (gain of function). We need more information that is being purposefully withheld by a known bad actor, so skepticism of China and acknowledgment of motive are perfectly reasonable.

Maybe it's good to add that...

BOOM. This is the whole point.

A point that Shai-Tran, and others, are missing because they can't see how science (especially in this context where science was put under a political lens and asked to work far quicker than the discipline dictates), can be manipulated (in the short term).

... like Raven is also saying here the 'experts' are under unprecedent pressure from various sides to produce results, answers even, in a hurry. So I don't want to cast aspersions on the motivations and dedication of the relevant experts here, but they are probably in bind due to political/diplomatic considerations. The whole situation is just not conducive to doing objective science at all.

 

[Chaplain]

 

[infinitys_7th]

that's not deductive reasoning, that's inductive reasoning, which is dependent on evidence. the form of the argument is that proximity is a strong signal that there is a causal relationship.

People hide stuff when they don't want other people to see it. China is hiding crucial data related to the origin of COVID-19. Therefore it seems likely China wants to hide the origin of COVID-19. This isn't natural science, just human behavior.

there are many assumptions built into that inference, that depend on ruling out other possible causes (negative evidence) against what is favorable to it (positive evidence)

Nope, doesn't work like that. Due to lack of conclusive evidence, I could just as easily say that it coming from the lab needs to be ruled out before claiming it is 100% natural. One or the other isn't default. Everyone is just making educated guesses because someone is withholding necessary data, and no one can assess relative likelihood of one ot the other.

 

[DeepBreath87]

Maybe it's good to add that...

... like Raven is also saying here the 'experts' are under unprecedent pressure from various sides to produce results, answers even, in a hurry. So I don't want to cast aspersions on the motivations and dedication of the relevant experts here, but they are probably in bind due to political/diplomatic considerations. The whole situation is just not conducive to doing objective science at all.

It’s a “show your work” situation. The scientific community really burned the trust bridge with some of the stuff they said in the past year. Particularly when it comes to the lab leak theory and the subsequent suppression of it on social media. They made a lot of certainty claims they couldn’t back up. Those claims were used to then crush dissent. So now they’ll have to give me actual, widely tested and accepted evidence that this thing came solely from nature.

 

[Shai-Tan]

BOOM. This is the whole point.

A point that Shai-Tran, and others, are missing because they can't see how science (especially in this context where science was put under a political lens and asked to work far quicker than the discipline dictates), can be manipulated (in the short term).

The outbreak was first noticed in the Wet Market but that doesn't necessarily mean it started there. It's just where the trace started. If you actually looked into some of the science they then try to trace the DNA back to an origin. And because "lab leak" is a possibility, details about the virus could speak to that. Because it sounds plausible that the virus was manipulated doesn't make it true. There's a lot of amateurs making arguments about a smoking gun, for example, here:



but that reasoning at least hangs on actual evidence offered, not "seems plausible"

 

[infinitys_7th]

The outbreak was first noticed in the Wet Market but that doesn't necessarily mean it started there. It's just where the trace started. If you actually looked into some of the science they then try to trace the DNA back to an origin. And because "lab leak" is a possibility, details about the virus could speak to that. Because it sounds plausible that the virus was manipulated doesn't make it true. There's a lot of amateurs making arguments about a smoking gun, for example, here:



but that reasoning at least hangs on actual evidence offered, not "seems plausible"

The DNA has to originate from somewhere - its not manmade. They can find it came from bats without that discrediting it coming from a lab. To show a natural origin, they would need to trace where all the distinguishing features of the virus were picked up, and even that doesn't technically preclude it being released from a lab. Maybe China found this in some isolated mountain and fumbled containment while studying it.

 

[Raven117]

The outbreak was first noticed in the Wet Market but that doesn't necessarily mean it started there. It's just where the trace started. If you actually looked into some of the science they then try to trace the DNA back to an origin. And because "lab leak" is a possibility, details about the virus could speak to that. Because it sounds plausible that the virus was manipulated doesn't make it true. There's a lot of amateurs making arguments about a smoking gun, for example, here:



but that reasoning at least hangs on actual evidence offered, not "seems plausible"

You literally are attacking the hypothesis. That's the point. And moreover, "scientists" were under directives in their own communities to not fully investigate a lab leak theory (so of course the "science" at this stage would be skewed towards non lab leak.)

I don't know where it came from. Neither do you as you just parrot out "science" that had its thumb on the scale early on as not actually vetting all plausible hypothesis.

As I said earlier, you are missing the forest for the trees dude. Let science investigate full throttle what is going on....all plausible theories, and get to the bottom of it. Instead, you are goal-tending one theory.

Anything else to this conversation is simply politics parading as science.

 

[poppabk]

Hypotheses are important part of science.

It does no good when certain hypotheses and theories are suppressed and even censored. People seemed to have zero issue to take the claims of the virus coming from wet market at face value. We still have ZERO evidence of it coming from that market. ZERO. Yet people seem to think that's the better option to look at and willing to give an aura of "conspiracy speculation" to any lab leak theories.

We have to be careful of how we treat theories and hypotheses, as one of the best ways to go against science is to attack the hypothesis and not allow it even be tested.

Its the opposite - we had good circumstantial evidence that it came from the market (a cluster of people from the market were among the earliest known cases, the market allowes contact between humans and potential carriers) but analysis has shown that it almost definitely did not come from the market (no animals were infected). Of course the evidence it didn't come from the market is from the Wuhan institute analyses, so I guess we could still doubt it.
The lab leak also has good circumstantial evidence (works with similar viruses, apparent sickness among people there) and we don't have any evidence to say it didn't. I don't think people will be as quick to accept evidence that it didn't if it is presented though, even though it would be coming from the same source.

 

[QSD]

It’s a “show your work” situation. The scientific community really burned the trust bridge with some of the stuff they said in the past year. Particularly when it comes to the lab leak theory and the subsequent suppression of it on social media. They made a lot of certainty claims they couldn’t back up. Those claims were used to then crush dissent. So now they’ll have to give me actual, widely tested and accepted evidence that this thing came solely from nature.

I understand how you feel, but I would suggest to wait a while for this whole thing to play out before you judge to harshly. My hypothesis is that China at a certain point made it known via back channels they would not cooperate/collaborate with the pandemic response if the lab leak hypothesis was to be investigated. So perhaps some of the relevant experts got a phonecall telling them to back off the lab leak theory, otherwise a lot more people would die due to a delayed and more ineffectual response. That's a raw deal. I don't know what I would do in a situation like that.

 

[Shai-Tan]

You literally are attacking the hypothesis. That's the point. And moreover, "scientists" were under directives in their own communities to not fully investigate a lab leak theory (so of course the "science" at this stage would be skewed towards non lab leak.)

I don't know where it came from. Neither do you as you just parrot out "science" that had its thumb on the scale early on as not actually vetting all plausible hypothesis.

As I said earlier, you are missing the forest for the trees dude. Let science investigate full throttle what is going on....all plausible theories, and get to the bottom of it. Instead, you are goal-tending one theory.

Anything else to this conversation is simply politics parading as science.

I have no objection to that. If you actually went back instead of parachuting in you would see that this was in response to a video of Jon Stewart saying it's obvious

 

[Raven117]

I have no objection to that. If you actually went back instead of parachuting in you would see that this was in response to a video of Jon Stewart saying it's obvious

Uh-huh.

 

[Shai-Tan]

Uh-huh.

I find this funny because context from a few pages before that, the same people were defending Bret Weinstein who is actively pushing vaccine skepticism and promoting ivermectin as an alternative. Setting aside the bad reasons he's offered for that, it would not even end the pandemic. But it's OK, we're all just asking questions.

 

[DeepBreath87]

I find this funny because context from a few pages before that, the same people were defending Bret Weinstein who is actively pushing vaccine skepticism and promoting ivermectin as an alternative. Setting aside the bad reasons he's offered for that, it would not even end the pandemic. But it's OK, we're all just asking questions.

You mean defending his right not to have his views crushed by tech monopolies just because they run afoul of conventional wisdom? Yeah, I’ll defend Weinstein from that perspective. He shouldn’t have to worry about YouTube or Twitter censoring his thoughts. I find it grotesque that anyone would be for that. I have very little opinion on ivermectin.

 

[Shai-Tan]

You mean defending his right not to have his views crushed by tech monopolies just because they run afoul of conventional wisdom? Yeah, I’ll defend Weinstein from that perspective. He shouldn’t have to worry about YouTube or Twitter censoring his thoughts. I find it grotesque that anyone would be for that. I have very little opinion on ivermectin.

No, I don't mean that. The objection that started that discussion was to me calling him a crank with a following.

 

[Chaplain]

‘I lost use of my hands for 3 weeks, so I was in real trouble’

Edited

 

[QSD]

No, I don't mean that. The objection that started that discussion was to me calling him a crank with a following.

Lol ain't we all, man

 

[Raven117]

I find this funny because context from a few pages before that, the same people were defending Bret Weinstein who is actively pushing vaccine skepticism and promoting ivermectin as an alternative. Setting aside the bad reasons he's offered for that, it would not even end the pandemic. But it's OK, we're all just asking questions.

Easy killer. I've never once said anything about vaccine skepticism.

And moreover, I don't give a flying fuck if an adult chooses to go unvaccinated. I am, and that's all that matters to me.

 

[Shai-Tan]

Easy killer. I've never once said anything about vaccine skepticism.

And moreover, I don't give a flying fuck if an adult chooses to go unvaccinated. I am, and that's all that matters to me.

considering the effectiveness of the vaccine to end all restrictions depend on how much of the population takes it, it's probably a good idea to care what they think about it

anyhow, not only was Jon Stewart promoting lab leak as obvious, he was also saying it's engineered, which is a stronger claim

 

[Deleted member 17706]

considering the effectiveness of the vaccine to end all restrictions depend on how much of the population takes it, it's probably a good idea to care what they think about it

No thank you with this line of thinking. Just because shitty restrictions are implemented does not mean we should all be good little boys and play along with whatever demands are being made (and pressure others into doing so, too) in hope that our governments might give us back some of our freedoms.

 

[Raven117]

considering the effectiveness of the vaccine to end all restrictions depend on how much of the population takes it, it's probably a good idea to care what they think about it

anyhow, not only was Jon Stewart promoting lab leak as obvious, he was also saying it's engineered, which is a stronger claim

Nope. Don't care and neither should the government about re-opening. Make it readily available to everyone that wants one. I know its just super difficult for you and others of your ilk to recognize personal responsibility, but that is where I am. Remember, this still is an emergency use vaccine. Not some tried and true tested with years type of vaccine. If someone wants to be hesitant, let them, and let the rest of us get on with it. People get sick and die by the choices they make all the time. So long as it doesn't crash the health care system, they are free to do so as far as I'm concerned.

Good lord, he isn't a scientist and was clearly doing a "bit." There are some folks in this world, I wont say who, who are hell bent on "washing away the impurities" of this world where no one laughs, unless its government sanctioned, there is no edge, no spice of life to anything. Just drone lines of soulless people told how to act and think by the "moral" majority.

 

[Chaplain]

 

[BouncyFrag]

 

[CloudNull]

Shai-Tan versus the world. Who hurt you?

 

[poppabk]

Nope. Don't care and neither should the government about re-opening. Make it readily available to everyone that wants one. I know its just super difficult for you and others of your ilk to recognize personal responsibility, but that is where I am.

It doesnt matter if you think that the government shouldn't care about vaccinations with regards to reopenings, they have shown that it is a major factor.
You are an idealist, the rest of us realists are just working with what we have.

 

[Raven117]

It doesnt matter if you think that the government shouldn't care about vaccinations with regards to reopenings, they have shown that it is a major factor.
You are an idealist, the rest of us realists are just working with what we have.

Well, what we have is the government has re-opened due to many people getting the vaccine. So the "reality" of it is that it doesn't matter what I think, or you think.

Moreover, lets take a look at "just working with what we have." What are you working with? What are you working towards? I mean you, specifically. Or....are you just voicing your personal opinion on a topic and parading it around like you make decisions for all of us? Because, all I did was voice a personal opinion without the pretense that somehow if my opinion is the right opinion, its validated as the collective "whole."

 

[delirium trigger]

We weren't even supposed to have waited for a vaccine rollout or even a dip in covid infections. It was supposed to be about not overwhelming the hospitals. Turned into lockdowns well beyond the at risk population being vaccinated.

Some people just don't want it to end.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Dr. Campbell sharing some good info about the promising results of both the Novavax trial and an Ivermectin trial from Israel:

 

[BouncyFrag]

Dr. Campbell sharing some good info about the promising results of both the Novavax trial and an Ivermectin trial from Israel:

Senate hearing from six months ago about the effectiveness of ivermectin. YouTube had initially banned this video which is sickening.

Opinion | YouTube Cancels the U.S. Senate

It censors testimony from physicians on early treatments for Covid-19 patients.

www.wsj.com

 

[pel1300]

Senate hearing from six months ago about the effectiveness of ivermectin. YouTube had initially banned this video which is sickening.

Opinion | YouTube Cancels the U.S. Senate

It censors testimony from physicians on early treatments for Covid-19 patients.

www.wsj.com

I sent my dad the clips of this guy and he responded "Do you think you know better than me, a doctor who studied medicine for his entire life? Stop watching this disinformation from jerks about dangerous and unproven drugs"

He didn't bother to address a single point the doctor brought up. Just ad hominem attacks.

The brainwashing via CNN is so sad. The boomer generation grew up on Cable TV news - they probably view it the same way I view independent media long format podcasts.

 

[Lanrutcon]

Senate hearing from six months ago about the effectiveness of ivermectin. YouTube had initially banned this video which is sickening.

Opinion | YouTube Cancels the U.S. Senate

It censors testimony from physicians on early treatments for Covid-19 patients.

www.wsj.com

I thought I'd heard that name before. My dad's a pharmacist, he's put my family on Ivermectin.

 

[vpance]

I sent my dad the clips of this guy and he responded "Do you think you know better than me, a doctor who studied medicine for his entire life? Stop watching this disinformation from jerks about dangerous and unproven drugs"

He didn't bother to address a single point the doctor brought up. Just ad hominem attacks.

The brainwashing via CNN is so sad. The boomer generation grew up on Cable TV news - they probably view it the same way I view independent media long format podcasts.

So many family doctors know jack shit. Don't bother to keep up with the newest info, and pharma salesmen are constantly in their ears with sweet job related kickbacks.

 

[Loki]

Spot the inconsistency in this argument: Once the relative non-lethality of COVID was known last summer (99.7+% survival rate for folks under 50), the narrative was that the real danger of the virus is that it overwhelms our medical systems due to the large number of folks requiring hospitalization, ventilation etc. The vaccines, by the “official” accounts, practically eliminate severe cases and death if folks catch the virus. Therefore, can anyone explain to me why there is this INSANE push to get 100% of people vaccinated when even the 43-50% vaccination rate we have currently should be more than enough to prevent the hospital system from being overwhelmed again? Especially when you combine it with existing natural immunity, which some estimates place at 25-30% of the population (with the caveat that some percentage of those overlap with the group of those who are vaccinated). This is completely aside from the possible pitfalls of vaccinating children, those who have pre-existing immunity, and those who are pregnant. It makes no logical sense whatsoever and I honestly can't believe that there haven't been major legal challenges mounted yet against things like "vaccine passports" and businesses requiring all of their workers to be vaccinated.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Edit: I'm getting moody over nothing.


Ignore me.

 

[Loki]

Dude just admit you think it's a hoax or a power grab or some other insane conspiracy and save everyone some time. It's obvious the direction you are leaning. Stop dancing around the point and just own it. You think something is up. Tell us why or how. A wall of text doesn't obscure where you are coming from. Just get to the point and say what you think is going on. At least then someone can come forward and straight up debunk your line of logic if they can rather than trying to guess at it.


i don't mean to snap at you, but I get tired of seeing these vague allusions to something greater rather than just straight up saying what you think is happening. Say what you mean rather than just asking questions and expecting everyone else to understand where you are at.

Nice try, but I won't take the bait. And don't presume to know my thoughts or intentions. Can you explain to me why there is a push for 100% vaccination when COVID's main threat is the overwhelming of our health care systems? Between the 60-70+% of the population who has some form of immunity (vaccination or natural immunity) and the fact that improved treatment modalities greatly reduce the number of severe cases, why is it so important to have 100% compliance? It's a simple question. COVID at this stage (as opposed to initially, when less was known about transmission, best treatment methods etc.) is literally no more dangerous than a bad flu season, statistically speaking - yet no one pushes for mandatory flu shots for all. Or mandatory flu shots to participate in normal life.

I have no ulterior motive. I posed the questions I did because I'd like to see if others can provide valid reasons for the fervor with which these vaccines are being pushed. If you can do so, great. If you can't, then perhaps that should make you ask some questions.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Nice try, but I won't take the bait. And don't presume to know my thoughts or intentions. Can you explain to me why there is a push for 100% vaccination when COVID's main threat is the overwhelming of our health care systems? Between the 60-70+% of the population who has some form of immunity (vaccination or natural immunity) and the fact that improved treatment modalities greatly reduce the number of severe cases, why is it so important to have 100% compliance? It's a simple question. COVID at this stage (as opposed to initially, when less was known about transmission, best treatment methods etc.) is literally no more dangerous than a bad flu season, statistically speaking - yet no one pushes for mandatory flu shots for all. Or mandatory flu shots to participate in normal life.

I have no ulterior motive. I posed the questions I did because I'd like to see if others can provide valid reasons for the fervor with which these vaccines are being pushed. If you can do so, great. If you can't, then perhaps that should make you ask some questions.

I edited my post. I don't care about your motivations. It's not worth the trouble. I don't know why I keep getting myself dragged into pointless covid arguments when the truth is right there. If you wanna shove your head in the sand then that is your right.


It's my own damn fault I get sucked into anything more than that.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Spot the inconsistency in this argument: Once the relative non-lethality of COVID was known last summer (99.7+% survival rate for folks under 50), the narrative was that the real danger of the virus is that it overwhelms our medical systems due to the large number of folks requiring hospitalization, ventilation etc. The vaccines, by the “official” accounts, practically eliminate severe cases and death if folks catch the virus. Therefore, can anyone explain to me why there is this INSANE push to get 100% of people vaccinated when even the 43-50% vaccination rate we have currently should be more than enough to prevent the hospital system from being overwhelmed again? Especially when you combine it with existing natural immunity, which some estimates place at 25-30% of the population (with the caveat that some percentage of those overlap with the group of those who are vaccinated). This is completely aside from the possible pitfalls of vaccinating children, those who have pre-existing immunity, and those who are pregnant. It makes no logical sense whatsoever and I honestly can't believe that there haven't been major legal challenges mounted yet against things like "vaccine passports" and businesses requiring all of their workers to be vaccinated.

There are legal challenges ongoing, but stuff takes time.

In regards to why universal vaccination is being pursued? Well, you'll hear stuff about protecting against future variants or "If It Saves One Life It's Worth It" to justify it, and I'm sure plenty of people are sincere when they cite those reasons, but like many things in life, I suspect it boils down to the fact that there is a whole lot of money to be made.

 

[Raven117]

Senate hearing from six months ago about the effectiveness of ivermectin. YouTube had initially banned this video which is sickening.

Opinion | YouTube Cancels the U.S. Senate

It censors testimony from physicians on early treatments for Covid-19 patients.

www.wsj.com

We have to figure out how to address how information gets distributed in the digital age. A senate hearing is far from some crackpot in his basement.

we only get the information an unelected official wants us to see: the ministry of truth indeed.

 

[Loki]

I edited my post. I don't care about your motivations. It's not worth the trouble. I don't know why I keep getting myself dragged into pointless covid arguments when the truth is right there. If you wanna shove your head in the sand then that is your right.


It's my own damn fault I get sucked into anything more than that.

Stick my head in the sand regarding what, exactly? If there is a valid reason why there is such a forceful push for 100% compliance, please let me know.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Stick my head in the sand regarding what, exactly? If there is a valid reason why there is such a forceful push for 100% compliance, please let me know.

Nope. Not worth it. You fill your head with whatever conspiracy theory you subscribe to. I know I won't be able to dissuade you from it and I will not waste my time trying. If you haven't subscribed to reality so far I doubt I will be able to do anything to make a dent in that particular armor.


I have learned by now that it's better to just let such problems work themselves out on their own.

 

[Loki]

Nope. Not worth it. You fill your head with whatever conspiracy theory you subscribe to. I know I won't be able to dissuade you from it and I will not waste my time trying. If you haven't subscribed to reality so far I doubt I will be able to do anything to make a dent in that particular armor.


I have learned by now that it's better to just let such problems work themselves out on their own.

There is no conspiracy theory. The fervor around these vaccines simply doesn't make sense to me, and I don't understand why people should be coerced into putting something into their body if they don't want to given the current realities of this virus. (That is to say that if this virus were truly deadly, I wouldn't be saying this).

 

[Nobody_Important]

There is no conspiracy theory. The fervor around these vaccines simply doesn't make sense to me, and I don't understand why people should be coerced into putting something into their body if they don't want to given the current realities of this virus. (That is to say that if this virus were truly deadly, I wouldn't be saying this).

If it was truly deadly?


That right there shows how out of touch you are. I'm done. You believe what you want. I'm not getting mixed up with this kind of nonsense.

 

[Loki]

If it was truly deadly?


That right there shows how out of touch you are. I'm done. You believe what you want. I'm not getting mixed up with this kind of nonsense.

You clearly missed the part about "current realities." The virus was deadly at the outset due to lack of information/treatments, transmissibility, a culling of those most susceptible to the virus for various reasons (age, comorbidities etc.), and overwhelmed hospitals. Now, however, with 60-70+% of the populace having some form of immunity (thus reducing spread as well as severity) and improved treatment reducing the number of serious cases, no - I have no reason to believe it is any more deadly than a bad flu season. You do realize that over the course of the entire pandemic the CFR for those 50 years of age and younger was something like 1 out of every 15K, right? And that that CFR was WITH the aforementioned conditions in place. I am certain that the CFR for under 50's from, say, October through now is substantially lower than even that already absurdly low CFR. So yeah...not that deadly.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Edit: Not worth it.