You're confusing what people actually said with what the guy you follow on the Internet said about what someone else said about what the media said about what the original person said. You've played the game of Telephone before, right?
Give us a link to an original quote. Should be easy if you were right, correct?
You're confusing what people actually said with what the guy you follow on the Internet said about what someone else said about what the media said about what the original person said. You've played the game of Telephone before, right?
Give us a link to an original quote. Should be easy if you were right, correct?
I'm going to offer you an olive leaf, because while you're incorrect on the wording, you're not incorrect on the general sentiment. They didn't think they could be so much transmission from healthy or asymptomatic people, because they were comparing it to previous pandemics rather than comparing it to previous coronaviruses. So they made an incorrect assumption. It happens with new illnesses.
They didn't think they could be so much transmission from vaccinated people because they were making assumptions based on other vaccinated illnesses. This was the first vaccine for a coronavirus. Their assumptions turned out to be inaccurate. Again, it happens. Hindsight is 20/20.
The question I think you need to ask yourself is, is all this a good reason to stop listening to them altogether?
As far as the complications, they knew about and published information about the myocarditis from the trials. It's a potentially serious complication. Other complications have been revealed only after the vaccines have been in use for awhile.
I think what it comes down to is, the process is far from perfect, and if you are claiming that it should be then you're probably just looking for excuses to reject everything they're saying and just do your own selfish thing.
That doesn't work in a society. We have to help each other out, including doing things like masking sometimes even when it doesn't benefit us directly.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that hospitals and clinics all over the world are living a lie by wearing masks in the presence of patients that are especially vulnerable to infection?
Or do you really just hate being told what to do, and are looking for any excuse not to cooperate?
From here, you just seem anti-social. Living in a society means sometimes being obliged to do things that don't benefit you but do benefit others.
"Living in a society mean sometimes being obliged to do things that don't benefit you but do benefit others."
Right, but who gets to make that decision and on what basis? You're on a slippery slope when you go down that road. All kinds of irrational, and often purely vindictive measures were recently forced on the pubic by unelected agents making exactly the same claim.
From the outset it was obvious to anyone paying attention that this was not about public health. Early favourable estimates of the IFR were dismissed out of hand, as was the advice of top epidemiologists to just ride it out while protecting the vulnerable, which was clearly a small percentage as proven by the Diamond Princess study. Early favourable results of off-label treatments were not only dismissed and their authors trashed, the products were outright banned despite their excellent safety records, and doctors prescribing them had their licences suspended. In effect, your doctor was replaced by an unelected government bureaucrat.
You know all this, and yet you still make the greater good argument? The greater good argument these days is just a weak excuse for tyranny. Take this experimental new product we're calling a 'vaccine' or lose your job. Stick it into your children or risk losing your marriage or custody or both. Lose the family business for lack of customers during eternal 'lockdown' enforced by sub-IQ state actors who were 'only doing their job.' Show me the greater good in that.
This was never about viruses or vaccines. That was just the excuse.
Who gets to decide? Whoever the society decides gets to decide. You need me to explain democracy to you?
Name me one society that doesn't grant special powers to designated persons during a public health emergency.
Democratic societies depend on people willing to work within the structure that was democratically decided on. Face it, you're just whining about being told what to do, and being anti-social.
I responded to your other points elsewhere in this comment section because they were made by other people already. Congratulations on being a poor reader on top of everything else.
You're confusing what people actually said with what the guy you follow on the Internet said about what someone else said about what the media said about what the original person said. You've played the game of Telephone before, right?
Give us a link to an original quote. Should be easy if you were right, correct?
I'm going to offer you an olive leaf, because while you're incorrect on the wording, you're not incorrect on the general sentiment. They didn't think they could be so much transmission from healthy or asymptomatic people, because they were comparing it to previous pandemics rather than comparing it to previous coronaviruses. So they made an incorrect assumption. It happens with new illnesses.
They didn't think they could be so much transmission from vaccinated people because they were making assumptions based on other vaccinated illnesses. This was the first vaccine for a coronavirus. Their assumptions turned out to be inaccurate. Again, it happens. Hindsight is 20/20.
The question I think you need to ask yourself is, is all this a good reason to stop listening to them altogether?
As far as the complications, they knew about and published information about the myocarditis from the trials. It's a potentially serious complication. Other complications have been revealed only after the vaccines have been in use for awhile.
I think what it comes down to is, the process is far from perfect, and if you are claiming that it should be then you're probably just looking for excuses to reject everything they're saying and just do your own selfish thing.
That doesn't work in a society. We have to help each other out, including doing things like masking sometimes even when it doesn't benefit us directly.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/new-emails-show-covid-vaccine-mandates-were-based-on-a-lie:
[However, in public, Walensky was saying something quite different. Two months after discussing this data, she said (https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated-people-do-not-carry-covid-19-2021-3?r=US&IR=T) vaccinated people “don’t carry the virus” and “don’t get sick.” In a congressional hearing (https://twitter.com/michaelpsenger/status/1668669558054600708), after it became clear people were able to get infected with COVID even after receiving the vaccine, she defended her original statements by claiming it was true at the time she said it — namely, for the strands we were dealing with in early 2021. ]
Yes! That's what I said to my shocked self when I saw the local high school track team running with masks on.
"Even when it doesn't benefit ANYONE directly."
And by the way, mask up all you like, and believe whatever you like about it. But no mandates please.
And they DID say "Safe and Effective".
Please don't tell me that this is controversial to you because you really thought that "safe" meant 100.000% safe for every single person.
Epidemiology and public health policy decisions are based on what is the most benefit for the population as a whole.
Masks probably are less effective when someone is breathing hard. But that factor side, were they running indoors or outdoors?
If indoors, yes they were benefiting the adults in the school especially the older ones who are much more vulnerable to Covid than the students.
With all due respect, Hazel-rah, that is all just complete nonsense.
And it's all based on a huge criminal lie.
Wear all the masks you want - but they are lying liars.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that hospitals and clinics all over the world are living a lie by wearing masks in the presence of patients that are especially vulnerable to infection?
Or do you really just hate being told what to do, and are looking for any excuse not to cooperate?
From here, you just seem anti-social. Living in a society means sometimes being obliged to do things that don't benefit you but do benefit others.
"Living in a society mean sometimes being obliged to do things that don't benefit you but do benefit others."
Right, but who gets to make that decision and on what basis? You're on a slippery slope when you go down that road. All kinds of irrational, and often purely vindictive measures were recently forced on the pubic by unelected agents making exactly the same claim.
From the outset it was obvious to anyone paying attention that this was not about public health. Early favourable estimates of the IFR were dismissed out of hand, as was the advice of top epidemiologists to just ride it out while protecting the vulnerable, which was clearly a small percentage as proven by the Diamond Princess study. Early favourable results of off-label treatments were not only dismissed and their authors trashed, the products were outright banned despite their excellent safety records, and doctors prescribing them had their licences suspended. In effect, your doctor was replaced by an unelected government bureaucrat.
You know all this, and yet you still make the greater good argument? The greater good argument these days is just a weak excuse for tyranny. Take this experimental new product we're calling a 'vaccine' or lose your job. Stick it into your children or risk losing your marriage or custody or both. Lose the family business for lack of customers during eternal 'lockdown' enforced by sub-IQ state actors who were 'only doing their job.' Show me the greater good in that.
This was never about viruses or vaccines. That was just the excuse.
Who gets to decide? Whoever the society decides gets to decide. You need me to explain democracy to you?
Name me one society that doesn't grant special powers to designated persons during a public health emergency.
Democratic societies depend on people willing to work within the structure that was democratically decided on. Face it, you're just whining about being told what to do, and being anti-social.
I responded to your other points elsewhere in this comment section because they were made by other people already. Congratulations on being a poor reader on top of everything else.
"Whoever the society decides gets to decide."
You still believe we live in a democracy? Good luck with that delusion.
"Congratulations on being a poor reader on top of everything else."
Ad hominem. About what I'd expect from reading your endless polemics.
You'll want the last word of course. Right in character.
Feel free to head back to your matrix pod then, since I'm sure you think we're in a simulation.
Super-Secret Hint: don't read poorly, and you won't be labeled a poor reader.