You can add +s into the mix for "system file", AFAIK (this may have changed with recent versions of Windows 10 / 11) it is then controlled by the seperate "Hide Protected System Files" setting.
(But doesn't help if that setting is also disabled)
Meat was a luxury product not eaten every day for most of history and still is in most parts of the world.
Given the environmental impact of Meat and Diary in terms of CO2, Methane, Water usage, and Deforestation we should heavily reconsider our nonchalant view of them as a cheap commodity.
> Meat was a luxury product not eaten every day for most of history
And nobody want's to return to those dark ages.
This devil's alliance between veganism and environmentalism is what put me off environmentalism. Climate change can be softened by banning airplanes, air conditioning, and other things we don't need, not by banning food.
If you care about environmentalism then you should resonate with the fact that 68% of the Amazon is Burnt for pastures for Cattle Farming. 28% is Burnt for Agriculture, of which 60% is for soybeans, of which 77% are shipped overseas for livestock feed.
That means at least 80% is burned for livestock or livestock feed. Since part of the palm oil and other plant produced is also used for livestock feed that number probably closer to 85%.
Your proposed solutions simply don't add up. Air Travel makes up 2.5-3.5% of all GHG emissions, Air Conditioning makes up 3.94%.
Livestock makes up a whopping 18%.
So even banning all air travel and air conditioning, would only give you the same reduction on GHG emissions as eating 40% less dairy and meat.
So cutting meat and dairy from your diet is one of the easiest ways to cut your CO2 footprint massively. And it's actually just a minor inconvenience once you get used to plant based cooking, calling vegan cooking "dark ages" is ridiculously overdramatic, considering that e.g. indian food is often vegan and delicious.
If meat is causing people to burn down the amazon, then don't eat meat produced from the Amazon. There is a reason why for example here in Sweden the price of imported beef from Brazil tend to be about half the price of locally produced beef. Local producers has to follow regulations and laws that Brazil producers do not.
I will generally advise that people avoid buying any products from countries who has a history of burning rain forests to produce (or we can call it subsidize) cheap exports. Similar for cheap products created from child labors, military conflicts, sweatshops, or forced labor camps.
I think you missed the bit where 77% of farmland is used for feed export. Your beef might be produced locally, but the feed for that beef, was produced on deforrested land.
While I don't expect a lot of feed is exported to Sweden, the same rule applies. Don't buy products which use imports from Brazil if those imports are created from burning down the Amazon. It would be the same as buying a locally produced shirt created from cotton that child labor picked (which was a scandal with a major Swedish clothing company).
If we can't eat all the meat we want without destroying the planet, that tells me we need to manage down the population, not the standard of living. I'm not willing to give up one single shred of my standard of living to this braindead cram as many people as possible on the planet challenge.
Eating meat is essential but airplanes and AC aren't?
There are parts of the world that are uninhabitable without AC, and I know tons of people who don't eat meat, but virtually everybody in developed countries flies. My partner's family lives at the other side of the planet so banning airplanes means she would never get to see her sisters again.
Around 60% of people in germany fly less than once a year. A third never flies. I expect that to be similar in other european countries. A lot more people eat meat.
Almost every human civilization is extremely environmentally damaging in some way. Much of the global North would be uninhabitable without heating for a proportion of the year.
Limiting ourselves to places we can occupy (and actually work/produce) year round without environmental control would mean basically killing off a significant chunk of the planet's population and telling loads of whoever is left that they need to leave behind their homes and move.
Compared to eating less meat, that seems to be a much bigger ask.
> Climate change can be softened by banning airplanes, air conditioning, and other things we don't need, not by banning food.
you mean softened by removing things you dont use.
Look at the moment no one is banning meat. There is a reasonably amount of evidence to suggest that the kind of meat consumed and the volume might be the cause of various cancers. I'm not vegan, and like most people I really wish vegans weren't the noisy shouty face of environmentalism.
But, if you want change, people have to, well change. There are a few routes to that, one is price change (inflation is helping with that, stuff that requires a lot of energy to produce, ie feedlot meat and greenhouse based veg) are rising in price more than less refined or forced food stuffs.
Subsidies could be re-directed to different parts of the farming ecosystem (but that's politically challenging)
or you can outright ban things, but again thats also challenging.
Same goes for vegetables. That being said, animal milk drinking is not something new at all. And in "traditional" setup, milk availability is massive improvement nutritionally/health wise over no milk.
That's a false dichotomy.
These days we put so many nutrients artificially into the feed of livestock, e.g. B12, that we might as well skip the whole livestock step and just take a vitamin pill every morning.
Most people have a vitamin-D deficiency, most vegans that I know of at least take care of making sure that they get enough supplements.
Dairy is much less of an environmental concern than beef (not sure about chicken). If the concern is animal welfare, then yes it's still a horror story in many ways, but not everyone who is pushing away from meat has the same reasons.
Meat wasn't a staple food 100 years ago, it was too expensive for regular people. Same with milk, if you didn't own a cow, you just didn't drink it. You drank some sort of ale.
My grandfather was a kid at the end of the Great Depression. One of the stories which blew my mind growing up was that he ate beef basically twice a year, when his cousins on a small dairy farm culled the herd.
His mother kept chickens, so they had eggs - to the point that as an adult he never eats them because he got sick of them by the time he graduated from high school.
Yep, (western) people are acting like meat is a human right and a staple day to day food.
My grandparents were the first generation in my country who started to have regular access to meat after WW2. Before that it was either a rare thing and much of the "meat" they ate was offal.
Pea soup was 99% peas and a small chunk of smoked meat added for flavour.
Meanwhile billions of people live perfectly normal lives eating legumes (beans, chickpeas, peanuts) for protein.
I think some people misconstrue traditional with today's sensationalized Food TV marketing. Which tradition are we even talking about? The world has never had this much access to food. We eat like almost every culture's royal family every night of the week, and pretend like it always been this way.
So which is better, the 13500HX, or the 1365UE? What about the 13620H?
What about the 13900/13900F/13900E/13900H/13900HK/13900T/13900TE/13900HX/13900K/13900KF/13900KS? Which is better? And the 13905H is clearly better than all of them because higher = better right?
Apple Marketing under Joz has been in love with this Pro-Max-Ultra tiering, and it's mind boggling. Very very confusing to have Max(imum) be the middle tier. If Ultra was Ultimate, maybe it'd make more sense, but Pro-Ultra-Max just makes more sense.
But even Max kinda stinks because it's basically the same word as "Macs". Max Macs, Macs Max. Ugh
Also: Pro is messing up with the well-known and familiar "Pro" as in Macbook Pro and Mac Pro. I.e.: "Hey, look at my new Macbook Pro M2 Pro!"
Then, this is also used - completely unrelated to the CPU in there - in the iPhone line-up, in a whole new mixed-up level ("look at my new iPhone Pro Max Ultra!"), as well as randomly for other hardware (AirPod Max?).
What a mess. Actually, this is worse then 90s Apple.
I think that's the right word for buying something that you intend to return after 'profiting' from having it on display for a while. A scam doesn't have to benefit you financially to be a scam.
A broken clock is right twice a day, some of these "predictions" are a coin toss to get right. This doesn't ever make the rest of those talking points more valid.
You have literally named no names, no predictions, no topic even, there's no substance at all. Yet somehow you have acquired the impression that my comment applies to the group you disagree with, wow.
You are reading too much into things just to confirm your viewpoints you have barely grazed.
I always wonder what people mean when they talk about "the news" or "the media". I don't watch any of the 24/7 cable stuff (I last had cable in 1999), but I get the impression its what actually drives the perception of whatever this unitary entity is believed to be thinking/scheming at any moment. So I'm somewhat blind/deaf to a lot of this zeitgeist, though I understand that like any media, they long ago cracked the code that negative engagement is more profitable, and so yes, scaremongering is part of the job, and so I tend to avoid it.
That said, I knew people who died from Covid, the latest just a few weeks ago. When my parents, who aren't young anymore got it, I was pretty fearful for them.
I'm not sure I agree completely. Certainly over the pandemic I saw conspiracies appear right from the start, and then the goalposts shifted on most of them to fit around the current situation and messaging. I think a handful of people took huge advantage of a difficult situation to further their own agenda.
That said, I absolutely agree 'normal' people were pushed to the limit in a way that made them look for anything that made sense of what was happening around them.
Conspiracy theories spread when you let a medium that profits off "engagement" take over humanity's social fabric.
Back in the day that kind of crazy was relegated to the dark corners of the Internet and you had to explicitly seek it out.
Nowadays social media apps that claim to make it easier to connect with your family/friends will happily push these in front of you, knowing that getting you deep into that rabbit hole is likely to net them more "engagement".
The net result is that naive but well-meaning people who originally just wanted to keep in touch with friends/family got sucked deep into this bullshit.
When did you switch from hating masks to loving masks? What caused your switch? Why caused you to hate them before you loved them? Was it a conspiracy?
Let's make the exceptionally charitable assumption that you are asking this question in good faith...
Nobody that listened to public health experts ever "hated" masks. But initially, they didn't rush out to buy masks because the advice was to prioritise isolating the infected, social distancing for everyone else and clean hands to avoid [overestimated risk of] contact transmission, and not to rely on masks to protect you from infected people because there was no evidence they would offer that protection (the only masks they had reasonable confidence might work were far too limited in supply to stop it on a population level)
The recommendation changed (pretty quickly, based on stronger evidence of aerosol transmission and asymptomatic transmission and COVID being sufficiently widespread to make altogether avoiding contagious people unrealistic) to suggesting that although social distancing was recommended because cloth masks alone were insufficiently effective at preventing infection, masks were better than nothing and so on a population scale wearing them in public places would slow infection rates. At this point - even though I'd already had the infection - I started wearing a mask to the supermarket because apart from it being logical, it was also required to enter. It wasn't much of an imposition, and subsequent evidence largely supports the reduced transmission risk.
I think the question works better in reverse. When was it you switched from being angry at the CDC for telling you not to bother with the masks because they couldn't altogether prevent infection so you were better off avoiding people with COVID altogether to being angry at the CDC for recommending masks in public places to somewhat reduce risk of infection? What was the scientific evidence that lead you to change your mind?
You're re-writing history. The existence of airborne diseases has been known for hundreds of years, and masks have been used for more than a hundred.
In Asia they were using masks from the start, just like they did with the original SARS.
But with this second SARS doctors/WHO were saying that surgical masks had no effect and that Asians don't know what they're doing.
Then, masks not only had no effect, they were bad for you.
Then, all of a sudden masks were good. Cloth masks were good too. And you had doctors showing you how to make masks out of t-shirts.
Then masks were so good you had to wear them by force.
Then cloth masks had no effect. Then surgical masks had no effect. Only N95 and above were good.
It was absolute roller coaster, and with every turn (excused with “the science has changed”) doctors were hammering a nail into the coffin of public acceptance of science.
I love the irony of being lectured about "rewriting history" from someone arguing that the WHO adopted the position that "Asians don't know what they're doing" and "masks not only had no effect, they were bad for you"...
> The recommendation changed (pretty quickly, based on stronger evidence of aerosol transmission and
This is not only backwards, it is hilariously so: Aerosol transmission was only partially accepted a year or more after the mask push. People still resist it even now. The whole reason masks were supposed to work was the assumption that it was entirely droplet transmission.
The people who believed it was aerosol spread that first year were the ones against masking, because the virus is too small to be stopped by cloth masks.
Funny that, because I can find references to likely aerosol transmission and the assumption that cloth masks would reduce aerosol transmission to a small degree in the early 2020 minutes of the body that later recommended mask mandates (on the basis reducing stuff to a small degree is important when reducing pandemic spread...) in my country
Not all aerosol particles are the same size, and particles don't have to be smaller than holes they pass through for a grid of fibre to obstruct a significant proportion of them. The change in guidance wasn't a conclusion masks were a panacea, they were a reflection that even a small degree of protection was better than no protection in a situation where existing measures weren't slowing its spread fast enough.
The people who were against masking on principle by and large didn't care what degree it reduced it by, because they just didn't want to be told to wear masks.
Who said anything about masks? And why does everything have to be black or white? I personally never hated masks. Never loved them either. But I understand how they help and when they don't.
No, it's the weeds that sprawl when education is constantly underfunded, demonized and people's access to good education is constantly hindered. All while idiocies are given the same amount of platform as rigorous methods out of "need for a debate" when there was going to be none to begin with.
It's not "dogma" to "sterilize" some fringe idiocies, just implying that is often pretty much helping that sewer just fester under our noses.
tl;dr "I know the truth. All objections are fringe idiocies. There is no need for debate. Just give me the mic, shut up and listen."
I remember reading about how Lenin dealt with opposition. He never argued with them on public, as it could damage his image and undermine his dogma. Instead, he ferociously attacked the opponent himself: demonized him, called him names, and later got rid of him.
Now you're just projecting, I don't see where else you could've gotten that TL;DR from.
I've heard similar comparisons to dictators from flat-earthers, that tells me a lot. I get the impression you wish you'd be oppressed, demonized, instead of ridiculed. But the latter is all it deserves, a laugh in the face and the door shut.
No, that's what happens if people lack self-reflection. If they had asked themselves if there is any chance that they could possibly know better than someone who's working on a topic all the time, the answer would have been a resounding no, no matter the topic in question.
In my personal experience... you are wrong. I mean, the part about knowing better than someone that works with something.
People working in some fields often suffer the "It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It"
Example: I have Hashimoto's Disease. All endocrinologists I went to, wouldn't help me, some of them burned a lot of my money trying to prove I had diabetes or other disease that could lead to expensive treatment (one insisted I had cancer, despite every test for cancer she asked for, returning negative). In the end to get treatment I got help from an Ophthalmologist, that even explained to me some things I didn't knew about the disease.
Example 2: when I was having some mental issues, all psychiatrists kept giving me random meds that were recently patented and expensive, and refused to let me get Ritalin, that was cheap because generic version of it exists. In the end the solution was ritalin. To get the ritalin I went to a psychiatrist that inherited lots of wealth and focused treating poor people, I suspect that psychiatrist in particular is the only one not getting dinners, parties and other "marketing events" from manufacturers. (I also in one point of my career worked in a software company that one project was make an app for the pharma client sales team track all the "gifts" given to doctors...)
Thank you for sharing your personal experience. Unfortunately sharing personal stories like this in the internet is the source of much grief for three reasons:
1) There is no way to quantify how likely this is from personal stories. If your experience is 1 in 100 event, you are doing more harm sharing it than not sharing it if 1 in 10 becomes too suspicious to follow diagnosis.
2) We really don't know. Either things happened as people say, or they doctor shopped until received a misdiagnosis and mismedication they wanted.
3) Readers can't use your example in their personal life because they are different. They may read what you said and go doctor shopping and googling until they are misdiagnosed and mismedicated.
You should not blindly trust doctors, and get second opinion of things seem wrong, but sharing medical stories in the internet is misses the information needed for it to be usable.
So “lived experience” matters until it is against the dogma.
Sharing personal story likes this is the reason the internet being a wonderful place. It should always be recommended as long as it is truthful, and doesn’t involve explicit agenda of spamming out other experience or information.
Your argument makes no sense unless you are claiming the GP is lying.
The sharer should always be truthful. But also the reader should assume things might not be as it seems, trying to verify it on their own. But that is different than recommending everyone to not share anything.
There are two separate recommendations to be made: one for the writer, and one for the reader.
Actually yes, sometimes an outsider opinion can be the correct one... that is the very essence of scientific enquiry - to ask questions.
Who am I? Some rando on the Internet, but I correctly assessed that the vaccines wouldn't prevent transmission, carried a non-zero risk of side effects - sometimes extremely serious, that natural immunity would provide far greater protection, that vaccination was unnecessary for children and younger adults, that there would no benefit to lock downs, and that masks were pointless.
We have been proven correct about every single one of these things, and every health official who promoted these ideas has been proven completely incorrect
> 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 even in the case of prisoners sharing a cell.
And the risks of side effects are much, much lower than the risks of those effects from the actual illness.
> that there would no benefit to lock downs, and that masks were pointless.
False on both counts.
Lockdowns were there to reduce the secondary consequences from running out of capacity. Several places ran out of capacity to handle the dead, let alone the living. I still don't understand how we were able to get short of medical oxygen, but that happened in some places too.
Masks likewise, reduce the transmission rate. Not eliminate, reduce. That's not pointless.
> that vaccination was unnecessary for children and younger adults,
Weasel phrasing, "unnecessary" can mean anything. But, I will try to interpret generously as possible: Sure, lots of kids and young adults won't die, they'll only get sick for a few weeks, with unknown long term damage.
While I agree with the points you are making and think they are important, they could have been made just as effectively without resorting to an Ad hominem format. Though the quality of civil discourse on HN has degraded over the years, HN is still the one of the places I expect to live upto a higher standard.
(I'm sorry to any readers that this comment is not adding anything materially useful to the wider discussion)
Noted. I'm not sure how to make the same points without saying that some of the statements were weasel words, but if you could suggest a different way to make the same points, I'd appreciate it.
(Apart from anything else, I know that raising the other party's heart rate is a terrible way to change their minds).
I think you were half way there taking charitable view on one of the arguments, I think taking a charitable view on the commenter's perspective/intent would have gotten you all the way.
With that adjustment, I think you can go from "weasel words" to "Your perspective might be flawed..."
-- and indeed they do not prevent transmission, or infection for that matter. Many many people, from Joe Biden to my own mother have been injected and boosted 5-times over, and still got a COVID infection. The vaccines simply don't work very well.
> And the risks of side effects are much, much lower than the risks of those effects from the actual illness.
You can't make a blanket statement about risk, especially when so little was know about the risk of side effects across the population.
For people like us, and the large number of people who have had COVID, we know what the risk of a COVID infection is, and in our case - as with most other people who are in good health, and not extremely elderly, it's a very mild condition.
On the other hand, health officials continue to deliberately downplay the significance of side effects, which we now know includes non-negligable risk of life threatening heart dissease and Bell's Palsey.
> Lockdowns were there to reduce the secondary consequences from running out of capacity.
That was the claim, certainly. But as we predicted, this never actually happened anywhere in the world - not even in places where people live in poverty, and healthcare is virtually non-existant.
> Several places ran out of capacity to handle the dead, let alone the living. I still don't understand how we were able to get short of medical oxygen, but that happened in some places too.
A lot of that stuff turneded out to be fabricated, but it spooked a lot of folks.
Sweden never locked down, and their outcomes were better than most of the rest of Europe:
> Masks likewise, reduce the transmission rate. Not eliminate, reduce. That's not pointless.
They don't though. 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.
> Sure, lots of kids and young adults won't die, they'll only get sick for a few weeks, with unknown long term damage.
My kids have never had any COVID symptoms at all since we were first infected March 2020. So in our case (and millions like us), it's actually not unknown. I wouldn't even know if they had had the disease a dozen times over already - I hope they have, because it help further fortify their natural immunity.
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.
Lockdowns did help flatten the curve, many countries health systems were overwhelmed regardless, but without lockdowns the fatalities and outcomes for severe cases would have been an order of magnitude worse.
-> personal experience: I survived only because I was able to get an ICU bed at the right time as did millions more in my country. Millions more didn't because the health systems were overwhelmed.
It's hard to take your argument in good faith when you offhandedly say stuff like this -> "A lot of that stuff turneded out to be fabricated, but it spooked a lot of folks."
Look at the hell china is going through right now and the hell we went through(India). The wounds are still deep and fresh, loved ones dying because they can't get a bed, or oxygen. Bodies rotting because crematoriums couldn't handle load and cities ran out of firewood.
I think there is room for discussion about the merits and demerits of various public/social policies around the pandemic without reducing it to a binary point of view and making it evidence based instead of offhandedly invalidating the pain and suffering of millions over the last few years as "fabricated".
> Lockdowns did help flatten the curve, many countries health systems were overwhelmed regardless, but without lockdowns the fatalities and outcomes for severe cases would have been an order of magnitude worse.
There's no evidence to support this assertion, and plenty of evidence to the contrary e.g. Sweden.
> It's hard to take your argument in good faith when you offhandedly say stuff like this -> "A lot of that stuff turneded out to be fabricated, but it spooked a lot of folks."
Like all your other assertions this one feels self serving for your point of view when a rudimentary google search provides references to the alternative.
Consensus on efficacy of lockdowns flattening the curve with relevant bibliography.
N of 1 as in what worked in Sweden (ranked 3rd in the global healthcare index and has a population lower than some cities in india) does not in any way shape or form meaningfully imply what would be good for the rest of the world (though it might certainly inform it)
I wasn't referring to the presence of fake/false/sensational/agenda driven narratives or your allusion to them, I was referring to your following offhanded assertions.
" Lockdowns were there to reduce the secondary consequences from running out of capacity.
That was the claim, certainly. But as we predicted, this never actually happened anywhere in the world - not even in places where people live in poverty, and healthcare is virtually non-existant."
It's arguments like this one in Nature that destroy confidence in public health. You claimed the article reflected a consensus, but it starts by saying that lots of papers show no lockdown effect and there's no agreement!
Also read the citations. They make a lot of uncited assertions (worthless), and then their primary evidence is Flaxman et al, it's a joke paper. Read it, they made a model that predicted 3 million deaths and when it didn't happen said lockdowns were the reason. Their methodology is wack. They had to hide Sweden from some of their graphs because it broke their model, they had to claim that shutting major sport/music events was magically effective in Sweden but nowhere else because their model just assigned all the reduction to whatever the last government decision happened to be. Google for it to find more criticism of their methods. Nature do admit the paper was criticized but don't tell you the type of problems.
> The vaccines were never tested to prevent transmission
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.
> 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).
The context of this is that there were voices calling for coercing vaccination. My mother-in-law lost her job because she refused to have it. The sole justification offered was that the experts claimed to know that it would protect other people. Except they never knew that - it was guesswork, and we now know that the vaccines don't prevent transmission.
For example this linke @grjdiofgeriov shared:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597
"Although vaccination still lowers the risk of infection, similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated persons who are infected with the delta variant call into question the degree to which vaccination prevents transmission."
>> Sweden never locked down, and their outcomes were better than most of the rest of Europe
> Emphasis on the "were".
Not just were - they continue to be now. Their all-cause mortality has been far lower from start to finish, and they never had any kind of COVID-related crisis.
Equally, if you look across the world, there is simply no correlation between COVID policy and outcomes. None of the intereventions made any significant differentce.
> 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.
Even with perfect practices, it wouldn't have made much difference. The virus was airbourne, endemic, and highly transmissible. In the same way, I can still smell a bonfire half a mile away mask or no mask.
It was purely security theatre. "Something must be done. This is something"
>> 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".
No - not yikes. Their symptoms from COVID were zero. No scars. Nada. Nothing at all.
> It's a fundamental misunderstanding of science to expect random sentences (where most nuance has been filtered out from) to be irrevocably true.
I agree entirely, and this wouldn't have been a problem if governments hadn't used these half-baked ideas as a reason to coerce people to lock down, wear masks, or receive experimental medical treatments.
> They have been far less wrong than the rest.
Not at all. Again and again, the @realjhol model was far more accurate than the Imperial College model. Many such cases. Sad to see my alma mater fail so badly.
> Not at all. Again and again, the @realjhol model was far more accurate than the Imperial College model. Many such cases. Sad to see my alma mater fail so badly.
The risk from catching sars-cov-2 was/is way higher than the risk from vaccination. This is proven by the fact that some 13 billion doses have been administered with little harm, while some 700 million infections have caused 7 million deaths. You have drawn the wrong conclusions and made incorrect decisions based on your ineptitude. You are Dunning-Kruger instantiated.
Turns out that just winning an election doesn't help you enact a lasting win against the swamp, when 95% of the people qualified to serve in your cabinet are DC swamp creatures or are at least adjacent to the swamp
While any sane person would agree in general, it isn't hard to find examples of experts in any domain who made some mistake in that domain at some point.
Also, normal people are absolutely terrible about probability.
Combined, I therefore suspect it's "I know they're normally right, but not about this."
In this case it's not disagreement with one expert, or even a few. The vaccination schedule is based on a consensus of experts. Not only across organizations, like the CDC, AAP, FDA, but across nations too, more or less.
It's truly bizarre to _radically_ disagree, especially as a layperson.
I mostly share your assessment, except that I think the word "bizarre" presumes how normal people behave. These kinds of attitudes have been around since at least the Spanish Flu pandemic, so it's important to… how do I phrase this? To account for such attitudes when planning public health campaigns, and not just dismiss such people as arrogant fools with no self-awareness.
You don't know me and that is fine. In early January 2020 I predicted the entire pandemic, including the mask lie(before they lied), the supply run (My entire family picked off full shelves), the effort from people, the vaccine issues, and the aftermath.
If I followed what you suggested, I would be without my mother. So maybe, just maybe, you are wrong.
Faith has no impact on my decision to prefer not to be the guinea pig for experimental gene therapy, that results in micro clotting and turning your body into a spike protein factory.
I have no issue with traditional vaccination, but this is nothing like a vaccination. They wouldn't have needed to change the definition of vaccination if it was.
They wouldn't need to push this 24/7 on every possible platform if it worked as promised.
They wouldn't have to tell us that these super rare side effects that every one of my colleagues is experiencing is super rare and nothing to be concerned about.
If you find your opinions align with the mindless masses, perhaps you are among them.
This is actually not true - reverse transcriptase is present in your cells, and has been known to add code from viral RNA to your DNA, sometimes permanently.
13 billion doses administered. If they were one-thousandth as dangerous as you claim, we’d see a helluva lot more problems than we do. But we don’t. You’re jus plain wrong.
> Faith has no impact on my decision to prefer not to be the guinea pig for experimental gene therapy, that results in micro clotting and turning your body into a spike protein factory.
I guess fair, it's just the underlying cause for both the faith and your gross misunderstanding of high-school biology that's the same.
This is very true. I don't know if you're saying that about vaccination providers or anti-vax campaigners (Deliberate ambiguity? I ask because I do that sometime).
While there is a massive difference in evidence supporting these two sides, as I have a mere GCSE grade C in biology, I necessarily have to just have faith in the research methods and licensing regimes that made my 4 Covid jabs and humpteen others.
Not unadulterated faith, but I do have faith, and it is only faith. I can't do a double-blind replication even if I wanted to.
Why? There's no requirement that you get a credential from a particular group in society before being allowed to distrust them. If such a rule really existed it'd be a field day for scammers. For example nobody would be allowed to doubt any claim related to Web3 if they hadn't already spent years writing smart contracts. Or they wouldn't be allowed to decide Tesla FSD isn't safe enough, because they aren't themselves self driving car researchers.
It's really smart to distrust vaccine providers and public health authorities. Having blind faith in them is bad. You don't need a credential to see that, you just have to observe that they constantly make strong claims in favor of vaccines that they later walk back when it's too late, without any consequences whatsoever.
Because medicine is generally useful and functional.
Because doctors studied at the same university that taught me much of my profession.
Because nations in economic dispute with each other, nations with territorial disputes, even nations at war with each other, still all agree that the vaccines are a good idea.
