> obviously failed and unjustifiable policy which caused immense harm
Citations needed.
Citations needed.
Ok, so you’re presumably referring to this[1]? _Because manufacturers weren’t required to prove a reduction in transmissibility_, only safety and _efficacy_, and conflating transmissibility with effectiveness is misleading. An honest and more important question would be why did governments more or less call the crisis a wrap despite shitty immunization rates (at least in the US) and data that despite a significant and desirable impact on hospitalizations and mortality, transmissibility was still a problem[2] particularly with omicron? Or whether the vaccine technology or policy can keep up with variants today or tomorrow[3]? But a blanket statement like “no public health benefit whatsoever” is absurd.
> Almost no one except those in very high risk groups takes them anymore.
I don’t know what you’re getting at, here.
> People lost valuable careers
And people lost valuable lives. Including my mother in law who was not completely vaccinated when her husband brought it home. And my great uncle who was exposed in nursing care at a place that refused mandates. And my coworker’s brother who was forced to work despite his coworkers all being sick on the job. And so on, if we’re gonna start trading anecdotes.
> poured his heart and soul into caring for old folks in an assisted living facility
I’m sorry, am I to infer that he lost his job because he wouldn’t/couldn’t vaccinate while working with high risk people? Because, based on what I just said about my uncle, barking up the wrong tree for sympathy.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-pfizer-vaccine-tra...
[2] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
[3] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/01/23/1150032...
> what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It’s trivial to find sweeping and unsubstantiated opinions. It’s trivial to find arguments on both[1] sides[2]. Why should I trust either? Either way, what evidence trivially and unquestionably supports “immense harm”?
This argument has been going in circles for 2+ years, it’s not like I haven’t seen more rigorously defended and less hyperbolic opinions before. That stuff, I’ll consider. What you and OP are doing is just noise.
[1] https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/the-failin...
[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccine-mandates-...
It's clear to us all that you're not here in good faith.
I never spoke for anyone else in this thread. In your dichotomy of "us vs them", I am neither. You need a finer brush.
> but you've simply arrived at ... where you stop addressing arguments and fall back to simply impugning other's intelligence ...
I made no comments about yours or anyone's intelligence. Again, you need a finer brush to paint other people's opinions. If I felt you weren't intelligent enough, I wouldn't have attempted to talk to you. But your responses to me are giving me reasons to rethink the (f)utility of this attempt.
> ... and motives.
Nor did I make any comments about your motives; only your conduct. I have neither condoned nor denounced your motives. I only pointed out that you attacked your parent. You justified the attack by claiming that you had many people on your side.
This is HN, not a schoolyard. Having many people on your side does not give you the right to attack participants in this forum.
If you still do not understand this, know this: it only makes your point harder to agree with. The harder you are to talk to, the harder you will find people to talk with. I'd hoped you were intelligent enough to see your conduct was not helping you argue your case. I have no such hopes now. Goodbye.