forcry

> Right now, HN is my favorite source of new information and I really like it.

I know this is not what you asked, but find a library. Nothing that is online is trustworthy anymore.

>you can claim that fascism won in Florida back in 2002..

That is right, if it is true.

> but that’s not going to persuade a lot of people.

That is the second step. The first step is talking about it.

>We don't have to "think" it, we can point to historic and present examples where like compulsory actions existed without devolving into totalitarianism...

If there are, that should be the exceptions, rather than the norm.

Also, the parent asked if there won't be "pushes". So the implication is that there will be an overwhelming push in that direction, and very weak countering "pull" in the opposite direction.

And it is clear what direction it will ultimately go. So that is the danger in setting a precedent. So that further pushes in a "bad" direction will require much less effort, and only matter of time it is accepted to be the "new normal"..

>flat earth,

There is no rational reason to believe this. True. But there is no rational reason to believe "CDC/Scientists can be trusted" as well.

So do you consider the statement "CDC can be trusted" to be a batshit conspiracy theory?

>the freedom to spread certain pathogens might end there as well.

There is a false equivalence here that freedom to opt-out of a commercial product, is excising one's freedom to "spread diseases".

To make it clear, would you want to pass a law that prevents someone with a genetic defect from marrying and having children? Because they would be "spreading" generic disorders, and by having offspring, they are "exercising their freedom to spread a genetic disorder", right?

> Unless, of course, you think that the vaccine is more dangerous than coronavirus.

Do you have the answer to the following questions?

Why did the mRNA technology remain unapproved for a long time since its inception?

What exactly was relaxed in the approval process that lead to its EUA?

Since the vaccine has been used population wide, will the missed studies or what ever due process eventually be done? Or will they be skipped, citing the real world usage (which was not controlled or followed up in a systematic manner)?

Of course, the fourth position is so dumb (that it is possible that someone can have low trust in authorities/scientists) that they don't know what to say..

But..but..CDC will protect me from any evils of pharma companies, right?....Right?

I think if you build your own roads, then you are free do drive a car at what ever speed you wish. Since the state has laid down roads, it makes some sense for the state to put speed limits in place for what ever reason.

But state didn't own anyone's body, so the state really have no right to force vaccinations.

> That's not the point of vaccination.

Please provide some citation for this outrageous claim that the point of a vaccine is to NOT provide immunity from infection.

>This ignores that willingly spreading the virus hurts the efficacy of the vaccine.

I don't think that is how "efficacy" works, because to measure "efficacy" both the treatment and population is supposed to have similar exposure to the virus.

> Unless, of course, you think that the vaccine is more dangerous than coronavirus. And then I don't really know what to say.

You say this because you trust the authorities, the media and the scientists.

You are free to trust them. And someone else should have the freedom NOT to trust them.

And that is the whole point.

We should all just switch to something like https://delta.chat/en/ where the messaging protocol is implemented over plain old emails.

It makes the most sense, even without Facebook being bad and all.

> Why would you not consider it?

Because they don't want to hear the answer to that. Even worse, they don't want that answer to be heard. Because they probably fear that it is going to sound reasonable to a rational mind, that just ain't come up with it on its own.

Someone might even ask "Why are we not helping these people?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxqC9SiRh8

Why did the mRNA technology remain unapproved for a long time since its inception?

What exactly was relaxed in the approval process that lead to its EUA?

Since the vaccine has been used population wide, will the missed studies or what ever due process eventually be done? Or will they be skipped, citing the real world usage (which was not controlled or followed up in a systematic manner)?

Why is no one asking to make these companies liable for potential vaccine injuries?

Sadly this is a global phenomenon. The same thing can be seen in, for example, movie/music industry as well. And we have to assume that the same holds in other fields as well..

I wonder if we can generalise the lost quality and attribute it to a lack of case by case application human ingenuity and experience that an experienced craftsman brings to the trade.

Or may be we can attribute the loss of aesthetics to the financial gain it brings. There is no free lunch, and somethings got to give to make gains elsewhere. And it is inevitable that when one of those two things is extreamly measurable (finance) and the other extremely un-measurable (aesthetics), the measurable thing always ultimately wins.

Also things like the following, appear to be just as bad..

> There are early episodes in which radioactive fallout is dismissed as not a major health concern, as something that could be handled very easily. A thorough head-to-foot examination will reveal any accumulation of radioactive material. Vigorous sweeping with a broom removes contaminated dust and dirt from shoes and clothing.

Note that this is many years after Hiroshima.

https://www.matconlist.com/2019/01/the-atomic-veterans-deser...

>I took it with the best of my knowledge and abilities.

You would be really surprised at how much of one's knowledge sits on assumptions and believes that are not well founded. It is like how grownups are sometimes stumped by the questions of a curious kid, which make it clear that somethings they thought they knew, wasn't so.

This was my experience, and like most people, I used to trust authorities and scientists, and "studies". This is the position where we all start, and diverge from it as we become more aware about the politics involved and how the incentives are aligned, how powerful media, how research is funded and can be flawed, how peer review "appear to work" when in-fact it does not in practice etc, all of which are further confirmed by historical observations.

This is a loaded question, because it implies it is a matter of legality, instead of a matter of ethics.

I think it is not ethical to mandate it, because that is essentially forcing people to trust the authorities and scientists. People don't have a rational reason to trust these entities.

So it is quite obvious that it is unethical and a violation of basic human rights.

It is up to each government if they want to protect the basic human rights of their citizens, and do things that can gain the trust of the people, or just apply brute force in a time their population is vulnerable and might give up their basic rights in return for the promise of improved protection from disease.

>I actually shifted to using a double edged safety razor when the cost of the disposable blades felt like too much.

You should actually try straight razor that takes a half of a razor blade. It might appear very scary, but it is not, if you cover 95% with a straight razor, and cover the rest with a safety razor.

The point of using the straight razor to cover the 95% is that the safety razor tends to get jammed with hair, making it a frustrating exercise quickly, if you don't have a habit of shaving every day..

>Printers. Yeah.

And cars, for that matter. May be not right now, but soon enough.

If these are legit, I mean, if there are so many blatant errors in Ivermectin research, for example, things like

>"Digging into the site, you're immediately hit with this error. That's not how p-values work at all, any stats textbook will show you why this statement is entirely untrue"

then I cannot explain this observation in this debate with the author of https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111...

>This interview left me with a variety of thoughts which I haven’t managed to collate – but here are some impressions. Dr. Garegnani didn’t seem anywhere near as well informed on the subject as Kory – and although we shouldn’t judge a scientific discussion as a boxing match, in my opinion Garegnani seemed to be completely outclassed and out of his depth. More significant though was a deeper difference between the two which I find difficult to describe – I’m tempted to call it a generation gap, or a mismatch of values and priorities. Garegnani seemed to view the topic purely as a question of theory and methodology (although to be fair that may be his speciality), and appeared unmoved even after numerous compelling points made by Kory. In contrast, Kory appears much more pragmatic, much more experienced and well-informed, and more passionate about saving lives. Of course these differences do not necessarily prove one position to be correct, but I’ll let you judge this conversation for yourself.

https://darryllrbetts.wordpress.com/2021/07/19/dr-pierre-kor...

The actual debate..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCpiHHG0R2k

So the question is, if there are so many errors as purported by these cherry-picked twitter allegations, what are people not putting them forward in an actual debate..

CDC says breakthrough infection count is based on self reporting. But I don't get that. They have the covid case counts, and they have the covid vaccine counts.

Why cant they just take the intersection of the two sets?

An interview with Nehru. Not to prove anything..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdkRwYkkSxk

> I have for now only directly checked the data from the USA VAERS system

These links might be of interest regarding the VAERS system.

https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/defining-away-vaccin...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IAzK4a58a7M4ajHKOpqe-9KD9Pd...

Also, some interviews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxqC9SiRh8

And this is the site that is mentioned in the video https://www.c19vaxreactions.com/

Also there is data available from https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/safety-report-19.asp

But this is also voluntary reported.

Ok, Thank you for your patience :)

but to me it requires the economists to be so stupid to not consider the possibility that they might be indeed the first people who observe it after it has been lost..

> You seem to be unaware that one of the major benefits of 5g

True.

> Up to 15 percent energy savings with software features

'Upto 15 percent' sounds alike it is a very optimistic estimate, (you know when they advertise 'upto 50% discount' most of the products are discounted at much lower rate). And it does not seem that this power saving is also dependent on network traffic. So I am not really convinced.

>>Two economists are walking down the street and pass by a hundred dollar bill without picking it up.

I can't help but notice that the joke rests on an impossible premise that they didn't pick it up on first notice.