jasonlaramburu

>A surprising number of these people poison themselves with supplements

Supplements are regulated in the US as foods, not drugs. If the makers of these supplements claim they treat, cure or diagnose any disease the claims can be censored.

>we shouldn't engage in censorship of factual information

Most of what was said about fake covid cures was not factual and/or exaggerated. The case could certainly be made that many of those promoting said solutions stood to benefit commercially and politically from spreading the false information (including many senior politicians).

>censoring of voices that were skeptical of the narratives

Much of what you describe as 'censoring' was focused on stopping the promotion of false cures eg Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, H2O2 nebulization etc. This type of speech is already highly regulated, as most people lack the capacity to 'do their own research' regarding a drug's safety or efficacy.

>try 'covid vaccine sceptics' instead of 'anti-vaxx'

Call it whatever you want, the position is still unsupported by data. Ironically, that side is typically against any form of 'political correctness.'

The UK data also doesn't support what you claim elsewhere in the thread. When adjusted for confounders, unvaccinated case rates are higher across all age groups in the UK according to the twitter link you cite above.

> In a frontline healthcare setting, workers are constantly in contact with infected persons, thus the difference in testing regimens is maximized. Given that asymptomatic cases are a majority of the cases, such skewed data collection process will result in significant data taint.

I don’t see how this claim is supported by data. The studies referenced showed the vaccine was less effective (vs control) for frontline healthcare workers than the general population (80% vs 95%). If the data were really tainted as you claim, and there is systematic undercounting of asymptomatic breakthrough cases, we would expect the vaccine to perform as well or better in a frontline setting as it does in the general population.

My point was that the parent blatantly misrepresented the results of this study to make a point supporting anti-vaxx positions. Why is this necessary?

Polio is also far less widespread than COVID-19

All that can be concluded from VAERS is that some number of people reported these effects after claiming to take the vaccine. It does not imply causation nor can we infer correlation. This is why clinical trials were done before the vaccines received an EUA.

These reports are investigated. The number of deaths reported to VAERS is inconsistent with results of clinical trials for the major COVID vaccines.

VAERS was created as a provision of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986. The NCVIA was enacted because manufacturers of childhood vaccines could not obtain robust liability insurance.

You misrepresented the results of the original study as per above. The vaccine is 80% effective at preventing infection in frontline health workers (who are at elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19). It is 95% effective at preventing infection across the general population.

>natural immunity offers greater protection than the vaccine, you're thinking of combined vaccine + natural immunity.

No. There is no consensus on the duration of natural immunity, nor do we know how effective it is against variants. We do have confidence in the duration of vaccine-derived immunity and its performance against existing variants (https://www.newsweek.com/natural-covid-immunity-delta-varian...).

>vaccine side effects range from mild to death

You've not provided convincing evidence of this.

From the VAERS website: VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable.

>So why not continue testing unvaccinated people, and allow them to work as long as the test comes back negative?

They can. The US mandate allows unvaccinated workers to either get vaccinated or submit to weekly testing.

>> During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection

You conveniently omitted the end of the sentence you quoted. The full sentence is "During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline workers." Frontline health workers are at elevated risk of exposure to COVID-19, so it's reasonable that more of them would contract the virus, even with an effective vaccine.

Did you intentionally misrepresent the results of the study by leaving this part out or was this just a careless omission?

>ah yes, adaptation to science when I do it, goal post moving when others do it.

Parent mentioned moving goal posts, not I.

>maybe those other people adapted to new facts coming in such as side effects of the vaccine and already contracting covid and decided not to get it.

The facts show that vaccine side effects are generally mild, vaccination reduces transmission by 5X or more and that natural immunity offers inferior protection to vaccination. If you have convincing evidence showing otherwise, I encourage you to present it.

>"The goal posts will always move" ... you're right about that! I think I remember, two weeks to stop the spread

The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented event in our lifetime. Is it better to have a leader who modifies her approach as new information becomes available, or one who stubbornly sticks to the same plan when it has clearly failed?

>if it were a proper vaccine, the vaccinated wouldn't be able to contract covid at all.

What exactly does this mean? Some vaccines confer sterilizing immunity, some confer non-sterilizing immunity. Both classes of vaccines have been used successfully in humans and animals to control disease outbreaks for decades. It's difficult to confer sterilizing immunity to coronaviruses as they are more likely to mutate. That doesn't mean the vaccines 'don't work.'

I believe that American workers have a right to a safe workplace. It is a fact that the federal government has the power to set and regulate workplace safety standards. This is not new.

The desired effect of the mandate is to increase the percentage of the workforce that is vaccinated. It appears to be achieving that goal.

As has been mentioned many times on this thread and others, unvaccinated people are at least 5X more likely to contract and transmit COVID-19 to others.

>let's also round up all the fatties and fire them until they work out

Surely you realize this is a false equivalency. One cannot 'contract' obesity from someone else in an elevator.

>So what are the risks of unvaccinated people again?

The data is clear that unvaccinated people are at least 5X more likely to contract and spread COVID-19[1]. So the fewer unvaccinated people in the workplace, the less likely an outbreak becomes.

[1] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/cdc-unva...

>it’s just going to make more hardline people. Someone should just send them a link to the three and five year safety data of these vaccines, fight misinformation with information.

Based on the statistics in the OP, and other reported successes (the US military has achieved over 95% compliance) it looks like these mandates are achieving the desired effect: more working adults are getting vaccinated. It seems as though the most effective tool at combating misinformation is not to try and talk over people spouting lies. Instead, it's to make vaccination a matter of workplace safety, which is difficult for even the scammers to dispute convincingly.

Would that be safe for the patients?

It seems like it would be impossible to have a true double blind study with something like hyperbaric oxygen. Once the chamber reaches pressure, it is very obvious to the patient.

>the vast majority of people with reasonable knowledge, myself included, accept that in general, vaccines save lives

That really depends where you are located. There are US states where <50% of the eligible population is vaccinated.

Why the qualifier, 'in general?' In what cases does one of the major US COVID vaccines reduce a healthy adult's life expectancy?

Ok, it's not possible to have a good faith discussion about covid with someone who does not accept that vaccines save lives.

>who are the cult followers

Anyone who won’t accept that vaccines save lives

>it's disingenuous to pretend that they're simply a private business and that we can treat them as if they aren't effectively virtual public squares

Recognized public squares (eg the National Mall) are protected by regulation. Is that really what people want for Youtube?

>Because they're monopolies

McDonalds has more than 10X the revenue of its closest competitor (KFC). Should they be prohibited from kicking out a customer who is causing a nuisance?

>Society in general has been making chilling moves away from free speech

Private companies in the US have always had the right to refuse a customer anytime, for any reason. No shirt, no shoes, no service. Should a social media company be treated differently?

>There's a third option of actually engaging in the discussion. You know, actually investing the efforts of silencing anti-vaxers into explaining the truth instead

A good faith discussion between opposing parties requires establishment of some common ground and a set of rules of engagement (eg 'claims must be supported with facts/data'). Cult leaders foster a sense of paranoia among their followers which makes a good faith debate virtually impossible.

Virtually all major utilities in the US also offer renewable energy credits (RECs) for a fee which guarantee a given number of kWhs were produced with 100% renewable energy.

There are none. Only one or two lab bench scale reactors at universities.