I always wondered, what do the black and white square icons mean?
215 karma · joined April 17, 2022
You've presented none whatsoever.
So many of you people have become so emotionally invested in the false narratives that you have believed, that you can't cope with any evidence that threatens your narrative even slightly.
At least we can talk about the "lab leak theory" now. This was the original point I made: it will take years for people to climb down these positions they have taken, but at least we are making small steps in the right direction.
If so, please admit that you were wrong when you made this comment:
> I'm hoping that in a decade or so, people will stop using "vaccines never prevented transmission" as an argument since it has been said at least a billion of times since the beginning, VACCINES PREVENTED SERIOUS ILLNESS.
My montage showed you (if you had watched it), many talking heads and officials at the time accusing the unvaccinated of increasing transmission.
The rest of your remarks about "covid deniers" are irrelevant to the point.
> <citation needed>
https://iea.org.uk/publications/did-lockdowns-work-the-verdi...
>> - Cloth masks were pointless security theatre
> <citation needed>
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
> I was happy to accept changes to my lifestyle to diminish risk of harm to individuals.
We now have a massive unexplained excess deaths crisis, but suddenly it's "see no evil, hear no evil".
>> - The vaccines never prevented transmission
> That's a straw-man argument - that's not the primary purpose of a vaccine.
That is not public officials and talking heads were saying at the start. See this montage:
https://twitter.com/XvirtueSignaler/status/16657702694186147...
> With widespread vaccination, the world was able to 'get on top of' the pandemic
The world never "got on top of" COVID. It never had any significant control over it. Omicron came along, and spread through the population with mild symptoms, leading to widespread natural immunity.
> its effects of healthcare over-utilisation.
That never happened anywhere in the world.
>> - The rate of side effects (including serious side effects up to and including death) is a lot higher than anyone wants to admit.
> <citation needed>
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/
In randomized control trials of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines here in the UK, we now know that the risk of serious adverse effects from the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines was 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated i.e. a ~1 in 800 chance of serious adverse effects.
>> - To most segments of the population, the danger of death by vaccine side effects is greater than the danger of death by COVID-19
> <citation needed>
The UK government has now published its estimate of the number of people needed to vaccinate to prevent a COVID-19 hospitalisation:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
In Table 3, notice how in every age group except 70+, the number-needed-to-vaccinate to prevent a hospital visit figure is higher than 1 in 800.
And in Table 4 notice not even 70+ are more in danger of severe hospitalisation than 1 in 800.
Watch the video clip in the tweet. It shows a montage of officials and talking heads claiming that the COVID vaccines would prevent you from getting COVID and transmitting it.
Here's another one if you prefer:
https://twitter.com/alliemarie777/status/1667561378398318592
> Just stop now and accept reality, it's a good thing that they got rid of your mother in law, I wonder in how much more pseudo science she believes in.
No it isn't. The NHS now has chronic shortage of nurses.
If there were a problem with pseudoscience, then they should have fired her for that, not some vague proxy.
You're rather proving my point. So many people are just not ready to have a rational conversation about these narratives. It's all just tribalism and dogma, and we will have to wait years for people like you to calm down to the point where you are able to have reasonably conversations on these topics again.
No. They said vaccines prevent transmission. Over and over.
You may have forgotten what was said at the time, but we won't:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1665770269418614784
It's the reason I was prevented from entering the US until just a couple of weeks ago. It's the reason why my mother-in-law lost her job as a nurse. People who refused this medical treatment, were treated as dangerous because officials claimed that we presented a transmission hazard.
This was a lie, which you are further compounding with more lies.
But there's still a lot to cover:
- Lockdowns did little to prevent the spread of COVID and lead to increased deaths by other causes, egregious violation of people's fundamental rights, massively destruction of the economy, and many people's mental health.
- Cloth masks were pointless security theatre
- The vast majority of people except the very elderly and obese were in very little danger
- The vaccines never prevented transmission
- The vaccines only offered very limited protection for a brief period
- The rate of side effects (including serious side effects up to and including death) is a lot higher than anyone wants to admit.
- To most segments of the population, the danger of death by vaccine side effects is greater than the danger of death by COVID-19
I'm hoping in a decade or so, we'll get towards something approaching a "sorry, you were right", like we did with the Iraq war, but there's still a long way to go.
But we should lock them up for the crime of doing crime: dealing drugs, drunk and disorderly, assault, robbery, theft etc.
> and costs the government way more than just giving them outright cash.
The cut-price solution is clearly no solution at all.
> Locking them up in mental wards has the same issues and there's a reason involuntary commitment fell out of favour - it's ripe for abuse.
These people meed help, and a drug-free environment is a place they can receive that help.
> And driving them off via whatever measures just shifts the problem elsewhere.
There are other places where some of these people (the ones without crippling mental health issues) stand a far better chance of building a stable life for themselves
It may well keep people alive - in a way, but it's no solution if it creates a mass of people who are destroying themselves and the city community.
It's still death - just in slow motion.
> The problem is that the causes of homelessness are not addressed at all - there is nowhere near enough affordable housing stock.
Yes, and that's not going to change, so alternative solutions are required.
- "when I was drug addicted you gave me cash"
- "when I was stealing to fund my addictions, you made shop lifting legal for stolen items amounting to $1000 or less"
- "when I was making violent threats, and assaulting members of the public you let me walk free"
- "when the police tried to intervene you said they were systematically racist against people of color and should be defunded"
- "when I had mental health issues, you closed down all the mental hospitals because you said they were oppressive institutions"
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Sure there is code that is needlessly labyrinthine or confusing, but otherwise the far more important rules are
- Be concise
- Do not repeat yourself
- Never be scared of the language. Every feature is a tool that has a right time to use.
Code should be simple in these terms, and it takes a fair degree of cleverness to make code simple in these terms
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/...
Nevertheless, there is a growing body of evidence that the use ventilators is linked to excess mortality: