“Whether reflecting the truth or not”? Isn’t it rather important that we discuss whether it does? Because if it does reflect the truth, we’re in deep trouble, aren’t we? If it doesn’t reflect the truth, well, you can point and laugh at me and no harm done.
Perhaps I should point out that I’m not interested in convincing anybody; in fact, I think it’s not possible anymore. Most of my posts are just mundane numbers and a discussion of what they mean. For about 30% of the posters here, that triggers them. For another 30%, it brings a sense that they’re not alone, and that they’re not crazy. The schism is here to stay. At some point it will resolve itself, but what must not happen - IMO - is for the situation to be resolved by the replacement of Civilisation with Idiocracy (or worse). Some of us have to make some attempt to keep rowing down shit creek even if we don’t have a paddle.
I don’t understand either and I find it funny they try to break down deaths into 1, 2, 3 vaccines. That doesn’t cover that 50% of deaths had a vaccine lol. Also, remember when vaccines causing death bypassed COVID deaths here. Ah Taiwan so silly.
Well, I guess that puts you in the 40% then. The problem is that not picking a side is essentially picking a side. I’m not arguing “if you’re not with us then you’re against us”, but an unfortunate side-effect of sitting on the sidelines and letting everything blow past you is that it allows the worst fantasies of the psychopaths to proceed that much more easily. Complying with bad laws, or at least refusing to acknowledge that they are bad laws, gives them legitimacy. Have you seen those videos of the white-suited goons bashing down doors in Shanghai? If every resident had stood on the other side of the door with a baseball bat at the ready, it would have stopped overnight. But nobody did. And thus tyranny entrenches itself.
As for getting emotional, sometimes that’s the normal and proper reaction. What would be the “scientific” argument against the lockdowns in Shanghai, and how would they have put a halt to what’s happening there?
I dislike intensely the use of the word “unscientific” to dismiss or delegitimize the moral and ethical objections to … all of this. There was a peculiarly British sci-fi comic around when I was a kid called Dan Dare. The eponymous hero had a nemesis by the name of The Mekon, who ruled over a society that was completely “scientific”. The Mekon was, of course, coldly and rationally evil, and it’s a recurring trope in sci-fi, but the idea of “science” as a guiding social principle was expertly skewered in those stories - they’d be very unfashionable today.
Science is just a tool for finding out stuff. It’s completely useless for telling us how we ought to act. Although I try to post facts and figures here, my arguments are intended to be ethical and philosophical.
There are plenty of stories about this in the MSM about places like Canada, which implemented ‘no jab no job’ policies in healthcare, for example. Omicron blasted through 100% boosted populations with barely a pause for breath. As far as I can ascertain there was no discernible difference in either severity of symptoms or infection rate compared to the general public, although of course with no matched control group to refer to, it’s a bit hard to tell.
Well, it’s pretty obvious that a lot of policies are not based on science. 3 doses don’t need masks in the gym, but 2 doses do. Needing a stupid app to go into some places. 80,000 local cases and 100 deaths, but glad the border is closed to stop the extra 40 imported cases!
A lot of it is based on carrot and stick approaches to encourage vaccination. And part of it is about holding peoples’ hands through the pandemic. You have a good % of the population who does NOT want the border open. They want lockdowns. They want schools closed. They want zero Covid. So those people need to be “held” through this into gradual acceptance of living with Covid. As much as I’d love it to happen, the government can’t realistically just say “f*ck it” and immediately dump the rules.
However, the vaccine pros and cons really aren’t a debate any more. They are very safe and there’s nothing scary there. They effectively reduce chance of death. They are beneficial for almost everybody for very little risk.
What’s your point? 50% unvaccinated deaths is wildly disproportionate
Well if you have a few hundred infections vs millions and millions of vaccinations… what do you expect?
If we asked all of Taiwan to run a 5K tomorrow, there’s gonna be some extra heart attacks
The problem is that not picking a side is essentially picking a side
I refuse the notion that there is only two sides to choose from. Covid is a complex issue and there is a wide range of “sides” you could take. It’s not a black and wide issue. Same goes for other highly controversial issues such as Brexit, climate change, gun laws, abortion, gay marriage, nuclear power, etc.
I dislike that these discussions are often reduced to two sides where deeply entrenched people try to defend their positions no matter what.
Why should I pick one side when I can agree with some points of yours while disagreeing with others? Why do I have to win arguments no matter what when I can acknowledge my lack of knowledge and declare my willingness to learn?
Jessica Rose doesn’t have the best writing style in the world, but she usually has some interesting technical snippets. This on the subject of myocarditis reports:
Frankly, I think the whole myocarditis this is a red herring designed to distract people from the much wider problems with the COVID response generally. But it’s interesting to see what happens when you hand out medications without bothering to test them.
Her website is much better than the substack essays for people who like graphical representations of complex data:
Following a rash of claims that repeated vaccination against COVID is somehow a vastly superior method of staying alive than keeping yourself fit and healthy, and that without them all humans are doomed to catch COVID and suffer horrible consequences, I’ll just put this here:
I’ll refrain from commenting on the paper itself and leave people to draw their own conclusions.
But Taiwanese are so healthy! According, to some people on here LMAO.
On another note does anyone else have a weird feeling they’re going to require test for 0-2 shots for a stupid amount of time? I kind of want to stock up before they stop selling them but still require it.
Can you spell out, once and for all, exactly why the fatality numbers reveal “what we already knew”? I don’t think you’ve ever made the attempt, despite making this claim after almost every post that Malcolm makes. Since the data you require to make the assessment is not there in the tables, I’m curious to know how you intend to derive it.
