|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On September 18 2021 01:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 01:19 Amumoman wrote:On September 18 2021 01:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2021 01:04 Amumoman wrote:On September 18 2021 01:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 17 2021 21:32 Amumoman wrote:On September 17 2021 18:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 17 2021 16:48 Amumoman wrote:
Q: do you guys think the virus situation is being exploited by politicians to further their own agendas (enriching themselves, scoring points w other politicians whose appproval they crave, undermining liberty to expand the reach of states, etc) and by pharma company shareholders who historically speaking have demonstrated little to no concern for people’s health so long as they make as much money as possible and by media companies who historically speaking have been happy to resort to fear-mongering and scare tactics to do propaganda or simply to make money?
Q2: how severe a threat do you guys think the virus poses ranked against all the other health problems we’re seeing: obesity, sleep irregularities, hormonal disruptions, etc and ranked against the threat to liberty?
Have a great day Q2: I think infectious diseases can be more devastating, especially when one's neighbor is apathetic towards others, or anti-science. Of course, there are plenty of non-infectious health issues that need to be addressed, too. Infectious diseases are more of a threat to liberty, as I have a right to not have my life endangered by morons who can't be bothered to take basic safety precautions. And who gets to be the ultimate authority on what constitutes sound basic safety precautions? If we're talking about health and infectious diseases, I would think that those medical experts ought to be viewed as authority figures, and that politicians should probably respect what they say. Which of the medical experts are you referring to? The Japanese ones who recently decided to try out Ivermectin or the American ones that think that is inappropriate for treating covid? I have no dog in that fight but its very clear that those socalled experts to whom you would want us all to bow down dont agree among themselves The Japanese ones came out against it. The attempt at using it by the Japanese was a while ago and is extremely outdated and ended up not proving anything beneficial. There are no serious, randomized, controlled studies demonstrating that ivermectin is an effective way to deal with covid. And either way, the medical consensus is that vaccination is the best way to deal with covid. Not ivermectin. Not hydroxychloroquine. Not bleach. Not thoughts and prayers. This is an overwhelming, international agreement across countless medical communities. There isn't in-fighting here. Fair enough. I’ll take your word on this. More inportantly though is the point of whether there’s legitimate disagreement among experts which was my primory point of that paragraph. I am unaware of any kind of data-driven disagreement. Are there any peer-reviewed studies showing that the general public being vaccinated and moving towards herd immunity isn't worth the negligible risks associated with the vaccines, especially compared to the non-negligible risks associated with covid (not just the death rate, but also long-term covid, hospitalization, and perpetuating the infection)? Because even if I'm personally in a relatively safe demographic, I should still be considering the well-being of my family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers who may be in unsafe demographics (or may live with people who are, etc.).
Even looking at the same data sets, there’s clear disagreement among experts as to what’s the appropriate course of action, or is this something you dispute?
|
On September 18 2021 00:18 JimmiC wrote:
Do people other than yourself factor into your equation at all?
Sure. While Im perfectly confident I have great opportunity to live an amzing life, my concern is mainly what kind of world my children (should I be blessed with any) or indeed all future children will be born into.
But I do appreciate your not so subtle insinuation that I am an egotistical moron
|
On September 18 2021 01:34 Amumoman wrote:
Even looking at the same data sets, there’s clear disagreement among experts as to what’s the appropriate course of action, or is this something you dispute?
Please give a concrete example of a disagreement among the experts, we can't read your mind.
|
On September 18 2021 01:39 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 01:34 Amumoman wrote:
Even looking at the same data sets, there’s clear disagreement among experts as to what’s the appropriate course of action, or is this something you dispute? Please give a concrete example of a disagreement among the experts, we can't read your mind.
Easy enough; here in Denmark, experts of all kinds are arguing in favor of all sort of mutually exclusive stuff. One expert arguing we’ll risk more infections, hospitalizations and deaths because we’re opening up - another expert arguing opening up is perfectly reasonable because x, y or z. This is literally happening all the time because of different interpretation of data sets, different values, different priorities, different assumptions about how reality works, etc
Do you seriously dispute this is the case?
|
On September 18 2021 01:34 Amumoman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 01:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2021 01:19 Amumoman wrote:On September 18 2021 01:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2021 01:04 Amumoman wrote:On September 18 2021 01:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 17 2021 21:32 Amumoman wrote:On September 17 2021 18:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 17 2021 16:48 Amumoman wrote:
Q: do you guys think the virus situation is being exploited by politicians to further their own agendas (enriching themselves, scoring points w other politicians whose appproval they crave, undermining liberty to expand the reach of states, etc) and by pharma company shareholders who historically speaking have demonstrated little to no concern for people’s health so long as they make as much money as possible and by media companies who historically speaking have been happy to resort to fear-mongering and scare tactics to do propaganda or simply to make money?
Q2: how severe a threat do you guys think the virus poses ranked against all the other health problems we’re seeing: obesity, sleep irregularities, hormonal disruptions, etc and ranked against the threat to liberty?
Have a great day Q2: I think infectious diseases can be more devastating, especially when one's neighbor is apathetic towards others, or anti-science. Of course, there are plenty of non-infectious health issues that need to be addressed, too. Infectious diseases are more of a threat to liberty, as I have a right to not have my life endangered by morons who can't be bothered to take basic safety precautions. And who gets to be the ultimate authority on what constitutes sound basic safety precautions? If we're talking about health and infectious diseases, I would think that those medical experts ought to be viewed as authority figures, and that politicians should probably respect what they say. Which of the medical experts are you referring to? The Japanese ones who recently decided to try out Ivermectin or the American ones that think that is inappropriate for treating covid? I have no dog in that fight but its very clear that those socalled experts to whom you would want us all to bow down dont agree among themselves The Japanese ones came out against it. The attempt at using it by the Japanese was a while ago and is extremely outdated and ended up not proving anything beneficial. There are no serious, randomized, controlled studies demonstrating that ivermectin is an effective way to deal with covid. And either way, the medical consensus is that vaccination is the best way to deal with covid. Not ivermectin. Not hydroxychloroquine. Not bleach. Not thoughts and prayers. This is an overwhelming, international agreement across countless medical communities. There isn't in-fighting here. Fair enough. I’ll take your word on this. More inportantly though is the point of whether there’s legitimate disagreement among experts which was my primory point of that paragraph. I am unaware of any kind of data-driven disagreement. Are there any peer-reviewed studies showing that the general public being vaccinated and moving towards herd immunity isn't worth the negligible risks associated with the vaccines, especially compared to the non-negligible risks associated with covid (not just the death rate, but also long-term covid, hospitalization, and perpetuating the infection)? Because even if I'm personally in a relatively safe demographic, I should still be considering the well-being of my family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers who may be in unsafe demographics (or may live with people who are, etc.). Even looking at the same data sets, there’s clear disagreement among experts as to what’s the appropriate course of action, or is this something you dispute?
I'm not sure what you're referring to, so yes, I'll dispute that. I haven't heard of experts saying that the vaccines are unimportant; I'd imagine that if there are, the number of those experts is so negligible (a few? maybe?) that it doesn't provide evidence that there's any sort of serious disagreement. It's not like 10% or 20% of experts are against vaccinations, or anything like that. Maybe you can find 0.01% of experts, but I'll leave it up to you to provide the evidence against vaccination.
|
On September 18 2021 01:43 Amumoman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 01:39 Magic Powers wrote:On September 18 2021 01:34 Amumoman wrote:
Even looking at the same data sets, there’s clear disagreement among experts as to what’s the appropriate course of action, or is this something you dispute? Please give a concrete example of a disagreement among the experts, we can't read your mind. Easy enough; here in Denmark, experts of all kinds are arguing in favor of all sort of mutually exclusive stuff. One expert arguing we’ll risk more infections, hospitalizations and deaths because we’re opening up - another expert arguing opening up is perfectly reasonable because x, y or z. This is literally happening all the time because of different interpretation of data sets, different values, different priorities, different assumptions about how reality works, etc Do you seriously dispute this is the case?
I need to see a concrete example of this dispute happening, otherwise it's impossible to put it into any meaningful context and comment on it.
|
On September 18 2021 01:43 Amumoman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 01:39 Magic Powers wrote:On September 18 2021 01:34 Amumoman wrote:
Even looking at the same data sets, there’s clear disagreement among experts as to what’s the appropriate course of action, or is this something you dispute? Please give a concrete example of a disagreement among the experts, we can't read your mind. Easy enough; here in Denmark, experts of all kinds are arguing in favor of all sort of mutually exclusive stuff. One expert arguing we’ll risk more infections, hospitalizations and deaths because we’re opening up - another expert arguing opening up is perfectly reasonable because x, y or z. This is literally happening all the time because of different interpretation of data sets, different values, different priorities, different assumptions about how reality works, etc Do you seriously dispute this is the case?
You've mentioned vaccinations exactly zero times in this post. Can we at least agree that there's no serious disagreement among experts that we should all be getting vaccinated (except for the super-rare immunocompromised exception, etc.)? If your objections are related to other things, then we can discuss that, but can we agree that the experts say we ought to vaccinate against covid?
|
On September 18 2021 01:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 01:34 Amumoman wrote:On September 18 2021 01:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2021 01:19 Amumoman wrote:On September 18 2021 01:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2021 01:04 Amumoman wrote:On September 18 2021 01:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 17 2021 21:32 Amumoman wrote:On September 17 2021 18:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 17 2021 16:48 Amumoman wrote:
Q: do you guys think the virus situation is being exploited by politicians to further their own agendas (enriching themselves, scoring points w other politicians whose appproval they crave, undermining liberty to expand the reach of states, etc) and by pharma company shareholders who historically speaking have demonstrated little to no concern for people’s health so long as they make as much money as possible and by media companies who historically speaking have been happy to resort to fear-mongering and scare tactics to do propaganda or simply to make money?
Q2: how severe a threat do you guys think the virus poses ranked against all the other health problems we’re seeing: obesity, sleep irregularities, hormonal disruptions, etc and ranked against the threat to liberty?
Have a great day Q2: I think infectious diseases can be more devastating, especially when one's neighbor is apathetic towards others, or anti-science. Of course, there are plenty of non-infectious health issues that need to be addressed, too. Infectious diseases are more of a threat to liberty, as I have a right to not have my life endangered by morons who can't be bothered to take basic safety precautions. And who gets to be the ultimate authority on what constitutes sound basic safety precautions? If we're talking about health and infectious diseases, I would think that those medical experts ought to be viewed as authority figures, and that politicians should probably respect what they say. Which of the medical experts are you referring to? The Japanese ones who recently decided to try out Ivermectin or the American ones that think that is inappropriate for treating covid? I have no dog in that fight but its very clear that those socalled experts to whom you would want us all to bow down dont agree among themselves The Japanese ones came out against it. The attempt at using it by the Japanese was a while ago and is extremely outdated and ended up not proving anything beneficial. There are no serious, randomized, controlled studies demonstrating that ivermectin is an effective way to deal with covid. And either way, the medical consensus is that vaccination is the best way to deal with covid. Not ivermectin. Not hydroxychloroquine. Not bleach. Not thoughts and prayers. This is an overwhelming, international agreement across countless medical communities. There isn't in-fighting here. Fair enough. I’ll take your word on this. More inportantly though is the point of whether there’s legitimate disagreement among experts which was my primory point of that paragraph. I am unaware of any kind of data-driven disagreement. Are there any peer-reviewed studies showing that the general public being vaccinated and moving towards herd immunity isn't worth the negligible risks associated with the vaccines, especially compared to the non-negligible risks associated with covid (not just the death rate, but also long-term covid, hospitalization, and perpetuating the infection)? Because even if I'm personally in a relatively safe demographic, I should still be considering the well-being of my family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers who may be in unsafe demographics (or may live with people who are, etc.). Even looking at the same data sets, there’s clear disagreement among experts as to what’s the appropriate course of action, or is this something you dispute? I'm not sure what you're referring to, so yes, I'll dispute that. I haven't heard of experts saying that the vaccines are unimportant; I'd imagine that if there are, the number of those experts is so negligible (a few? maybe?) that it doesn't provide evidence that there's any sort of serious disagreement. It's not like 10% or 20% of experts are against vaccinations, or anything like that. Maybe you can find 0.01% of experts, but I'll leave it up to you to provide the evidence against vaccination.
First example that comes to my mind is the UK JCVI advising against vaccinati g 12-15 year old children; a position not shared by all experts. This disagreement enough for you or what are you looking for?
|
On September 18 2021 01:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 01:43 Amumoman wrote:On September 18 2021 01:39 Magic Powers wrote:On September 18 2021 01:34 Amumoman wrote:
Even looking at the same data sets, there’s clear disagreement among experts as to what’s the appropriate course of action, or is this something you dispute? Please give a concrete example of a disagreement among the experts, we can't read your mind. Easy enough; here in Denmark, experts of all kinds are arguing in favor of all sort of mutually exclusive stuff. One expert arguing we’ll risk more infections, hospitalizations and deaths because we’re opening up - another expert arguing opening up is perfectly reasonable because x, y or z. This is literally happening all the time because of different interpretation of data sets, different values, different priorities, different assumptions about how reality works, etc Do you seriously dispute this is the case? You've mentioned vaccinations exactly zero times in this post. Can we at least agree that there's no serious disagreement among experts that we should all be getting vaccinated (except for the super-rare immunocompromised exception, etc.)? If your objections are related to other things, then we can discuss that, but can we agree that the experts say we ought to vaccinate against covid?
The overwhelming consensus among danish health experts/doctors is that vaccine mandates are unethical. Consensus is recommendating vaccines (for most ppl; there are counterindications albeit rare)
|
I remember when Denmark decided not to use AZ Vax because of serious side effects, some expert where pro using it other not.
|
|
|
On September 18 2021 01:50 Amumoman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 01:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2021 01:34 Amumoman wrote:On September 18 2021 01:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2021 01:19 Amumoman wrote:On September 18 2021 01:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2021 01:04 Amumoman wrote:On September 18 2021 01:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 17 2021 21:32 Amumoman wrote:On September 17 2021 18:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Q2: I think infectious diseases can be more devastating, especially when one's neighbor is apathetic towards others, or anti-science. Of course, there are plenty of non-infectious health issues that need to be addressed, too. Infectious diseases are more of a threat to liberty, as I have a right to not have my life endangered by morons who can't be bothered to take basic safety precautions. And who gets to be the ultimate authority on what constitutes sound basic safety precautions? If we're talking about health and infectious diseases, I would think that those medical experts ought to be viewed as authority figures, and that politicians should probably respect what they say. Which of the medical experts are you referring to? The Japanese ones who recently decided to try out Ivermectin or the American ones that think that is inappropriate for treating covid? I have no dog in that fight but its very clear that those socalled experts to whom you would want us all to bow down dont agree among themselves The Japanese ones came out against it. The attempt at using it by the Japanese was a while ago and is extremely outdated and ended up not proving anything beneficial. There are no serious, randomized, controlled studies demonstrating that ivermectin is an effective way to deal with covid. And either way, the medical consensus is that vaccination is the best way to deal with covid. Not ivermectin. Not hydroxychloroquine. Not bleach. Not thoughts and prayers. This is an overwhelming, international agreement across countless medical communities. There isn't in-fighting here. Fair enough. I’ll take your word on this. More inportantly though is the point of whether there’s legitimate disagreement among experts which was my primory point of that paragraph. I am unaware of any kind of data-driven disagreement. Are there any peer-reviewed studies showing that the general public being vaccinated and moving towards herd immunity isn't worth the negligible risks associated with the vaccines, especially compared to the non-negligible risks associated with covid (not just the death rate, but also long-term covid, hospitalization, and perpetuating the infection)? Because even if I'm personally in a relatively safe demographic, I should still be considering the well-being of my family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers who may be in unsafe demographics (or may live with people who are, etc.). Even looking at the same data sets, there’s clear disagreement among experts as to what’s the appropriate course of action, or is this something you dispute? I'm not sure what you're referring to, so yes, I'll dispute that. I haven't heard of experts saying that the vaccines are unimportant; I'd imagine that if there are, the number of those experts is so negligible (a few? maybe?) that it doesn't provide evidence that there's any sort of serious disagreement. It's not like 10% or 20% of experts are against vaccinations, or anything like that. Maybe you can find 0.01% of experts, but I'll leave it up to you to provide the evidence against vaccination. First example that comes to my mind is the UK JCVI advising against vaccinati g 12-15 year old children; a position not shared by all experts. This disagreement enough for you or what are you looking for?
I'm happy to agree that understanding children/teenagers may not be as fleshed out yet as understanding adults, but I thought we were referring to adults. I thought your position was that if you're a generally healthy adult that isn't in a risky demographic, then it doesn't really matter if you get vaccinated or not? I apologize if I'm mistaken here. The international consensus is that you still ought to be vaccinated anyway.
On September 18 2021 01:53 Amumoman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 01:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2021 01:43 Amumoman wrote:On September 18 2021 01:39 Magic Powers wrote:On September 18 2021 01:34 Amumoman wrote:
Even looking at the same data sets, there’s clear disagreement among experts as to what’s the appropriate course of action, or is this something you dispute? Please give a concrete example of a disagreement among the experts, we can't read your mind. Easy enough; here in Denmark, experts of all kinds are arguing in favor of all sort of mutually exclusive stuff. One expert arguing we’ll risk more infections, hospitalizations and deaths because we’re opening up - another expert arguing opening up is perfectly reasonable because x, y or z. This is literally happening all the time because of different interpretation of data sets, different values, different priorities, different assumptions about how reality works, etc Do you seriously dispute this is the case? You've mentioned vaccinations exactly zero times in this post. Can we at least agree that there's no serious disagreement among experts that we should all be getting vaccinated (except for the super-rare immunocompromised exception, etc.)? If your objections are related to other things, then we can discuss that, but can we agree that the experts say we ought to vaccinate against covid? The overwhelming consensus among danish health experts/doctors is that vaccine mandates are unethical. Consensus is recommendating vaccines (for most ppl; there are counterindications albeit rare)
Okay, so we agree that the experts say that pretty much every adult should be vaccinated, even if they aren't in a high-risk category. For example, I'm a healthy 33-year-old with no underlying health problems that would exacerbate covid symptoms, and yet it's still recommended that I become vaccinated (and, of course, I already got vaccinated asap).
|
On September 18 2021 01:50 Amumoman wrote:
First example that comes to my mind is the UK JCVI advising against vaccinati g 12-15 year old children; a position not shared by all experts. This disagreement enough for you or what are you looking for?
I don't know how many times you need to be asked for a source. Are you going to provide a source or are you going to keep playing this obvious game of yours?
|
On September 18 2021 01:43 Amumoman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 01:39 Magic Powers wrote:On September 18 2021 01:34 Amumoman wrote:
Even looking at the same data sets, there’s clear disagreement among experts as to what’s the appropriate course of action, or is this something you dispute? Please give a concrete example of a disagreement among the experts, we can't read your mind. Easy enough; here in Denmark, experts of all kinds are arguing in favor of all sort of mutually exclusive stuff. One expert arguing we’ll risk more infections, hospitalizations and deaths because we’re opening up - another expert arguing opening up is perfectly reasonable because x, y or z. This is literally happening all the time because of different interpretation of data sets, different values, different priorities, different assumptions about how reality works, etc Do you seriously dispute this is the case?
Not to mention every country has its own experts, and they come to very different conclusions.
I think one common mistake is that being more restrictive is always right, which it isn't.
|
On September 18 2021 02:08 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 01:50 Amumoman wrote:
First example that comes to my mind is the UK JCVI advising against vaccinati g 12-15 year old children; a position not shared by all experts. This disagreement enough for you or what are you looking for? I don't know how many times you need to be asked for a source. Are you going to provide a source or are you going to keep playing this obvious game of yours?
There actually is credibility to this one specific statement, in that this organization's message is clearly mixed and not a clear, emphatic, resounding Yes, when it comes to 12-15 years old. Obviously, for everyone older than 15, there is a very enthusiastic Hell Yes like the rest of the world. Here's an excerpt, but the entire passage is basically the same:
"Overall, the committee is of the opinion that the benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms (tables 1 to 4) but acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms. The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time."
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-september-2021-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years/jcvi-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years-3-september-2021
|
We’ve sent him links showing vax is safer than covid. We’ve sent him links showing vax immunity is more effective than immunity from being infected. We’ve shown him the vax improves outcomes significantly for people who still get infected. He said he doesn’t even know what it would take to convince him to get vaxed.
Why are you guys still engaging with him? This is the definition of a brick wall. And I’d also like to take a moment to point out people like him are the reason mandates make sense. You are all overestimating the decency of humanity. We need mandates.
I’m not convinced he’s even being genuine. Feels more like actual trolling to me. But even if we are overly generous and assume he legitimately thinks these things, why keep going in this conversation? There’s nothing left.
|
On September 18 2021 02:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 02:08 Magic Powers wrote:On September 18 2021 01:50 Amumoman wrote:
First example that comes to my mind is the UK JCVI advising against vaccinati g 12-15 year old children; a position not shared by all experts. This disagreement enough for you or what are you looking for? I don't know how many times you need to be asked for a source. Are you going to provide a source or are you going to keep playing this obvious game of yours? There actually is credibility to this one specific statement, in that this organization's message is clearly mixed and not a clear, emphatic, resounding Yes, when it comes to 12-15 years old. Obviously, for everyone older than 15, there is a very enthusiastic Hell Yes like the rest of the world. Here's an excerpt, but the entire passage is basically the same: "Overall, the committee is of the opinion that the benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms (tables 1 to 4) but acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms. The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-september-2021-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years/jcvi-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years-3-september-2021
Thanks for doing Amu's job, I can say that much. If only he was also this conscientous.
I've read the same information a while back, so I can confirm its validity. The conclusion is of course not, as he claims it to be, the advice against vaccination of kids. It's just concerns and slight disagreements. No reputable scientist is advising against it in any capacity, they're only arguing for the need of more research. Vaccination of kids has begun in March. It's absurd to argue there are serious concerns.
|
On September 18 2021 02:49 Mohdoo wrote:
We’ve sent him links showing vax is safer than covid. We’ve sent him links showing vax immunity is more effective than immunity from being infected. We’ve shown him the vax improves outcomes significantly for people who still get infected. He said he doesn’t even know what it would take to convince him to get vaxed.
Why are you guys still engaging with him? This is the definition of a brick wall. And I’d also like to take a moment to point out people like him are the reason mandates make sense. You are all overestimating the decency of humanity. We need mandates.
I’m not convinced he’s even being genuine. Feels more like actual trolling to me. But even if we are overly generous and assume he legitimately thinks these things, why keep going in this conversation? There’s nothing left.
I don't get how people don't recognize the ones that randomly come in with the lies they've accepted as truth that just blatantly reject everything people say to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
