|
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 30 2021 06:10 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2021 20:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2021 14:54 BlackJack wrote:On September 29 2021 07:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2021 06:42 BlackJack wrote:On September 29 2021 05:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2021 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On September 28 2021 21:48 NewSunshine wrote:On September 28 2021 11:52 BlackJack wrote:On September 28 2021 09:08 NewSunshine wrote:
If you think it's some kind of nefarious "government encroachment" when it tells people there are public health standards they plan on enforcing, I have bad news for you in that that is both the government's job, and long supported by precedent in various health-focused government organizations. We don't consider it government encroachment when we say that someone's place of business is subject to health and safety inspections, we consider that an important standard. The objection is that there is a difference between "employees must wash hands before returning to work" and "employees must be vaccinated before returning to work." It's not "logically inconsistent" to agree with one and not the other. The fact that you're okay with the government implementing some health and safety standards doesn't mean you automatically have to approve of every new health and safety standard. It's not an all-or-nothing where you have to either be okay with vaccine passports or be okay with Typhoid Mary cooking your dinner. Of course there's a difference between vaccines and washing your hands, that's why you're using that example. OSHA has exercised their authority already in the face of the smallpox epidemic to require vaccination, in addition to other substantial health and safety standards that go above and beyond whether people have the decency to wash their hands. Of course, if you're against the vaccine, this would seem like an overreach, and I'd understand that. The science is what it is, the way forward is a gravity issue. I can't help it if that upsets you. For the record, I'm not "against the vaccine." I got my first shot in Dec. 2020, only days after it was approved for emergency use. I encourage everyone I know to get vaccinated. Being against vaccine mandates and being against the vaccine isn't the same thing. What is the key difference that makes you against vaccine mandates, while simultaneously being for other sanitation/health/safety mandates? Why is a vaccine mandate an example of unacceptable government encroachment, while the other mandates are acceptable government encroachments? And are you against all vaccine mandates, or just for covid? Bodily autonomy, mostly. No, I don't have a blanket opposition to a vaccine mandate just as I don't have a blanket opposition to government lockdowns. My opposition is due to what COVID turned out to be. Very few children are dying of COVID and very few vaccinated adults are dying of COVID. Less than a typical flu season. If children were dying en masse I'd be all for holding people down and vaccinating them. But the data is pretty overwhelming: deaths from COVID (USA) are occurring almost exclusively in unvaccinated adults who have had the opportunity to protect themselves. Frankly, for me it's not a compelling argument to hold people down and inoculate them for their own good. People do stupid things at the expense of their health and longevity all the time and I don't really care. Thanks for clarifying. Are you against mask mandates as well? Would that infringe upon one's bodily autonomy enough to be an issue, too? Or is a mask mandate an acceptable amount of infringement? And also, while I agree with you / the data that most deaths (and hospitalizations, too!) are of unvaccinated adults (rather than children or vaccinated adults), there are still the issues of breakthrough cases and the perpetuation of covid, which are both primarily enabled by unvaccinated people. Unvaccinated people are more likely to become infected and infect others, which makes their vaccinated neighbors/families/friends/colleagues more susceptible, and it permits the virus to continue to survive and spread and thrive and mutate into additional strains, which may very well be resistant to outdated vaccines (again, endangering the vaccinated population). So unvaccinated people are not only putting themselves at risk, but they are presently putting vaccinated at risk too, and they'll continue to be putting everyone at risk for as long as covid is around. We already see this, as our vaccines are less effective against newer strains like the delta variant. Thoughts? I don't really care about mask mandates. Whining about having to cover your nose and mouth seems like the most trivial thing to claim to be oppressed over. But I also eye-roll at the people that lecture other people about about mask-wearing while they themselves wear cloth masks. Personally I only wear hospital -style surgical masks. I believe the science is pretty clear that they do a better job at stopping droplet transmission than cloth masks. They are also only minimally less comfortable than cloth masks at worst. They are cheap and widely available. It seems like if you support mask mandates to prevent transmission then you should not be wearing a cloth mask. Regarding your other point about the unvaccinated contributing to the spread and more variants. Probably true. People in this thread particularly like to use this argument of the unvaccinated prolonging the pandemic or how we will never end this as long as the unvaccinated are around. Maybe I am wrong but it's my understanding that most experts have already resigned to the fact that we are not going to eradicate COVID with herd immunity and it's here for the long-term with or without vaccine mandates. If there was compelling evidence that we could eradicate COVID with a vaccine mandate I might even jump on board for that. Yeah I agree with you that wearing a mask is incredibly trivial, and that wearing the *proper* mask (and wearing it correctly, too!) are super important as well. That being said, I find getting vaccinated to be even less of a hassle than wearing a mask. Buying and wearing masks every day, taking them on and off, making sure they stay clean, not being able to see people's faces, etc. vs. getting a few free shots? I've heard a reasonable complaint that some people can't take off work for the few days needed for vaccinations, but the simple counterargument is that infected, unvaccinated people are forced to take off many more days for work. I think it's definitely fair to say that getting an annual shot or two is far less oppressive than being forced to cover half your face every day. Thoughts? I considered it a privilege to get the COVID vaccine, not a hassle. I didn't miss any work and I had zero side effects minus a little anxiety. But on the whole, no, I consider it much less oppressive and much less of an assault on bodily autonomy to require mask-wearing than to require an injection into your body. It basically comes down to the giving up liberty for safety idea. Except here the safety you are getting is marginal at best. I already feel quite protected from COVID-19 after being double vaccinated and I'll probably get a booster soon. Basically every adult has the same opportunity for this protection. So it just comes down to how much authority I would want to give to the government over this. I agree with Magic Powers that during times of crisis is when the government is most eagerly looking for ways to increase their power and once they have more power they don't like to give it up. Dying of terrorism is also incredibly rare but it got people to go along with the Patriot Act and foreign wars that cost trillions. I think these are the times you have to be most vigilant about what the government is doing.
We know that the additional safety from being vaccinated is actually incredibly important and significant, since it nearly guarantees that you won't become severely ill or die, and it helps protect those around you, too. It's not marginal for the individual, and lowering the infection rate of covid is not marginal for those of us who are vaccinated but are still forced to be near unvaccinated people (or for those who are immunocompromised and can't get the vaccine, who are forced to rely on the rest of us). The fact that this is a team effort is one of the reasons why I feel it's important to push harder for more people getting vaccinated.
Also, what liberty is someone giving up by being vaccinated? Isn't it even more liberating to get vaccinated? To be free from the worst-case scenarios of a deadly disease? To be able to see loved ones again, without needing to worry about infecting and killing each other? To be able to work again? And even if getting a vaccine is a hassle, dealing with masks seems to be significantly more disruptive to one's life than getting a shot.
|
On September 30 2021 06:33 Magic Powers wrote:
@ggrrg I very much appreciate that you're sharing these anecdotes. Sad to hear about all the trouble your family has gone through or is still going through.
Thanks. Not that my intention was to collect pity points in the thread, but thanks nevertheless xD
To be honest, I have been lurking on TL for a long time and this has been one of the few threads I have read a lot. The main reason why I am finally posting in here is because now Covid has finally hit close to home. I am actually worried about my mother and my aunt. Both of them are around 60. My mother has been coughing quite a lot for two weeks straight. Her last blood oxygen test was fine, but it was a week ago. She claims to feel better in the past few days, but the extreme cough is still there. I am worried that it still may take a turn for worse and she may need to go to the hospital. And I am worried that even if she does not need to the hospital, she may suffer some long term lung damage (she had a scan last week that showed worrying structures in her lungs).
My aunt just got her diagnosis yesterday, but she is already feeling like shit. Not to mention that she is a smoker and drinks 100g of vodka daily + Show Spoiler +Total sidenote, but that's my "favorite" thing about Bulgarian Covid/vaccine deniers - complain how dangerous the vaccines are while smoking a cig (Bulgaria is #2 in percentage of smokers in the EU) and downing some 40% liquor (Bulgaria is only #8 in average alchohol consumption in the EU, but drinking daily is a common lifestyle there...)
An additional reason (clearly not the main reason, though) why I am finally posting in this thread is because I am absolutely (for lack of better words) pissed at all the shit that is circulated online. To reiterate myself "Fuck Facebook and Youtube!". They are far from the only offenders, but to me it seems like they are the ones that are the main online shitholes to export nonsense outside of the nutcase echo chambers. And I am not talking about some articles about "rushed vaccines" or if it is acceptable to vax kids that have an extremely low chance of having any issues if infected by covid. I am talking about full-blown nutcase conspiracies (I was not joking or exaggerating when I talked about "teleporting monks" or "Rothshield/illuminati/masons takeover" videos). On my father's PC two weeks ago, I opened youtube to listen to some music. On the front page of youtube, there were, amongst others, videos about " Mr. Fuckface destroying the narrative of the Covid slaves" or "How they want to enslave us with Masks". And my father is not even a Covid or a vaccine denier. He exclusively watches videos about formula 1 and DIY home improvement. He gets those nutcase videos just because that's what is popular in Bulgaria...
For shits and giggles I just opened my mother's PC in Germany (She exclusively watches Bulgarian youtube videos, though). Let me list some of the titles of the front page videos suggested to her -.- (verbatim translations)
"Implants, vaccines, tatoos... what do we insert into our bodies" (a "vaccines are shit" video)
"The lord of civilization" (from its description: "Who really rules us?... How long will the new slavery last?...)
"The path - the energetic centres of the earth"
That's just from the first 8 suggested videos -.- There is a whole lot more crap further down. All of this just because a while ago she searched for some videos natural remedies for illnesses...
Honestly, I just posted because I am currently worried about my mother and my aunt.
I'd like to think that at least somebody who reads these posts gets dissuaded to believe the online mental vomit people have to deal with. In Bulgaria it is mostly Shitbook and Craptube, in the US you have a wide variety of fake news outlets. But realistically, I doubt it would have this effect on anyone. I am just worried because it currently affects me/my family and that's why I post here...
|
|
|
|
|
Well, google is finally cracking down on antivax videos, probably a year late at this point.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/29/youtube-ban-joseph-mercola/
lots of other articles about it, but outright bans for antivax outlets is a good start.
Facebook is the other big player in the antivax space that needs to have a crackdown. Facebook has been a massive detriment to civilized discourse because of how powerfully it amplifies misinformation and lies.
|
On September 30 2021 08:42 Lmui wrote:Well, google is finally cracking down on antivax videos, probably a year late at this point. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/29/youtube-ban-joseph-mercola/lots of other articles about it, but outright bans for antivax outlets is a good start. Facebook is the other big player in the antivax space that needs to have a crackdown. Facebook has been a massive detriment to civilized discourse because of how powerfully it amplifies misinformation and lies.
I'm glad the government and powerful corporations are working together to censor people with opinions I don't like about covid. I'm sure this will never be abused for stuff that isn't convenient to them.
If anything, we need more government/big corporations dictating what's acceptable discourse on the internet.
+ Show Spoiler + I will clarify this is sarcasm, given some people actively cheer for this stuff
|
|
|
On September 30 2021 09:04 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2021 08:42 Lmui wrote:Well, google is finally cracking down on antivax videos, probably a year late at this point. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/29/youtube-ban-joseph-mercola/lots of other articles about it, but outright bans for antivax outlets is a good start. Facebook is the other big player in the antivax space that needs to have a crackdown. Facebook has been a massive detriment to civilized discourse because of how powerfully it amplifies misinformation and lies. I'm glad the government and powerful corporations are working together to censor people with opinions I don't like about covid. I'm sure this will never be abused for stuff that isn't convenient to them. If anything, we need more government/big corporations dictating what's acceptable discourse on the internet. + Show Spoiler + I will clarify this is sarcasm, given some people actively cheer for this stuff
Even with the spoilered explanation, I'm having trouble figuring out your intention. Is your sarcasm implying that people shouldn't be supporting this "censorship", or is your sarcasm actually parodying the absurd notion that people think that this is about "censoring people with opinions" instead of fighting against misinformation that is literally killing people, during a global health crisis?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 30 2021 09:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2021 09:04 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 30 2021 08:42 Lmui wrote:Well, google is finally cracking down on antivax videos, probably a year late at this point. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/29/youtube-ban-joseph-mercola/lots of other articles about it, but outright bans for antivax outlets is a good start. Facebook is the other big player in the antivax space that needs to have a crackdown. Facebook has been a massive detriment to civilized discourse because of how powerfully it amplifies misinformation and lies. I'm glad the government and powerful corporations are working together to censor people with opinions I don't like about covid. I'm sure this will never be abused for stuff that isn't convenient to them. If anything, we need more government/big corporations dictating what's acceptable discourse on the internet. + Show Spoiler + I will clarify this is sarcasm, given some people actively cheer for this stuff Even with the spoilered explanation, I'm having trouble figuring out your intention. Is your sarcasm implying that people shouldn't be supporting this "censorship", or is your sarcasm actually parodying the absurd notion that people think that this is about "censoring people with opinions" instead of fighting against misinformation that is literally killing people, during a global health crisis?
The easiest way to justify censorship is always to play on a certain line of speech people deem to be undesirable, act aggressively against said line of speech, then also to paint with a really broad brush to be able to censor all sorts of people who can be portrayed to be even tangentially related to said line of speech. Such censorship-prompting topics abound - hate speech, questioning the legitimacy of the election, corvid disinformation, and of course antivax.
I've seen plenty of examples of censorship via the big social media channels lately over alleged instances of this behavior, often due to mistaken or flimsy evidence with no real appeal process beyond hoping you would win in the court of public opinion if you yell loud enough. And some of the latest upgrades to this policy - e.g. questioning the effectiveness of more established vaccines like MMR and having a "vaccines cause autism" viewpoint - have so very little to do with said global health crisis as to be an obvious overreach.
It definitely is about censorship under the pretense of stopping "dangerous opinions." Broad censorship campaigns are always cloaked in the language of providing security.
|
On September 30 2021 11:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2021 09:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 30 2021 09:04 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 30 2021 08:42 Lmui wrote:Well, google is finally cracking down on antivax videos, probably a year late at this point. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/29/youtube-ban-joseph-mercola/lots of other articles about it, but outright bans for antivax outlets is a good start. Facebook is the other big player in the antivax space that needs to have a crackdown. Facebook has been a massive detriment to civilized discourse because of how powerfully it amplifies misinformation and lies. I'm glad the government and powerful corporations are working together to censor people with opinions I don't like about covid. I'm sure this will never be abused for stuff that isn't convenient to them. If anything, we need more government/big corporations dictating what's acceptable discourse on the internet. + Show Spoiler + I will clarify this is sarcasm, given some people actively cheer for this stuff Even with the spoilered explanation, I'm having trouble figuring out your intention. Is your sarcasm implying that people shouldn't be supporting this "censorship", or is your sarcasm actually parodying the absurd notion that people think that this is about "censoring people with opinions" instead of fighting against misinformation that is literally killing people, during a global health crisis? The easiest way to justify censorship is always to play on a certain line of speech people deem to be undesirable, act aggressively against said line of speech, then also to paint with a really broad brush to be able to censor all sorts of people who can be portrayed to be even tangentially related to said line of speech. Such censorship-prompting topics abound - hate speech, questioning the legitimacy of the election, corvid disinformation, and of course antivax. I've seen plenty of examples of censorship via the big social media channels lately over alleged instances of this behavior, often due to mistaken or flimsy evidence with no real appeal process beyond hoping you would win in the court of public opinion if you yell loud enough. And some of the latest upgrades to this policy - e.g. questioning the effectiveness of more established vaccines like MMR and having a "vaccines cause autism" viewpoint - have so very little to do with said global health crisis as to be an obvious overreach. It definitely is about censorship under the pretense of stopping "dangerous opinions." Broad censorship campaigns are always cloaked in the language of providing security.
There are no air quotes. These are dangerous opinions. Factually, scientifically, medically dangerous opinions. God forbid private companies have the freedom to allow or forbid certain things on their platforms, and god forbid we hold people responsible for their rhetoric by having consequences, like putting them in time-out for wreaking havoc. It's not like conspiracy theorists are being jailed; they're just being demonetized and/or deplatformed.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 30 2021 11:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2021 11:08 LegalLord wrote:On September 30 2021 09:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 30 2021 09:04 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 30 2021 08:42 Lmui wrote:Well, google is finally cracking down on antivax videos, probably a year late at this point. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/29/youtube-ban-joseph-mercola/lots of other articles about it, but outright bans for antivax outlets is a good start. Facebook is the other big player in the antivax space that needs to have a crackdown. Facebook has been a massive detriment to civilized discourse because of how powerfully it amplifies misinformation and lies. I'm glad the government and powerful corporations are working together to censor people with opinions I don't like about covid. I'm sure this will never be abused for stuff that isn't convenient to them. If anything, we need more government/big corporations dictating what's acceptable discourse on the internet. + Show Spoiler + I will clarify this is sarcasm, given some people actively cheer for this stuff Even with the spoilered explanation, I'm having trouble figuring out your intention. Is your sarcasm implying that people shouldn't be supporting this "censorship", or is your sarcasm actually parodying the absurd notion that people think that this is about "censoring people with opinions" instead of fighting against misinformation that is literally killing people, during a global health crisis? The easiest way to justify censorship is always to play on a certain line of speech people deem to be undesirable, act aggressively against said line of speech, then also to paint with a really broad brush to be able to censor all sorts of people who can be portrayed to be even tangentially related to said line of speech. Such censorship-prompting topics abound - hate speech, questioning the legitimacy of the election, corvid disinformation, and of course antivax. I've seen plenty of examples of censorship via the big social media channels lately over alleged instances of this behavior, often due to mistaken or flimsy evidence with no real appeal process beyond hoping you would win in the court of public opinion if you yell loud enough. And some of the latest upgrades to this policy - e.g. questioning the effectiveness of more established vaccines like MMR and having a "vaccines cause autism" viewpoint - have so very little to do with said global health crisis as to be an obvious overreach. It definitely is about censorship under the pretense of stopping "dangerous opinions." Broad censorship campaigns are always cloaked in the language of providing security. There are no air quotes. These are dangerous opinions. Factually, scientifically, medically dangerous opinions. God forbid private companies have the freedom to allow or forbid certain things on their platforms, and god forbid we hold people responsible for their rhetoric by having consequences, like putting them in time-out for wreaking havoc. It's not like conspiracy theorists are being jailed; they're just being demonetized and/or deplatformed.
Censorship always targets the right bad stuff in the abstract, yes.
Though if "but those things really are bad/dangerous" is your takeaway from my post, you missed the point entirely. That's not the problem here.
|
I decided to take data from various countries to compare the vaccination progress to CFR and see if there's a meaningful correlation. The answer is yes, there's a very strong correlation.
CFR with outliers removed is meant to account for factors creating a possible bias like a poor healthcare system. I've removed the most significant outliers at both ends in each group.
I've also taken screenshots from each group in case someone wants to review the data themselves and check for errors. I wasn't able to take the data from every country, so the total is 170 out of roughly 200 currently existing countries.
PS: the least vaccinated countries are all in Africa as far as I can tell.
PPS: jokes and needles for my decision to exclude Hong Kong will not go unappreciated. Although I doubt it affects the data meaningfully.
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/d9e8b17dd5405300e5fd39eaebf8bda0.png)
|
On September 30 2021 13:52 Magic Powers wrote:
I decided to take data from various countries to compare the vaccination progress to CFR and see if there's a meaningful correlation. The answer is yes, there's a very strong correlation.
Forgive the dumb question, what is CFR?
|
|
|
On September 30 2021 07:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2021 06:10 BlackJack wrote:On September 29 2021 20:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2021 14:54 BlackJack wrote:On September 29 2021 07:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2021 06:42 BlackJack wrote:On September 29 2021 05:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2021 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On September 28 2021 21:48 NewSunshine wrote:On September 28 2021 11:52 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
The objection is that there is a difference between "employees must wash hands before returning to work" and "employees must be vaccinated before returning to work." It's not "logically inconsistent" to agree with one and not the other. The fact that you're okay with the government implementing some health and safety standards doesn't mean you automatically have to approve of every new health and safety standard. It's not an all-or-nothing where you have to either be okay with vaccine passports or be okay with Typhoid Mary cooking your dinner. Of course there's a difference between vaccines and washing your hands, that's why you're using that example. OSHA has exercised their authority already in the face of the smallpox epidemic to require vaccination, in addition to other substantial health and safety standards that go above and beyond whether people have the decency to wash their hands. Of course, if you're against the vaccine, this would seem like an overreach, and I'd understand that. The science is what it is, the way forward is a gravity issue. I can't help it if that upsets you. For the record, I'm not "against the vaccine." I got my first shot in Dec. 2020, only days after it was approved for emergency use. I encourage everyone I know to get vaccinated. Being against vaccine mandates and being against the vaccine isn't the same thing. What is the key difference that makes you against vaccine mandates, while simultaneously being for other sanitation/health/safety mandates? Why is a vaccine mandate an example of unacceptable government encroachment, while the other mandates are acceptable government encroachments? And are you against all vaccine mandates, or just for covid? Bodily autonomy, mostly. No, I don't have a blanket opposition to a vaccine mandate just as I don't have a blanket opposition to government lockdowns. My opposition is due to what COVID turned out to be. Very few children are dying of COVID and very few vaccinated adults are dying of COVID. Less than a typical flu season. If children were dying en masse I'd be all for holding people down and vaccinating them. But the data is pretty overwhelming: deaths from COVID (USA) are occurring almost exclusively in unvaccinated adults who have had the opportunity to protect themselves. Frankly, for me it's not a compelling argument to hold people down and inoculate them for their own good. People do stupid things at the expense of their health and longevity all the time and I don't really care. Thanks for clarifying. Are you against mask mandates as well? Would that infringe upon one's bodily autonomy enough to be an issue, too? Or is a mask mandate an acceptable amount of infringement? And also, while I agree with you / the data that most deaths (and hospitalizations, too!) are of unvaccinated adults (rather than children or vaccinated adults), there are still the issues of breakthrough cases and the perpetuation of covid, which are both primarily enabled by unvaccinated people. Unvaccinated people are more likely to become infected and infect others, which makes their vaccinated neighbors/families/friends/colleagues more susceptible, and it permits the virus to continue to survive and spread and thrive and mutate into additional strains, which may very well be resistant to outdated vaccines (again, endangering the vaccinated population). So unvaccinated people are not only putting themselves at risk, but they are presently putting vaccinated at risk too, and they'll continue to be putting everyone at risk for as long as covid is around. We already see this, as our vaccines are less effective against newer strains like the delta variant. Thoughts? I don't really care about mask mandates. Whining about having to cover your nose and mouth seems like the most trivial thing to claim to be oppressed over. But I also eye-roll at the people that lecture other people about about mask-wearing while they themselves wear cloth masks. Personally I only wear hospital -style surgical masks. I believe the science is pretty clear that they do a better job at stopping droplet transmission than cloth masks. They are also only minimally less comfortable than cloth masks at worst. They are cheap and widely available. It seems like if you support mask mandates to prevent transmission then you should not be wearing a cloth mask. Regarding your other point about the unvaccinated contributing to the spread and more variants. Probably true. People in this thread particularly like to use this argument of the unvaccinated prolonging the pandemic or how we will never end this as long as the unvaccinated are around. Maybe I am wrong but it's my understanding that most experts have already resigned to the fact that we are not going to eradicate COVID with herd immunity and it's here for the long-term with or without vaccine mandates. If there was compelling evidence that we could eradicate COVID with a vaccine mandate I might even jump on board for that. Yeah I agree with you that wearing a mask is incredibly trivial, and that wearing the *proper* mask (and wearing it correctly, too!) are super important as well. That being said, I find getting vaccinated to be even less of a hassle than wearing a mask. Buying and wearing masks every day, taking them on and off, making sure they stay clean, not being able to see people's faces, etc. vs. getting a few free shots? I've heard a reasonable complaint that some people can't take off work for the few days needed for vaccinations, but the simple counterargument is that infected, unvaccinated people are forced to take off many more days for work. I think it's definitely fair to say that getting an annual shot or two is far less oppressive than being forced to cover half your face every day. Thoughts? I considered it a privilege to get the COVID vaccine, not a hassle. I didn't miss any work and I had zero side effects minus a little anxiety. But on the whole, no, I consider it much less oppressive and much less of an assault on bodily autonomy to require mask-wearing than to require an injection into your body. It basically comes down to the giving up liberty for safety idea. Except here the safety you are getting is marginal at best. I already feel quite protected from COVID-19 after being double vaccinated and I'll probably get a booster soon. Basically every adult has the same opportunity for this protection. So it just comes down to how much authority I would want to give to the government over this. I agree with Magic Powers that during times of crisis is when the government is most eagerly looking for ways to increase their power and once they have more power they don't like to give it up. Dying of terrorism is also incredibly rare but it got people to go along with the Patriot Act and foreign wars that cost trillions. I think these are the times you have to be most vigilant about what the government is doing. We know that the additional safety from being vaccinated is actually incredibly important and significant, since it nearly guarantees that you won't become severely ill or die, and it helps protect those around you, too. It's not marginal for the individual, and lowering the infection rate of covid is not marginal for those of us who are vaccinated but are still forced to be near unvaccinated people (or for those who are immunocompromised and can't get the vaccine, who are forced to rely on the rest of us). The fact that this is a team effort is one of the reasons why I feel it's important to push harder for more people getting vaccinated. Also, what liberty is someone giving up by being vaccinated? Isn't it even more liberating to get vaccinated? To be free from the worst-case scenarios of a deadly disease? To be able to see loved ones again, without needing to worry about infecting and killing each other? To be able to work again? And even if getting a vaccine is a hassle, dealing with masks seems to be significantly more disruptive to one's life than getting a shot.
The liberty you are giving up with a hypothetical vaccine mandate is the liberty to choose for yourself what you want to put into your body instead of having the government decide for you. I think that's self-evident. Every adult already has the opportunity to get vaccinated. The only thing that changes is who makes the decision.
|
I think it's more than a bit reductive to say that's the only thing that changes. When someone decides not to get the vaccine, they're not just making the decision not to protect themselves, that choice ripples outward and endangers other people too. We risk the vaccine becoming obsolete just by virtue of the fact that the disease is still so free to mutate and select for more potent strains among the unvaccinated.
|
On September 30 2021 18:53 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2021 07:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 30 2021 06:10 BlackJack wrote:On September 29 2021 20:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2021 14:54 BlackJack wrote:On September 29 2021 07:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2021 06:42 BlackJack wrote:On September 29 2021 05:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2021 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On September 28 2021 21:48 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
Of course there's a difference between vaccines and washing your hands, that's why you're using that example. OSHA has exercised their authority already in the face of the smallpox epidemic to require vaccination, in addition to other substantial health and safety standards that go above and beyond whether people have the decency to wash their hands.
Of course, if you're against the vaccine, this would seem like an overreach, and I'd understand that. The science is what it is, the way forward is a gravity issue. I can't help it if that upsets you. For the record, I'm not "against the vaccine." I got my first shot in Dec. 2020, only days after it was approved for emergency use. I encourage everyone I know to get vaccinated. Being against vaccine mandates and being against the vaccine isn't the same thing. What is the key difference that makes you against vaccine mandates, while simultaneously being for other sanitation/health/safety mandates? Why is a vaccine mandate an example of unacceptable government encroachment, while the other mandates are acceptable government encroachments? And are you against all vaccine mandates, or just for covid? Bodily autonomy, mostly. No, I don't have a blanket opposition to a vaccine mandate just as I don't have a blanket opposition to government lockdowns. My opposition is due to what COVID turned out to be. Very few children are dying of COVID and very few vaccinated adults are dying of COVID. Less than a typical flu season. If children were dying en masse I'd be all for holding people down and vaccinating them. But the data is pretty overwhelming: deaths from COVID (USA) are occurring almost exclusively in unvaccinated adults who have had the opportunity to protect themselves. Frankly, for me it's not a compelling argument to hold people down and inoculate them for their own good. People do stupid things at the expense of their health and longevity all the time and I don't really care. Thanks for clarifying. Are you against mask mandates as well? Would that infringe upon one's bodily autonomy enough to be an issue, too? Or is a mask mandate an acceptable amount of infringement? And also, while I agree with you / the data that most deaths (and hospitalizations, too!) are of unvaccinated adults (rather than children or vaccinated adults), there are still the issues of breakthrough cases and the perpetuation of covid, which are both primarily enabled by unvaccinated people. Unvaccinated people are more likely to become infected and infect others, which makes their vaccinated neighbors/families/friends/colleagues more susceptible, and it permits the virus to continue to survive and spread and thrive and mutate into additional strains, which may very well be resistant to outdated vaccines (again, endangering the vaccinated population). So unvaccinated people are not only putting themselves at risk, but they are presently putting vaccinated at risk too, and they'll continue to be putting everyone at risk for as long as covid is around. We already see this, as our vaccines are less effective against newer strains like the delta variant. Thoughts? I don't really care about mask mandates. Whining about having to cover your nose and mouth seems like the most trivial thing to claim to be oppressed over. But I also eye-roll at the people that lecture other people about about mask-wearing while they themselves wear cloth masks. Personally I only wear hospital -style surgical masks. I believe the science is pretty clear that they do a better job at stopping droplet transmission than cloth masks. They are also only minimally less comfortable than cloth masks at worst. They are cheap and widely available. It seems like if you support mask mandates to prevent transmission then you should not be wearing a cloth mask. Regarding your other point about the unvaccinated contributing to the spread and more variants. Probably true. People in this thread particularly like to use this argument of the unvaccinated prolonging the pandemic or how we will never end this as long as the unvaccinated are around. Maybe I am wrong but it's my understanding that most experts have already resigned to the fact that we are not going to eradicate COVID with herd immunity and it's here for the long-term with or without vaccine mandates. If there was compelling evidence that we could eradicate COVID with a vaccine mandate I might even jump on board for that. Yeah I agree with you that wearing a mask is incredibly trivial, and that wearing the *proper* mask (and wearing it correctly, too!) are super important as well. That being said, I find getting vaccinated to be even less of a hassle than wearing a mask. Buying and wearing masks every day, taking them on and off, making sure they stay clean, not being able to see people's faces, etc. vs. getting a few free shots? I've heard a reasonable complaint that some people can't take off work for the few days needed for vaccinations, but the simple counterargument is that infected, unvaccinated people are forced to take off many more days for work. I think it's definitely fair to say that getting an annual shot or two is far less oppressive than being forced to cover half your face every day. Thoughts? I considered it a privilege to get the COVID vaccine, not a hassle. I didn't miss any work and I had zero side effects minus a little anxiety. But on the whole, no, I consider it much less oppressive and much less of an assault on bodily autonomy to require mask-wearing than to require an injection into your body. It basically comes down to the giving up liberty for safety idea. Except here the safety you are getting is marginal at best. I already feel quite protected from COVID-19 after being double vaccinated and I'll probably get a booster soon. Basically every adult has the same opportunity for this protection. So it just comes down to how much authority I would want to give to the government over this. I agree with Magic Powers that during times of crisis is when the government is most eagerly looking for ways to increase their power and once they have more power they don't like to give it up. Dying of terrorism is also incredibly rare but it got people to go along with the Patriot Act and foreign wars that cost trillions. I think these are the times you have to be most vigilant about what the government is doing. We know that the additional safety from being vaccinated is actually incredibly important and significant, since it nearly guarantees that you won't become severely ill or die, and it helps protect those around you, too. It's not marginal for the individual, and lowering the infection rate of covid is not marginal for those of us who are vaccinated but are still forced to be near unvaccinated people (or for those who are immunocompromised and can't get the vaccine, who are forced to rely on the rest of us). The fact that this is a team effort is one of the reasons why I feel it's important to push harder for more people getting vaccinated. Also, what liberty is someone giving up by being vaccinated? Isn't it even more liberating to get vaccinated? To be free from the worst-case scenarios of a deadly disease? To be able to see loved ones again, without needing to worry about infecting and killing each other? To be able to work again? And even if getting a vaccine is a hassle, dealing with masks seems to be significantly more disruptive to one's life than getting a shot. The liberty you are giving up with a hypothetical vaccine mandate is the liberty to choose for yourself what you want to put into your body instead of having the government decide for you. I think that's self-evident. Every adult already has the opportunity to get vaccinated. The only thing that changes is who makes the decision.
How do you decide which liberties are okay to restrict (seat belt / air bag laws, previous vaccine mandates, etc.) and which ones we ought not to restrict? Do you have any specific criteria? For example, my primary criterion has to do with the trade-off of personal liberty vs. how others are affected by one's "personal liberty" decision. The freedom to swing my arm ends at the tip of your nose, and I think this is particularly relevant during an infectious disease pandemic, when one's personal liberty to stay unvaccinated infringes on other people's personal liberty to stay safe and healthy. At that point, an anti-vaxxer's personal freedom is restricting the freedom of others. Thoughts?
And, as an aside: Would you consider an enforced government mandate to be generally indistinguishable from all businesses and shops and supermarkets voluntarily enforcing their own mandates (without government pressure)?
|
On September 30 2021 18:53 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2021 07:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 30 2021 06:10 BlackJack wrote:On September 29 2021 20:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2021 14:54 BlackJack wrote:On September 29 2021 07:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2021 06:42 BlackJack wrote:On September 29 2021 05:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2021 05:09 BlackJack wrote:On September 28 2021 21:48 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
Of course there's a difference between vaccines and washing your hands, that's why you're using that example. OSHA has exercised their authority already in the face of the smallpox epidemic to require vaccination, in addition to other substantial health and safety standards that go above and beyond whether people have the decency to wash their hands.
Of course, if you're against the vaccine, this would seem like an overreach, and I'd understand that. The science is what it is, the way forward is a gravity issue. I can't help it if that upsets you. For the record, I'm not "against the vaccine." I got my first shot in Dec. 2020, only days after it was approved for emergency use. I encourage everyone I know to get vaccinated. Being against vaccine mandates and being against the vaccine isn't the same thing. What is the key difference that makes you against vaccine mandates, while simultaneously being for other sanitation/health/safety mandates? Why is a vaccine mandate an example of unacceptable government encroachment, while the other mandates are acceptable government encroachments? And are you against all vaccine mandates, or just for covid? Bodily autonomy, mostly. No, I don't have a blanket opposition to a vaccine mandate just as I don't have a blanket opposition to government lockdowns. My opposition is due to what COVID turned out to be. Very few children are dying of COVID and very few vaccinated adults are dying of COVID. Less than a typical flu season. If children were dying en masse I'd be all for holding people down and vaccinating them. But the data is pretty overwhelming: deaths from COVID (USA) are occurring almost exclusively in unvaccinated adults who have had the opportunity to protect themselves. Frankly, for me it's not a compelling argument to hold people down and inoculate them for their own good. People do stupid things at the expense of their health and longevity all the time and I don't really care. Thanks for clarifying. Are you against mask mandates as well? Would that infringe upon one's bodily autonomy enough to be an issue, too? Or is a mask mandate an acceptable amount of infringement? And also, while I agree with you / the data that most deaths (and hospitalizations, too!) are of unvaccinated adults (rather than children or vaccinated adults), there are still the issues of breakthrough cases and the perpetuation of covid, which are both primarily enabled by unvaccinated people. Unvaccinated people are more likely to become infected and infect others, which makes their vaccinated neighbors/families/friends/colleagues more susceptible, and it permits the virus to continue to survive and spread and thrive and mutate into additional strains, which may very well be resistant to outdated vaccines (again, endangering the vaccinated population). So unvaccinated people are not only putting themselves at risk, but they are presently putting vaccinated at risk too, and they'll continue to be putting everyone at risk for as long as covid is around. We already see this, as our vaccines are less effective against newer strains like the delta variant. Thoughts? I don't really care about mask mandates. Whining about having to cover your nose and mouth seems like the most trivial thing to claim to be oppressed over. But I also eye-roll at the people that lecture other people about about mask-wearing while they themselves wear cloth masks. Personally I only wear hospital -style surgical masks. I believe the science is pretty clear that they do a better job at stopping droplet transmission than cloth masks. They are also only minimally less comfortable than cloth masks at worst. They are cheap and widely available. It seems like if you support mask mandates to prevent transmission then you should not be wearing a cloth mask. Regarding your other point about the unvaccinated contributing to the spread and more variants. Probably true. People in this thread particularly like to use this argument of the unvaccinated prolonging the pandemic or how we will never end this as long as the unvaccinated are around. Maybe I am wrong but it's my understanding that most experts have already resigned to the fact that we are not going to eradicate COVID with herd immunity and it's here for the long-term with or without vaccine mandates. If there was compelling evidence that we could eradicate COVID with a vaccine mandate I might even jump on board for that. Yeah I agree with you that wearing a mask is incredibly trivial, and that wearing the *proper* mask (and wearing it correctly, too!) are super important as well. That being said, I find getting vaccinated to be even less of a hassle than wearing a mask. Buying and wearing masks every day, taking them on and off, making sure they stay clean, not being able to see people's faces, etc. vs. getting a few free shots? I've heard a reasonable complaint that some people can't take off work for the few days needed for vaccinations, but the simple counterargument is that infected, unvaccinated people are forced to take off many more days for work. I think it's definitely fair to say that getting an annual shot or two is far less oppressive than being forced to cover half your face every day. Thoughts? I considered it a privilege to get the COVID vaccine, not a hassle. I didn't miss any work and I had zero side effects minus a little anxiety. But on the whole, no, I consider it much less oppressive and much less of an assault on bodily autonomy to require mask-wearing than to require an injection into your body. It basically comes down to the giving up liberty for safety idea. Except here the safety you are getting is marginal at best. I already feel quite protected from COVID-19 after being double vaccinated and I'll probably get a booster soon. Basically every adult has the same opportunity for this protection. So it just comes down to how much authority I would want to give to the government over this. I agree with Magic Powers that during times of crisis is when the government is most eagerly looking for ways to increase their power and once they have more power they don't like to give it up. Dying of terrorism is also incredibly rare but it got people to go along with the Patriot Act and foreign wars that cost trillions. I think these are the times you have to be most vigilant about what the government is doing. We know that the additional safety from being vaccinated is actually incredibly important and significant, since it nearly guarantees that you won't become severely ill or die, and it helps protect those around you, too. It's not marginal for the individual, and lowering the infection rate of covid is not marginal for those of us who are vaccinated but are still forced to be near unvaccinated people (or for those who are immunocompromised and can't get the vaccine, who are forced to rely on the rest of us). The fact that this is a team effort is one of the reasons why I feel it's important to push harder for more people getting vaccinated. Also, what liberty is someone giving up by being vaccinated? Isn't it even more liberating to get vaccinated? To be free from the worst-case scenarios of a deadly disease? To be able to see loved ones again, without needing to worry about infecting and killing each other? To be able to work again? And even if getting a vaccine is a hassle, dealing with masks seems to be significantly more disruptive to one's life than getting a shot. The liberty you are giving up with a hypothetical vaccine mandate is the liberty to choose for yourself what you want to put into your body instead of having the government decide for you. I think that's self-evident. Every adult already has the opportunity to get vaccinated. The only thing that changes is who makes the decision.
I believe in bodily autonomy as well, but I see it in a much stricter sense. I disagree with the government using violence to enforce its policies (in this case vaccination), but using other incentives for compliance and punishments for non-compliance is fair game.
People should be able to choose to not get vaccinated because it's their body, but that says nothing about it being free of consequence. They're bringing great risk to their society, and therefore should be faced with a corresponding great cost.
|
On September 30 2021 19:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2021 18:53 BlackJack wrote:On September 30 2021 07:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 30 2021 06:10 BlackJack wrote:On September 29 2021 20:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2021 14:54 BlackJack wrote:On September 29 2021 07:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2021 06:42 BlackJack wrote:On September 29 2021 05:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 29 2021 05:09 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
For the record, I'm not "against the vaccine." I got my first shot in Dec. 2020, only days after it was approved for emergency use. I encourage everyone I know to get vaccinated. Being against vaccine mandates and being against the vaccine isn't the same thing.
What is the key difference that makes you against vaccine mandates, while simultaneously being for other sanitation/health/safety mandates? Why is a vaccine mandate an example of unacceptable government encroachment, while the other mandates are acceptable government encroachments? And are you against all vaccine mandates, or just for covid? Bodily autonomy, mostly. No, I don't have a blanket opposition to a vaccine mandate just as I don't have a blanket opposition to government lockdowns. My opposition is due to what COVID turned out to be. Very few children are dying of COVID and very few vaccinated adults are dying of COVID. Less than a typical flu season. If children were dying en masse I'd be all for holding people down and vaccinating them. But the data is pretty overwhelming: deaths from COVID (USA) are occurring almost exclusively in unvaccinated adults who have had the opportunity to protect themselves. Frankly, for me it's not a compelling argument to hold people down and inoculate them for their own good. People do stupid things at the expense of their health and longevity all the time and I don't really care. Thanks for clarifying. Are you against mask mandates as well? Would that infringe upon one's bodily autonomy enough to be an issue, too? Or is a mask mandate an acceptable amount of infringement? And also, while I agree with you / the data that most deaths (and hospitalizations, too!) are of unvaccinated adults (rather than children or vaccinated adults), there are still the issues of breakthrough cases and the perpetuation of covid, which are both primarily enabled by unvaccinated people. Unvaccinated people are more likely to become infected and infect others, which makes their vaccinated neighbors/families/friends/colleagues more susceptible, and it permits the virus to continue to survive and spread and thrive and mutate into additional strains, which may very well be resistant to outdated vaccines (again, endangering the vaccinated population). So unvaccinated people are not only putting themselves at risk, but they are presently putting vaccinated at risk too, and they'll continue to be putting everyone at risk for as long as covid is around. We already see this, as our vaccines are less effective against newer strains like the delta variant. Thoughts? I don't really care about mask mandates. Whining about having to cover your nose and mouth seems like the most trivial thing to claim to be oppressed over. But I also eye-roll at the people that lecture other people about about mask-wearing while they themselves wear cloth masks. Personally I only wear hospital -style surgical masks. I believe the science is pretty clear that they do a better job at stopping droplet transmission than cloth masks. They are also only minimally less comfortable than cloth masks at worst. They are cheap and widely available. It seems like if you support mask mandates to prevent transmission then you should not be wearing a cloth mask. Regarding your other point about the unvaccinated contributing to the spread and more variants. Probably true. People in this thread particularly like to use this argument of the unvaccinated prolonging the pandemic or how we will never end this as long as the unvaccinated are around. Maybe I am wrong but it's my understanding that most experts have already resigned to the fact that we are not going to eradicate COVID with herd immunity and it's here for the long-term with or without vaccine mandates. If there was compelling evidence that we could eradicate COVID with a vaccine mandate I might even jump on board for that. Yeah I agree with you that wearing a mask is incredibly trivial, and that wearing the *proper* mask (and wearing it correctly, too!) are super important as well. That being said, I find getting vaccinated to be even less of a hassle than wearing a mask. Buying and wearing masks every day, taking them on and off, making sure they stay clean, not being able to see people's faces, etc. vs. getting a few free shots? I've heard a reasonable complaint that some people can't take off work for the few days needed for vaccinations, but the simple counterargument is that infected, unvaccinated people are forced to take off many more days for work. I think it's definitely fair to say that getting an annual shot or two is far less oppressive than being forced to cover half your face every day. Thoughts? I considered it a privilege to get the COVID vaccine, not a hassle. I didn't miss any work and I had zero side effects minus a little anxiety. But on the whole, no, I consider it much less oppressive and much less of an assault on bodily autonomy to require mask-wearing than to require an injection into your body. It basically comes down to the giving up liberty for safety idea. Except here the safety you are getting is marginal at best. I already feel quite protected from COVID-19 after being double vaccinated and I'll probably get a booster soon. Basically every adult has the same opportunity for this protection. So it just comes down to how much authority I would want to give to the government over this. I agree with Magic Powers that during times of crisis is when the government is most eagerly looking for ways to increase their power and once they have more power they don't like to give it up. Dying of terrorism is also incredibly rare but it got people to go along with the Patriot Act and foreign wars that cost trillions. I think these are the times you have to be most vigilant about what the government is doing. We know that the additional safety from being vaccinated is actually incredibly important and significant, since it nearly guarantees that you won't become severely ill or die, and it helps protect those around you, too. It's not marginal for the individual, and lowering the infection rate of covid is not marginal for those of us who are vaccinated but are still forced to be near unvaccinated people (or for those who are immunocompromised and can't get the vaccine, who are forced to rely on the rest of us). The fact that this is a team effort is one of the reasons why I feel it's important to push harder for more people getting vaccinated. Also, what liberty is someone giving up by being vaccinated? Isn't it even more liberating to get vaccinated? To be free from the worst-case scenarios of a deadly disease? To be able to see loved ones again, without needing to worry about infecting and killing each other? To be able to work again? And even if getting a vaccine is a hassle, dealing with masks seems to be significantly more disruptive to one's life than getting a shot. The liberty you are giving up with a hypothetical vaccine mandate is the liberty to choose for yourself what you want to put into your body instead of having the government decide for you. I think that's self-evident. Every adult already has the opportunity to get vaccinated. The only thing that changes is who makes the decision. How do you decide which liberties are okay to restrict (seat belt / air bag laws, previous vaccine mandates, etc.) and which ones we ought not to restrict? Do you have any specific criteria? For example, my primary criterion has to do with the trade-off of personal liberty vs. how others are affected by one's "personal liberty" decision. The freedom to swing my arm ends at the tip of your nose, and I think this is particularly relevant during an infectious disease pandemic, when one's personal liberty to stay unvaccinated infringes on other people's personal liberty to stay safe and healthy. At that point, an anti-vaxxer's personal freedom is restricting the freedom of others. Thoughts? And, as an aside: Would you consider an enforced government mandate to be generally indistinguishable from all businesses and shops and supermarkets voluntarily enforcing their own mandates (without government pressure)?
There have been roughly 3-4k breakthrough deaths so far in the 9-10 months we've been vaccinating people. It seems unlikely that 100% of those cases were contracted from an unvaccinated person and 100% of those deaths could have been prevented if we had forced vaccinations so at best you are saving some fraction of that 3-4k. A bad flu season can kill 50k+ people. Relatively speaking, If you're double vaccinated, COVID is not that big of a threat to you and therefore the unvaccinated are not that big of a threat to you. Vaccine mandates only make this relatively small risk marginally smaller. If you're double vaccinated you might be better off fighting for flu vaccine mandates than COVID vaccine mandates (being facetious with that last sentence)
For the aside: businesses and shops and supermarkets should be free to have whatever policies they want in terms of enforcing enforcing vaccine mandates, masks, etc.
|
On September 30 2021 09:04 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2021 08:42 Lmui wrote:Well, google is finally cracking down on antivax videos, probably a year late at this point. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/29/youtube-ban-joseph-mercola/lots of other articles about it, but outright bans for antivax outlets is a good start. Facebook is the other big player in the antivax space that needs to have a crackdown. Facebook has been a massive detriment to civilized discourse because of how powerfully it amplifies misinformation and lies. I'm glad the government and powerful corporations are working together to censor people with opinions I don't like about covid. I'm sure this will never be abused for stuff that isn't convenient to them. If anything, we need more government/big corporations dictating what's acceptable discourse on the internet. + Show Spoiler + I will clarify this is sarcasm, given some people actively cheer for this stuff
I heard gotunk likes to hit baby dolphins on his free time and then use their flesh for satanistic rituals.
but my free speech?
Cracking down on misinformation isn't a bad thing, especially when the amount of it, and the people watching it, has exploded on facebook/youtube over the past few years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
