Coronavirus and You - Page 659

On November 14 2022 16:07 Symplectos wrote:

Maybe Shadowlands was a success after all.

Or, from the same page, resp. paper you linked:


You can scream about being unjustly censored, or of constantly being attacked, you can't, however, hide the fact that you are just posting all of this to provoke anger. The latter part of your post is either pure evilness, or utter ignorance.

"Common explanations of fertility change during the pandemic do not apply in its aftermath."

Common explanations of fertility change during the pandemic do not apply in its aftermath. The association between the onset of mass vaccinations and subsequent fertility decline indicates that people adjusted their behaviour to get vaccinated before becoming pregnant, as societies were opening up with post-pandemic life conditions.

While they stop short from blaming vaccine itself for this and provide other possible reasons, this is (to my knowledge) so far harshest statement regarding vaccine from any official government agency.

In some cases, there may have been a more direct effect of the vaccination programme as such, as some prospective parents may have postponed a decision to have another child until after securing a vaccination for themselves.

Italic 2: Fact that you believe, that someone posting something you disagree with does so "to provoke anger", gives somewhat interesting insight into state of your mind.

On November 14 2022 12:24 evilfatsh1t wrote:
so you guys dont say a word about jimmic's dumb take on censorship because....you owe him your allegiance for other times you have been on the same "side"?
and then the moment your favourite opponent says a word you jump at the opportunity to respond to him whilst completely ignoring the subject matter?

yeah my respect for a lot of people in this thread is going down pretty fast. so far the only one who had the balls to call jimmi out was wombat. everyone else that was generally on good terms with jimmi must have coincidentally stopped reading the thread recently.

On November 14 2022 18:52 Mikau313 wrote:

Or perhaps because it just isn't censorship if the exact same video is still up on the exact same platform under the exact same title.

A video that gets removed and then freely gets reuploaded isn't censorship.

On November 14 2022 18:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Does this paper in any way shape or form claim that vaccines have influenced the fertility of women, or is it claiming that the vaccination program has influenced people's decisions regarding when to have children, or is it claiming that during covid, time-frame wise coinciding with when vaccine programs were happening, quite some people for various reasons decided to delay having children?

The first would be a huge statement/finding (and I'd want corroborating studies, but also expect that corroborating studies would happen to see if the findings replicate), the middle would be hm, mildly interesting, I wonder why, and the third would be something I accept at face value.

The association between the onset of mass vaccinations and subsequent fertility decline indicates that people adjusted their behaviour to get vaccinated before becoming pregnant, as societies were opening up with post-pandemic life conditions.

Based on the descriptive associations presented in this study, we interpret the post-pandemic change in childbearing behaviour as a reaction to the changes in life circumstances that were anticipated as societies were to open up to non-pandemic conditions.

Taken together, the observations of parity-specific fertility changes during 2021-2022 suggest that a large part of the
post-pandemic fertility change can be ascribed to behavioural changes in reaction to societies opening up to less home-centred life circumstances than those prevailing during the pandemic.

In some cases, there may have been a more direct effect of the vaccination programme as such, as some prospective parents may have postponed a decision to have another child until after securing a vaccination for themselves.

On November 14 2022 19:01 BlackJack wrote:


What do you call it then?

On November 14 2022 19:01 BlackJack wrote:


What do you call it then?

On November 14 2022 19:05 Mikau313 wrote:


That would depend on why it got removed in the first place, which is information we don't have (except for the makers saying it was because of medical misinformation, which they would say regardless of any validity because it fits their narrative).

On November 14 2022 19:05 Mikau313 wrote:


That would depend on why it got removed in the first place, which is information we don't have (except for the makers saying it was because of medical misinformation, which they would say regardless of any validity because it fits their narrative).

On November 14 2022 19:11 BlackJack wrote:


Why does the reason it was taken down matter if your argument is that "if it freely gets reuploaded it isn't censorship?"

Is your argument that it's not censorship because some random mirror was reuploaded that got a fraction of the views? Or is your argument that we're not sure why it got taken down so it might not have been censored?

Or let's just assume it was taken down for "medical misinformation." Do you not call that censorship? What do you call it then? Suppression?

On November 14 2022 19:11 BlackJack wrote:


Why does the reason it was taken down matter if your argument is that "if it freely gets reuploaded it isn't censorship?"

Is your argument that it's not censorship because some random mirror was reuploaded that got a fraction of the views? Or is your argument that we're not sure why it got taken down so it might not have been censored?

Or let's just assume it was taken down for "medical misinformation." Do you not call that censorship? What do you call it then? Suppression?

On November 14 2022 19:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:

i commend you for being brave enough to side with jimmic. unfortunately you have just made yourself to look like a fool.
im not gonna rehash why youre wrong, because its all already in the thread, but have you even watched the video yourself? or are you going to do what jimmi did and rely on your omniscience to just "know" that the video is full of shit, the reason the video was removed is false, and the producers are lying?
the audacity of some of you to straight up try and discredit something you havent even given a minute of your time is hilarious.
"oh i found a mirror, hahahah they were lying about the numbers."
"oh so the numbers were correct. but they were lying about why the video got removed!!"
"we dont know why the video got removed. i didnt watch the video but i know for sure that everything the producers are claiming is false!! it must have been removed for some other reason!!"

On November 14 2022 19:16 Symplectos wrote:

I think, I am not sure, the argument is, as Makau is explaining, that we do not know the exact circumstances as to why the video in question was taken down.

For your last question, from my point of view, removing medical misinformation is not censorship. I see no reason why we, as a society, should allow dangerous misinformation, which could endanger the life of many people, to be spread all over the internet.

On November 14 2022 19:16 Symplectos wrote:

I think, I am not sure, the argument is, as Makau is explaining, that we do not know the exact circumstances as to why the video in question was taken down.

For your last question, from my point of view, removing medical misinformation is not censorship. I see no reason why we, as a society, should allow dangerous misinformation, which could endanger the life of many people, to be spread all over the internet.

On November 14 2022 19:19 Mikau313 wrote:


I don't have to watch the video, because I made exactly 0 claims about the video's content one way or the other.

I merely pointed out to you that a video being removed isn't censorship by itself, and that the fact that a second copy of the video is up on the exact same website with the exact same title shows that clearly. Youtube, very clearly, aren't trying to suppress this video, or the second video would have been gone as well. Intentional suppression is a mandatory part of censorship.

I repeat. I have made 0 claims about the video's contents and the validity of said content, because it is completely irrelevant to the conversation of "was this censorship". I have also not tried to discredit the video, nor have I accused anybody of lying, or of numbers being incorrect. Please keep those arguments for the people who made those claims, it doesn't exactly help you to conflate what I'm saying with what Jimmi is saying.

we are arguing about whether the removal was an act of censorship, and it was.

youre either making them because you refuse to believe the producers

On November 14 2022 19:04 Gorsameth wrote:
The youtube algorithm being shit?

This entire discussions feels like its not an actual discussion about censorship but just a complaint about Youtube being Youtube.

On November 14 2022 19:35 Symplectos wrote:

First it is said that everything is always censorship, then it is said that it is argued whether it is censorship or not, and then it is simply stated as a fact that it was censorship.

I might sometimes not even disagree with the ideas mentioned, but always stating "facts" based on personal beliefs doesn't lead to an open discussion, I am afraid.


Believing that something is true is never a good thing, especially not in a discussion about a scientific topic.

On November 14 2022 19:20 BlackJack wrote:


It is censorship, you just think it's an acceptable form of censorship. Which is an okay opinion to have. We all agree with censorship to some extent.

On November 14 2022 19:26 evilfatsh1t wrote:

no, it would still be censorship. if the information was complete bullshit and did nothing other than bring harm to society, then the censorship would have been justified. like trump was censored on twitter for his stupid remarks, and i would agree that although it was censorship, it was the right course of action.
we arent arguing about whether this was the right course of action or not, we are arguing about whether the removal was an act of censorship, and it was. a video that made serious allegations about the safety and integrity of the covid vaccine programs was gaining a lot of traction and the youtube reviewing team chose to remove it from its platform. but if some users here want to delude themselves that it was a copyright infringement (which if you know anything about youtube, would know that copyright infringement doesnt take your whole video down immediately), then whatever.

as for whether it was the right course of action, that would be a debate for people who have actually watched the video, which seemingly none of us here have. as for me, i think based on what i saw in the video, theres enough credibility there that it shouldnt have been removed.


sure i could agree with your points if we were speaking about any random video in general. however its already been a long time since we established that there is an official reason given for the removal and the contents of the video is consistent with what irrational people might think as 'anti-vax'.
so your point that the video could have been removed for any number of reasons is moot. youre too late to the conversation to stick to those guns now; youre either making them because you refuse to believe the producers and/or youre making blind assumptions like jimmi without even having reviewed the content.