Firstly, I am not advocating "mandating" vaccines for under-12s.
Secondly, my point was that you shifted your focus. You weren't initially talking about under-12s; you were initially talking broadly about "kids". Then, when data was provided showing secondary school kids actually have been quite badly affected and secondary schools have suffered outbreaks, then you shifted to talking only about under-12s.
It is not a very strong defence of that shift to say, "yeah well, most kids are under 12".
Then, what the fuck are you even advocating? My whole thing in THIS discussion is that you can't mandate kids getting vaccinated (whether all kids, whether kids under 12, whether just high schoolers). So what the fuck are you disagreeing with?
I quoted my post for 4 months back saying maybe high school isn't safe to re-open but you have to consider all benefits/harms from it being closed or open and decide what is most beneficial overall. Opening schools and vaccinating kids are 2 different discussions. And, no the study didn't say high schools have been "quite badly affected". You keep exaggerating everything to make covid the most dangerous thing in human history.
So this is all due to the pluralisation of "doctors" in Agema's post?
Bollocks was it. You claimed afterwards that you hadn't mentioned Makary in the post. Because you forgot. Just be honest.
I didn't fucking forget, I removed Marty because I was asking squarely about the CDC director in that post. And much like Fauci, Agema likes avoiding answering the actual questions I ask.
Then why are you posting Makary (a non-expert) rather than the experts in the field?
I suspect, as usual, it's because those experts actually don't come to conclusions that you find helpful.
Marty is a public health expert.
No, Facebook blocking content merely requires the decision of a small number of people - potentially even just one person - at Facebook, who are perfectly capable of making their own decisions without being told what to do by the secretive cabal that conspiracy theorists are trying to magic up.
I think you need to contextualise "big journals". Big journals tend to print big discoveries, and speculating stuff without good evidence does not tend to get into in big journals.
Why would anyone at Facebook block discussion of something that wasn't told to them by highly reputable scientists or officials saying talking about something is either just plain 110% wrong information or dangerous? When has Facebook in the past just banned discussion of something just because say Mark Zuckerberg didn't like it?
Fauci and NIH is also basically the king of funding. So if you're a researcher, are you more likely to research something that Fauci says is 100% wrong or are you gonna research something else when your money is controlled by Fauci? That's not some conspiracy, that's how things just work regardless of your job.
Big journals also like printing stuff people want to read like newsworthy things and the coronavirus is newsworthy. I wonder why bullshit studies like finding covid on cruise ships after a month gets news articles, that's hardly some big discovery and it's even expected. Also, calling the lab leak theory racist is just another tactic to get discussion and research looked down upon when it literally makes no sense on why a lab leak would be more racist than blaming China's wet-market that is already very heavily looked down upon already.
Also, decent 60 Minutes piece with Peter Daszak being interviewed and the interviewer says "but you're just taking their work on it". Hardly sounds like something that could be proved 100% false and banned from public discussion.
Uh-huh. Now think about that for a minute - which would evidently be a minute longer than you have spent so far.
And that proves all the infections they couldn't trace involve the outdoors? You act as if people don't carry around tracking devices that show a history of where they've been.
Outdoors is safe depending on how people interact outdoors.
No, outdoors is very safe period. Less than 0.1% chance of getting covid outside (per Ireland numbers) coupled with a less than 0.02% of dying (if you're 49 or younger per CDC data) is very fucking safe. Yes, it's not no-risk but being safe doesn't mean there's no-risk. This whole "no-risk" stuff is bullshit, it's not no-risk driving to the grocery store either.
Because it's not better than the mask data, except in your hopelessly addled mind. Never mind that masks help everyone, but vitamin D looks very much like it's only going to only help the people deficient in vitamin D. And there are already public health recommendations around vitamin D.
And the people deficient in vitamin d are the ones being hospitalized and dying from covid. Again, it's cheaper than masks and why not "better safe than sorry"? You say you gotta wear a mask outside because "better safe than sorry" while vitamin d can definitely help more people than having people wear masks outside but "no, don't do that, that makes no sense whatsoever".
It's like you simply don't understand the point, despite it made several points, which is that the term "airborne" as you are employing it is not the same as the CDC.
The ignorant can make decisions on incomplete data and tell themselves what geniuses they are on the occasions they luck out. The CDC, however, has a duty to make its claims evidence-based.
And frontline doctors were saying since the start that the virus is airborne. Doctors and nurses know what contact, droplet, and aiborne precautions are (the signs are on every patient room at hospitals) and if they are getting infected when abiding by droplet precautions, guess what? It doesn't take a year+ of investigation to figure it out. You go with, AT THE TIME, what the evidence is pointing at and make any adjustments based on new evidence. It's super great that the CDC finally said the virus is airborne after reaching herd immunity!!! That's how public health is supposed to work!!! Our system is working perfectly and there's no problems with it whatsoever!!!