Funny events in anti-woke world

[Phoenixmgs]

You routinely misrepresent what Paul Offit says (or ignore it when you don't like it), while also totally ignoring the wider scientific community outside of a handful of your favourite figures. I have no faith that you're speaking accurately here either.



Ok, thank you for your opinion on covid public health policy, but once again: that's not what we're discussing.



What specific numbers are you asking for? Global deaths from measles in 1998 to 2008?

Why? You think some correlation, or lack thereof, would settle this question? Think again (or in your case, for the first time). We are talking about high tens of thousands of deaths annually; millions of cases, often in low-information communities. That number would be shaped by literally millions of factors. Isolating quantitative, definitive, attributable numbers for one such factor is impossible.

What we can do is look at the media reach the study had, and common features of anti-vax rhetoric. And wouldn't you know, the links that Wakefield fraudulently pointed to, they keep coming up.

1) He said that and 2) it is current scientific consensus the covid vaccine does not prevent infections. The CDC and people like Fauci were horrible in communicating science and just propagated misinformation half the time.

Paul Offit:
Right, when we reviewed data in December 2020 with Pfizer/Moderna, they both had roughly 95% protection, not only against severe disease, but even mild disease. Remarkable, that was a remarkable level of protection. No way that was gonna last. I mean, and in fact, six months later, several studies showed that while protection against severe disease remained high, protection against mild disease dropped to as low as 50%. So why was it so good with those initial trials? And the answer is those were three month studies. Those participants had just received their second dose. So their neutralizing antibodies were high.

I would wish we could go back in time. And when those data were presented, we could have said this protection against mild disease is not going to last given the nature of this infection. And given the way these trials were done, that’s not going to last. And we did the opposite. I think what happened was six months later when say there was an outbreak in Provincetown, Massachusetts, thousands of men get together, celebrate the July 4th holiday, there’s about 79% or 80% were vaccinated. But nonetheless, there’s an outbreak. And of the 346 men who got sick, four were hospitalized, a hospitalization of one point rate of 1.2%, that’s a win. That’s great. But the other 342 men had mild or asymptomatic infection, which the CDC unfortunately labeled as breakthrough illnesses and that was a mistake. Breakthrough implies failure, that wasn’t a failure. That was a moment actually to celebrate the vaccine, to celebrate how amazing it was working here with this outbreak in this basically close space or close together community in Provincetown, and we didn’t do that, we did the opposite of that, the opposite. And so the term breakthrough was born, and I remember just a few days after that was reported, Brett Kavanaugh, Supreme Court Justice gets an asymptomatic infection. If you watch the way that was carried on national television, you would’ve thought he was in the intensive care unit. So we didn’t communicate that well.

---

And you keep forgetting why those policies were enacted. I'm complaining about the "why" not the actual policies. Here's Dr Fauci saying stuff that isn't t true... leading to politicians making policies that don't follow the science.

“Go out, wear a mask, stay 6 feet away from anyone so you can have the physical distancing,” [Fauci] told a CNN coronavirus town hall. “Go for a run. Go for a walk. Go fishing. As long as you’re not in a crowd and you’re not in a situation where you can physically transmit the virus.”

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/23/health/us-coronavirus-saturday

---

So you literally have no evidence for your claim? Not shocked...

A community benefit would be some like reducing overall stress, reduce suicidal thoughts, educational poverty, financial stress, nutrition and physical exercise

Do you know what is extremely stressful? Having to turn up to work in person to pay the bills with a high chance of catching covid. This will lead to short term economic drains with the possibility of losing your job, extended hospital visits leading to poverty, permanant health compications and death. Suicidal thoughts dramatically increaee if you have been bankrupted from pay hospital bills or your loved one died. As soon as people started dying, business has to stop or slow down because they no longer had workers. Eg. Meat packers had tl shut down due to so many people permanent physically being damaged or died. Meat was in short supply. US school had to send in army to teacher becuase so many teachers died. Which is terrible for children who watch their teachers die and get a poor substitue

Stopping Covid from spreading does exactly what you want

And this does not take into account that no government, even the US, only focus on stopping the spread. They put in mental health program to help with thr stress. They sent food, particularly to poor children, to make sure everyone had enough.

quote]What the fuck are you talking about? You're just going on and on about stuff I never said. When the fuck did I lie about how many people died? You all lied about masks and still lie about masks, nobody has put forth any conclusive evidence that they work (find me any article from before 2020 that actually said masks do anything, that was the science and that is still the science because we only did a very small handful of actual decent mask studies). I said that you can't tell people to not socialize for months/years at a time and not have massive mental health issues. Telling people that they can't do things outside or kids can't play sports and whatnot were policies that helped reduce stress? They removed swings and other equipment from parks. That had the opposite affect and why I was very much against that.
QUOTE]
Just to be clear. I have kids and they were small during Covid. We did exercises with them. Dance teacher did zoom training sessions. We had small sand pits and mud kitchens. We bought a trampoline and scooter for the front verandah. We actively encourage spending time on messenger kids talking to their friends. Thats not something I would done before 2020.

You could do things different to help your child. All you are showing is a lack of creativity, ingenunity, lazy and actual giving a fuck about kids.

As to the claims about lies. You just made a claim about Offit which can only be seen as a lie. Pretending he's anti- Vaccine is like saying the sun is blue. Stop lying. Stop trying to kill people

A vaccine's "community benefit" has nothing to do with those things. A vaccine's community benefit reduces you spreading an infection to others, which the covid vaccine does not do. Whereas measles vaccine does that, it stops you from getting infected, which means you can't infect others. Even your example makes no sense because it doesn't matter if you got the vaccine, it doesn't matter if your co-workers Jim or Pam got the vaccine, as you all are still just as likely to get covid as you were before. YOU LITERALLY CAN'T STOP THE SPREAD OF COVID unless you're shutting down the country. And if you shutdown the country until a vaccine is developed and available, the economic hardships, suicides, etc will be far higher than if you let most people live mostly normally.

Kids could've of just been kids during covid and played outside with kids, they didn't need to have zoom meetings and talk on messenger. The flu is literally more dangerous for kids. If you wanna do all that stuff over covid to kids when it's less harmful to them, why don't you do it over the flu?

Again, what the fuck are you talking about? When did I ever claim Paul Offit is anti-vaccine? Just because not everyone needs to get vaccinated, doesn't mean your anti-vaccine. Paul Offit never got the measles vaccine because he didn't need it. He told his son not to get the covid booster not because he's anti-vaccine but because his son didn't need it.

 

[Silvanus]

1) He said that and 2) it is current scientific consensus the covid vaccine does prevent infections. The CDC and people like Fauci were horrible in communicating science and just propagated misinformation half the time.

Paul Offit:
Right, when we reviewed data in December 2020 with Pfizer/Moderna, they both had roughly 95% protection, not only against severe disease, but even mild disease. Remarkable, that was a remarkable level of protection. No way that was gonna last. I mean, and in fact, six months later, several studies showed that while protection against severe disease remained high, protection against mild disease dropped to as low as 50%. So why was it so good with those initial trials? And the answer is those were three month studies. Those participants had just received their second dose. So their neutralizing antibodies were high.

I would wish we could go back in time. And when those data were presented, we could have said this protection against mild disease is not going to last given the nature of this infection. And given the way these trials were done, that’s not going to last. And we did the opposite. I think what happened was six months later when say there was an outbreak in Provincetown, Massachusetts, thousands of men get together, celebrate the July 4th holiday, there’s about 79% or 80% were vaccinated. But nonetheless, there’s an outbreak. And of the 346 men who got sick, four were hospitalized, a hospitalization of one point rate of 1.2%, that’s a win. That’s great. But the other 342 men had mild or asymptomatic infection, which the CDC unfortunately labeled as breakthrough illnesses and that was a mistake. Breakthrough implies failure, that wasn’t a failure. That was a moment actually to celebrate the vaccine, to celebrate how amazing it was working here with this outbreak in this basically close space or close together community in Provincetown, and we didn’t do that, we did the opposite of that, the opposite. And so the term breakthrough was born, and I remember just a few days after that was reported, Brett Kavanaugh, Supreme Court Justice gets an asymptomatic infection. If you watch the way that was carried on national television, you would’ve thought he was in the intensive care unit. So we didn’t communicate that well.

That's odd. You seem to have posted a tract about how vaccine protection against mild infection isn't indefinite. Rather than something that shows the vaccines don't prevent infection at all.

And you keep forgetting why those policies were enacted. I'm complaining about the "why" not the actual policies. Here's Dr Fauci saying stuff that isn't t true... leading to politicians making policies that don't follow the science.

“Go out, wear a mask, stay 6 feet away from anyone so you can have the physical distancing,” [Fauci] told a CNN coronavirus town hall. “Go for a run. Go for a walk. Go fishing. As long as you’re not in a crowd and you’re not in a situation where you can physically transmit the virus.”

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/23/health/us-coronavirus-saturday

I know why those policies were enacted. Unlike you, i acknowledge that public health policy is not only derived from what "the science" says, and that some off-the-cuff early recommendations from Anthony Fauci are not "the science" anyway.

So you literally have no evidence for your claim? Not shocked...

You asked for a number that wouldn't prove anything. I explained to you why. I'm not going to run around providing irrelevant numbers at your beck and call.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That's odd. You seem to have posted a tract about how vaccine protection against mild infection isn't indefinite. Rather than something that shows the vaccines don't prevent infection at all.



I know why those policies were enacted. Unlike you, i acknowledge that public health policy is not only derived from what "the science" says, and that some off-the-cuff early recommendations from Anthony Fauci are not "the science" anyway.



You asked for a number that wouldn't prove anything. I explained to you why. I'm not going to run around providing irrelevant numbers at your beck and call.

Vaccines, exactly like actual infections, do the same fucking thing. If getting infected doesn't prevent future infections, neither will the vaccine. Or the opposite is true with measles, getting measles prevents you from getting it again and thus, the vaccine does the same thing. After you get an upper respiratory infection, you're immune from other ones for a time period. That's why you don't get the flu right after RSV (or a head cold). That's why people didn't get the flu right after covid or vice verse, you are immune from such things for like a month or so. Saying you are protected from covid infections because you got the vaccine was ALWAYS MISINFORMATION. And if you didn't believe in the actual mechanisms for that, you had it literally happen in Israel before it happened in the US.

That's why the fearmongering and misinformation of the "TWINDEMIC" was never a thing that could happen.

Getting COVID-19 and the flu at the same time: What are the risks?

A study earlier this year showed that it is possible.

abcnews.go.com

I literally linked to Fauci spreading misinformation. That is why such policies were enacted because people like Fauci and the CDC said such things.

Where is there an uptick of deaths from measles and rubella after Wakefield's study (let alone untold thousands)?

 

[Trunkage]

1) He said that and 2) it is current scientific consensus the covid vaccine does prevent infections. The CDC and people like Fauci were horrible in communicating science and just propagated misinformation half the time.

Paul Offit:
Right, when we reviewed data in December 2020 with Pfizer/Moderna, they both had roughly 95% protection, not only against severe disease, but even mild disease. Remarkable, that was a remarkable level of protection. No way that was gonna last. I mean, and in fact, six months later, several studies showed that while protection against severe disease remained high, protection against mild disease dropped to as low as 50%. So why was it so good with those initial trials? And the answer is those were three month studies. Those participants had just received their second dose. So their neutralizing antibodies were high.

I would wish we could go back in time. And when those data were presented, we could have said this protection against mild disease is not going to last given the nature of this infection. And given the way these trials were done, that’s not going to last. And we did the opposite. I think what happened was six months later when say there was an outbreak in Provincetown, Massachusetts, thousands of men get together, celebrate the July 4th holiday, there’s about 79% or 80% were vaccinated. But nonetheless, there’s an outbreak. And of the 346 men who got sick, four were hospitalized, a hospitalization of one point rate of 1.2%, that’s a win. That’s great. But the other 342 men had mild or asymptomatic infection, which the CDC unfortunately labeled as breakthrough illnesses and that was a mistake. Breakthrough implies failure, that wasn’t a failure. That was a moment actually to celebrate the vaccine, to celebrate how amazing it was working here with this outbreak in this basically close space or close together community in Provincetown, and we didn’t do that, we did the opposite of that, the opposite. And so the term breakthrough was born, and I remember just a few days after that was reported, Brett Kavanaugh, Supreme Court Justice gets an asymptomatic infection. If you watch the way that was carried on national television, you would’ve thought he was in the intensive care unit. So we didn’t communicate that well.

---

And you keep forgetting why those policies were enacted. I'm complaining about the "why" not the actual policies. Here's Dr Fauci saying stuff that isn't t true... leading to politicians making policies that don't follow the science.

“Go out, wear a mask, stay 6 feet away from anyone so you can have the physical distancing,” [Fauci] told a CNN coronavirus town hall. “Go for a run. Go for a walk. Go fishing. As long as you’re not in a crowd and you’re not in a situation where you can physically transmit the virus.”

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/23/health/us-coronavirus-saturday

---

So you literally have no evidence for your claim? Not shocked...

Well, showing that you misattributed Offit sure is going to prove something

A vaccine's "community benefit" has nothing to do with those things. A vaccine's community benefit reduces you spreading an infection to others, which the covid vaccine does not do. Whereas measles vaccine does that, it stops you from getting infected, which means you can't infect others. Even your example makes no sense because it doesn't matter if you got the vaccine, it doesn't matter if your co-workers Jim or Pam got the vaccine, as you all are still just as likely to get covid as you were before. YOU LITERALLY CAN'T STOP THE SPREAD OF COVID unless you're shutting down the country. And if you shutdown the country until a vaccine is developed and available, the economic hardships, suicides, etc will be far higher than if you let most people live mostly normally.

IF YOU DON'T STOP THE SPREAD, YOU CREATE ECONOMIC HARDSHIPS, INCREASE SUICIDES etc. Letting 1.5 million die in two years is not good for keeping businesses open. It bankrupts the poor with medical debt. It's not good the economy. It's not good for mental health. It's not good for educating kids. It's not good for society.

Mask, restrictions on movements, quarantines etc are increasing our community benefit. Hundreds of thousands of people died because you were scared of masks. That's not a community benefit

Kids could've of just been kids during covid and played outside with kids, they didn't need to have zoom meetings and talk on messenger. The flu is literally more dangerous for kids. If you wanna do all that stuff over covid to kids when it's less harmful to them, why don't you do it over the flu?

The flu kills 50,000 per year in the US. Covid, before the vaccine, killed 750,000 per year. Now, WITH THE VACCINE, COVID kills around 60K per year. 700,000 people don't have to die to let little Johnny play in the park. There were a lot of children who were orphaned due to COVID killing their parents. Find an alternative that doesn't kill so many people.

 

[thebobmaster]

I bet you anything Phoenix thinks chicken pox parties were a great thing to control the spread.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Well, showing that you misattributed Offit sure is going to prove something

IF YOU DON'T STOP THE SPREAD, YOU CREATE ECONOMIC HARDSHIPS, INCREASE SUICIDES etc. Letting 1.5 million die in two years is not good for keeping businesses open. It bankrupts the poor with medical debt. It's not good the economy. It's not good for mental health. It's not good for educating kids. It's not good for society.

Mask, restrictions on movements, quarantines etc are increasing our community benefit. Hundreds of thousands of people died because you were scared of masks. That's not a community benefit

The flu kills 50,000 per year in the US. Covid, before the vaccine, killed 750,000 per year. Now, WITH THE VACCINE, COVID kills around 60K per year. 700,000 people don't have to die to let little Johnny play in the park. There were a lot of children who were orphaned due to COVID killing their parents. Find an alternative that doesn't kill so many people.

I didn't misattributed Offit...

You can't stop the spread, literally every place in the world showed you that. Not even China could stop it forcibly locking people in their homes. Every cost/benefit analysis of the lockdowns have said that lockdowns caused more overall harm. Nobody died because people didn't wear a mask, you have no evidence that masks did anything... You have nothing to prove your claims. Again, there is no community benefit of mandate a vaccine that provides no community benefit.

Covid is/was less harmful to kids than the flu, there's no reason kids couldn't play together. Also, kids hardly spread covid (because they lower expression of ACE2) so them playing isn't a risk for parents. Outside isn't a risk for anyone, there's literally no downside in letting kids play outside besides kids losing part of their childhoods. Kids playing literally has nothing to do with any of those death numbers that you mentioned.

I bet you anything Phoenix thinks chicken pox parties were a great thing to control the spread.

Before there was a vaccine that was probably the smarter thing to do since chick pox is usually much worse if you get it as an adult.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Man, Henry Cuellar gets all the luck, leaders of both parties do everything for him even though he deserves prison.

It's hilarious how he tries to present himself as doing this out of the goodness of his heart and then just drops the guise entirely.

 

[Silvanus]

Vaccines, exactly like actual infections, do the same fucking thing. If getting infected doesn't prevent future infections, neither will the vaccine. Or the opposite is true with measles, getting measles prevents you from getting it again and thus, the vaccine does the same thing. After you get an upper respiratory infection, you're immune from other ones for a time period. That's why you don't get the flu right after RSV (or a head cold). That's why people didn't get the flu right after covid or vice verse, you are immune from such things for like a month or so. Saying you are protected from covid infections because you got the vaccine was ALWAYS MISINFORMATION. And if you didn't believe in the actual mechanisms for that, you had it literally happen in Israel before it happened in the US.

Phoenix, i really can't express how little I care about your opinions on vaccine/viral mechanics.

You presented something as the opinion of both Paul Offit and "the scientific consensus", then posted a long tract from Offit that didn't say what you said.

I literally linked to Fauci spreading misinformation.

You didn't, though. You posted some early off-the-cuff broad recommendations, then said they represented "the science".

Where is there an uptick of deaths from measles and rubella after Wakefield's study (let alone untold thousands)?

It has already been explained to you why this is an irrelevant question. I told you, i'm not going to go research irrelevances at your request.

 

[Chimpzy]

Jim Caviezel to play Jair Bolsonaro in ‘heroic’ biopic

Actor, who starred in The Passion of the Christ, will play the disgraced ex-Brazilian president in film written by his one-time secretary of culture

www.theguardian.com

Jim Caviezel is Jair Bolsonaro in...

Hospitalized Man

Coming soon to theaters near you

 

[Casual Shinji]

The VVD slithered its way into the new (Dutch) cabinet. *sigh*

The party that crashed a previous cabinet by lying about immigration in order to gain votes for the next election. Which it failed to get, so it leeched itself onto the PVV and helped to create the worst governing body in the last hundred years at least. And who smeared a singer as a jew hater for being anti-zionist, to the point where he had to flee the country for his own safety.

And now, here they are... again. Merry fucking Christmas.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Phoenix, i really can't express how little I care about your opinions on vaccine/viral mechanics.

You presented something as the opinion of both Paul Offit and "the scientific consensus", then posted a long tract from Offit that didn't say what you said.



You didn't, though. You posted some early off-the-cuff broad recommendations, then said they represented "the science".



It has already been explained to you why this is an irrelevant question. I told you, i'm not going to go research irrelevances at your request.

It literally said that...

They made up the 6-foot thing and admitted to it.
Dr. Anthony Fauci stated that the 6-foot rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.”

https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2024/06/21/g-s1-5705/coronavirus-faw-if-youre-still-trying-to-stay-covid-safe-does-the-6-food-rule-matter

Then don't write checks with your mouth that your ass can't cash.

 

[Hades]

The VVD slithered its way into the new (Dutch) cabinet. *sigh*

The party that crashed a previous cabinet by lying about immigration in order to gain votes for the next election. Which it failed to get, so it leeched itself onto the PVV and helped to create the worst governing body in the last hundred years at least. And who smeared a singer as a jew hater for being anti-zionist, to the point where he had to flee the country for his own safety.

And now, here they are... again. Merry fucking Christmas.

Well that was always going to happen. No real majority could be formed without them. The question was whether they'd arbitrarily block the left and force the others to stomach the far right JA21 into the coalition. That could still be the outcome since the VVD insists it will grind the entirely country to a halt if they don't get what they want. But a minority government without Ja21 to keep D66 on board is maybe a likelier outcome. This would result in Yesilgoz being surrounded by two parties who probably hate her guts.

 

[thebobmaster]

 

[Silvanus]

It literally said that...

No it didn't. It said protection against mild infection didn't last. As usual, you've taken what someone said and misrepresented it as a far more extreme statement.

They made up the 6-foot thing and admitted to it.
Dr. Anthony Fauci stated that the 6-foot rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.”

Yep, that's what early, low-information recommendations were like. They were often overcautious or off-the-mark, or had an element of educated guesswork. It was a novel virus.

Then don't write checks with your mouth that your ass can't cash.

Oh, the point stands: its widely acknowledged that Wakefield's study widely propagated vaccine refusal, and infection rates rose in the UK at least. Its a safe bet that people refused, and subsequently died, who would not have refused had they not seen/heard these lies.

Its just that you requested an irrelevant statistic to corroborate it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Starmer urges Europe’s leaders to curb ECHR to halt rise of far right

Exclusive: PM calls for members of European convention on human rights to allow tougher action to protect borders

www.theguardian.com

I can see two problems with this. One, that human rights are generally one of those things that defines being a good thing, and opposing them one that, you know, is not.

Second, that this never, ever works *waves hand vaguely around* Appeasing the far-right never satisfies them, it just annoys potential future supporters that want you to be less evil. If you are worried about losing the next election, (which, fair) you don't make sure you lose it harder. Try to not be evil instead, at least lose in style.

 

[Agema]

Oh, the point stands: its widely acknowledged that Wakefield's study widely propagated vaccine refusal, and infection rates rose in the UK at least. Its a safe bet that people refused, and subsequently died, who would not have refused had they not seen/heard these lies.

It's not about how many died - it is just a dishonest way to debate harm to only consider one rare form of harm.

Measles kills few people even when they catch it. And a lot of people unvaccinated can benefit from enough other people being vaccinated, because that restricts measles spread. When you add all that together, substantial decreases in immunisation rates may cause relatively modest increases in infections, and changes to the measles-induced death rate likely hard to pick out from the background noise.

But the point here is that the death rate from measles is ignoring so much of the harm: the acute infection itself, and other medium- to long-term harms which are collectively much more common than death: weakened immune systems, damage to the lungs, hearing and visual impairment, etc.

 

[Agema]

Starmer urges Europe’s leaders to curb ECHR to halt rise of far right

Exclusive: PM calls for members of European convention on human rights to allow tougher action to protect borders

www.theguardian.com

I can see two problems with this. One, that human rights are generally one of those things that defines being a good thing, and opposing them one that, you know, is not.

Second, that this never, ever works *waves hand vaguely around* Appeasing the far-right never satisfies them, it just annoys potential future supporters that want you to be less evil. If you are worried about losing the next election, (which, fair) you don't make sure you lose it harder. Try to not be evil instead, at least lose in style.

The other side of the argument might be that laws merit review to ensure they serve a desired purpose. They may be interpreted in ways probably not intended by the original drafters, and which don't make sense to a lot of people, or the circumstances around which laws exist have changed.

Here's an analysis:

Kirsty Hughes: Immigration and proposals to amend Article 8 ECHR

Backlash against the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) is heavily driven by immigration and is often a direct reaction to it. This is not a new phenomen…

ukconstitutionallaw.org

As a tl;dr, I would suggest it is skeptical that this move will achieve much substantial, and at worst that this is (once again) a national government failing to sort its own shit out and trying to scapegoat an external body.

For instance, on "family life" the ECHR appears to consider dependency important. For instance, it has ruled that a parent-child or sibling-sibling relationship between independent adults is not sufficient to justify refusing deportation: there must be actual physical or financial dependency. It's hard to view the ECHR as unduly generous here.

 

[Hades]

Starmer urges Europe’s leaders to curb ECHR to halt rise of far right

Exclusive: PM calls for members of European convention on human rights to allow tougher action to protect borders

www.theguardian.com

I can see two problems with this. One, that human rights are generally one of those things that defines being a good thing, and opposing them one that, you know, is not.

Second, that this never, ever works *waves hand vaguely around* Appeasing the far-right never satisfies them, it just annoys potential future supporters that want you to be less evil. If you are worried about losing the next election, (which, fair) you don't make sure you lose it harder. Try to not be evil instead, at least lose in style.

Problem is that the far right won't stop at migrants when we've decided human rights shouldn't matter

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No it didn't. It said protection against mild infection didn't last. As usual, you've taken what someone said and misrepresented it as a far more extreme statement.



Yep, that's what early, low-information recommendations were like. They were often overcautious or off-the-mark, or had an element of educated guesswork. It was a novel virus.



Oh, the point stands: its widely acknowledged that Wakefield's study widely propagated vaccine refusal, and infection rates rose in the UK at least. Its a safe bet that people refused, and subsequently died, who would not have refused had they not seen/heard these lies.

Its just that you requested an irrelevant statistic to corroborate it.

What extreme statement? I said the vaccine doesn't protect against infections and it doesn't. The point of the vaccine is that it protects against severe infections.

It wasn't based on common sense either. If you are in the same room as someone for hours at time (like at home or at work, very ordinary situations), 6 feet doesn't mean shit. You never got colds from say passing people in the supermarket or being behind them in line, it makes no sense that covid would work like that. The whole 6-foot thing never made any fucking sense, it wasn't educated guesswork, it was pure bullshit.

Again, where are the untold thousands of deaths and millions of cases that you claimed? I wouldn't be surprised by a slight uptick, but millions of cases, there's fucking less than 10 cases of rubella a fucking year in the US. There's literally more deaths from people not getting vaccinated because of covid shutdowns than over Wakefield's study. People in all countries put off vaccinations just because people didn't go out unless they had to, then you have a bunch of poor countries that depend on the wealthy nations to provide vaccines and aid that weren't provided. You care so much about things that align with your ideology while ignoring far worse things.

Here's your untold thousands, but you don't actually care about this.

It estimates that there have been 228,000 additional deaths of children under five in these six countries due to crucial services, ranging from nutrition benefits to immunisation, being halted.

Covid-19 disruptions killed 228,000 children in South Asia, says UN report

A new UN report says interrupted health services caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in South Asia.

www.bbc.com

 

[Silvanus]

What extreme statement? I said the vaccine doesn't protect against infections and it doesn't.

That statement. That statement is far more extreme than anything Offit said. He said protection against mild infection doesn't last. That's not the same thing.

It wasn't based on common sense either. If you are in the same room as someone for hours at time (like at home or at work, very ordinary situations), 6 feet doesn't mean shit. You never got colds from say passing people in the supermarket or being behind them in line, it makes no sense that covid would work like that. The whole 6-foot thing never made any fucking sense, it wasn't educated guesswork, it was pure bullshit.

Buddy, people transmit colds to one another by being in passing contact all the time.

Again, where are the untold thousands of deaths and millions of cases that you claimed? I wouldn't be surprised by a slight uptick, but millions of cases, there's fucking less than 10 cases of rubella a fucking year in the US.

In. The. US.

As I have already explained to you, we are not merely talking about the United States. Wakefield was a British fraudster writing in a British journal with international reach in hundreds of countries. The incidence of Rubella is around ~17,000. The estimate for Measles is nearing 10m.

Here's your untold thousands, but you don't actually care about this.

It estimates that there have been 228,000 additional deaths of children under five in these six countries due to crucial services, ranging from nutrition benefits to immunisation, being halted.

Covid-19 disruptions killed 228,000 children in South Asia, says UN report

A new UN report says interrupted health services caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in South Asia.

www.bbc.com

Who the fuck here has been defending the halting of nutrition benefits and immunisation?

Hell, you're the only one here who's been throwing anti-immunisation rhetoric around.