Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Silvanus]

From your source:
There was no evidence for imprinting compromising protection against severe COVID-19, but the number of severe COVID-19 cases was too small to allow concrete estimation.

A cherry-picked quote, stripping the context that it refers to the longer term. I acknowledged that protection wanes with time- this is uncontroversial.

What really matters is this (from 'analysis'): "Boosters substantially reduced infection and severe COVID-19, particularly among individuals who were clinically vulnerable, affirming the public health value of booster vaccination".

Also, your study was observational and retrospective.

lol, fucking obviously. You really do just trot any old non-criticism when you don't like a study's findings.

The people that get boosters and don't get boosters are 2 different types of people that will get covid at different rates regardless of the booster or not.

And you have compelling evidence that other confounding variables fully account for the discrepancy, do you? Even though you can't seem to name even one?

It also included not eating yolks... Again, you simply won't answer the question of why guidance would be to give kids eggs without yolks?

Why would I answer it? You've not even shown that such guidance exists. All you can provide is guidance that included. Eating. Yolks.

Consensus =/= majority

Majority view goes quite a long way towards consensus. At present, you hold a view supported by a minority, and I have a view supported by a majority (as per your own source), and here you are whining that I don't have enough. It's classic stuff.

My source was explaining 2 different takes; hence, it will agree with me and disagree with me. If you wanna go by something that's over 50 years old and current data doesn't back it up, then by all means believe that if you want. Again, the Minnesota Coronary study proved that saturated fat isn't harmful to the heart / cardiovascular system. And that study has very best methodology you can have because the food given to the participants was completely controlled whereas nutritional studies are basically surveys and people always lie. And they usually just find links/correlations like how red meat is considered bad when there's no evidence for that. It's the same as your booster study; the people that eat red meat and don't eat red meat are 2 different types of people. Health conscious people avoid red meat because they were told it's bad and do several other things that are actually healthy while people that eat red meat are less likely to be health conscious and do a bunch of actual unhealthy things, that's how red meat is linked to poor health outcomes.

It was explaining different takes... and quite clearly stated the one that disagrees with you had more support. You really shot yourself in the foot.

 

[Gergar12]

It's structural. In the US If you are a dynamic democratic-leaning voter, you don't join the government or politics; you enter the tech industry. They make more than the senators, and some senior devs at say OpenAI make more than the president.

If you are a dynamic Republican-leaning voter you crave power, get an MBA, and or become a business owner or C-Suite. You then join an exclusionary club, lose a sense of reality oftentimes, and become a multi-millionaire and perhaps a billionaire. You then fund much more dynamic republican staffers and media people who curb-stomp the Democrats. To get even more money.

Even though the smartest people who earn lots of money know there is a diminishing marginal return to how much money can get you happiness, health, wellness, etc. And while this limit has been increasing to say 5-10 million dollars needed for retirement, it's not 500 billion, 1 trillion, or even 50 million. But you do get more power to... get more power and money via campaign contributions.