You can stay in the bubble if you'd like, and ignore the shift in public perception, but it's clearly real, and is not just a fringe when only 14% of the US population has gotten the latest booster. If people actually had a large amount of confidence in public authorities and actually believed what the proclaimed severity of the risk of staying unboosted was, there would certainly be a lot more than 14% taking boosters out of self interest. Most people did trust them initially which is why ~70% of the population took the first series.
Always interesting to observe the disconnect between echo chambers and the general population though... On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 6:06 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 12/20/2022 10:47 AM, Dylan Distasio wrote: > > I'd point out that the large majority of people in the US now have > concerns over these particular vaccines based on how public health policy > has been conducted over the last 2+ years. You may be disappointed to > find out that it's not just righty wingnuts who are questioning the > reliability and veracity of public health agencies due to how they > comported themselves, especially now that people have the benefit of > hindsight. The CDC in particular has done an incredible amount of damage > to their previously sterling reputation. > > US CDC data show that while about 69% of the US population has completed > the primary 2-dose vaccine series, only about 14% of people aged 5 and > older have received the updated booster. > > This might have been avoided if public health agencies had avoided > allowing themselves to be politicized, and been upfront about what they > could know with certainty throughout this process, and honest enough to > admit where things were not as clear cut. > > Instead of basing policy that would have a huge impact on businesses and > people's livelihoods on science, many decisions were made arbitrarily: > > https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-six-foot-social-distancing-rule-was-arbitrary-says-former-fda-commissioner/?sh=2059263ae8e6 > > > Nonsense. This is trolling. That decision was made to mandate distancing > was NOT arbitrary and is backed by the simplest science of any airborne > disease. That the distance was 6ft instead of 7ft or 6.5ft is obviously > and necessarily arbitrary. It would be ridiculous to delay such a mandate > until a transmission rate versus distance could be determined for > different environments and then make an "ARBITRARY" decision about whether > a probability of transmission of 0.001 is acceptable versus 0.0001? > > > They also disregarded natural immunity in regard to setting policy because > it would overcomplicate things, and because in their opinion, people were > too stupid to have a nuanced conversation on it. > > > And people apparently are. They're too stupid to understand what > "aribitrary" means. > > > Instead of attempting an honest discussion and allowing those with > concerns to voice them and potentially be refuted > > in the public square and in the literature, > > > On Twitter on 8Chan. Yeah that'll work out well. > > they, in concert, with the mainstream press attempted to squash any > efforts to do so. > > > "Squash" in the sense of not printing a lot of anti-vax propaganda that > was "just asking questions". > > Anyone who expressed any concerns was publicly demonized by politicians, > public figures, and the press. > > > Yes, because experts that we hired to make these decisions knew a helluva > lot more about it than politicians, celebrities, and reporters. That's why > we gave them the power to make decisions. People who "expressed" concerns > were mostly right wing trolls. > > Brent > > > It also didn't help that they changed the long standing definition of a > vaccine (and no, I'm not buying their explanation and I doubt many others > are): > > https://www.newswest9.com/article/news/verify/coronavirus-verify/cdc-changed-vaccine-definition-more-transparent/ > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 12:42 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 11:39 AM spudboy100 via Everything List < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> * > Statically we are looking at 1/100 of vaccine recipients. That a >>> lot of people sick and then dead.* >> >> >> *BULLSHIT! *And it is people just like you spreading this sort of quack >> medical advice that is killing people, thousands and thousands of people >> every fucking day. >> >> John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis >> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> >> uty >> >> >> >> >> Such a nice little proggie puppet! >>> >>> Delightfully cheering. >>> >>> It looks great for DeSantis. If people oppose him, it won't be for have >>> a grand jury look at the malpractices of the Dem party funder$. >>> >>> Back to the science article, and we are talking about 2 things. >>> Statically we are looking at 1/100 of vaccine recipients. That a lot of >>> people sick and then dead. Secondly, these are young people. who went along >>> and then died. No pre-screening, just Dem insistence and coercion about >>> taking the drug. People, including families of those who may have been >>> killed, will likely seek retribution. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected]; [email protected] < >>> [email protected]> >>> Sent: Tue, Dec 20, 2022 2:51 am >>> Subject: Re: Fwd: Death, science, and politics >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/19/2022 11:08 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> The language is Hindi I believe. >>> >>> >>> That's all you've got say about your Champion. >>> >>> There are others looking at the vaccines more carefully than you and >>> John. >>> Advocacy journalism follows: >>> >>> https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-study-covid-vaccine-blood-clot-elderly-et/ >>> Core report: >>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22014931 >>> >>> >>> Typical bad medical statistics. They set a threshold for significance >>> of 1% false positive, but then applied it to 14 different "outcomes". If >>> there's a 1% chance of error that's 99% chance of no error...on each test. >>> So the probability of finding at least one false positive is 0.99^14=0.869 >>> or 13%. >>> >>> And what is the only "outcome" they identified as significant: Pulmonary >>> embolism in in the inpatient setting. In other words vaccinated persons >>> who were also inpatients had a significantly higher risk of PE. Don't >>> suppose it could have anything to do with lying prone a lot, or being in a >>> hospital with other sick people. >>> >>> >>> Counter argument- >>> DeSantis' anti-vax grand jury petition suggests that a rise in >>> cardiac-related mortality in young people might be caused by vaccines. Of >>> course, if you actually look at the study, you'll see—shockingly—that the >>> rise predates vaccination. Because it's mostly due to COVID itself. >>> >>> I am willing to find out whether it (the vax) does or does not present a >>> danger to a minority of the public. >>> >>> Define "danger". One in chance in a thousand? ten thousand? hundred >>> thousand? >>> >>> >>> Bhattacharya is a prof at Stanford and that is one thing neither you nor >>> I are. >>> >>> And I know statistics which neither you nor he do. >>> >>> >>> For the democrat practice of character assassination (which work great >>> for your team members but not ours) there is Professor Makary, at Johns >>> Hopkins, who sides with Bhattacharya. >>> >>> >>> Oh well, now I'm really impressed there's some other guy who's taken >>> sides. Too bad nobody has an argument or data. >>> >>> >>> @JohnsHopkins <https://twitter.com/JohnsHopkins> >>> professor, >>> @theNAMedicine <https://twitter.com/theNAMedicine> >>> member, >>> @harvardchansph <https://twitter.com/harvardchansph> >>> alum, author of 2 NYT bestselling books. Honest debate is healthy, I can >>> be persuaded >>> >>> >>> "Lancet study of Covid+ and - teens found “poor well-being, fatigue & >>> Long COVID were broadly similar” but loneliness increased steadily. Take >>> home message—Long-covid is not the mass disabling complication that has >>> permanently damaged a generation of children, social isolation is." >>> All I want is to find out so as to save lives. >>> >>> >>> If that were true you'd be advocating that all the unvaccinated >>> Trumpkins get vaccinations. >>> >>> It would seem that practicing public health should be adjustable to >>> discoveries in medical science. >>> Seems sensible at first blush. Unless there are underlying financial or >>> obsessive-compulsive disorders happening? >>> Or, more directly to your flavor of your discussions: (Get Ready..) >>> If ya want Trump back, this is how ya get More Trump!!! (Laughter >>> placed here) :" Bwah ha hah hah hah...." >>> Meanwhile,in a home in Florida-DeSantis Saves, Jesus too? Moses >>> Invests, & Elvis Surfs >>> Meaning, if you wish to hurt DeSantis and now you may be on Don's side >>> in this, you won't hurt his chances by focusing on his grand jury move. >>> He'd have to look weak against Newsome of Cal. The only thing Newsome >>> has going for him is that he has been far, more, active, than Joe-Kamala on >>> Renewable energy. How significant in 24 will this be, we have way of >>> knowing now. As one dem pollster said back on November 10th, if DeSantis >>> can beat Trump in the primaries, there is no one on the Democratic side >>> that can beat him. >>> >>> And they're saying De Sanctimonious has no chance against The Stable >>> Genius. >>> >>> Why do you bother to type this made up shit? >>> >>> Brent >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/810555212.683349.1671554347844%40mail.yahoo.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/810555212.683349.1671554347844%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Tp%2BD6dfhEAGxyRQKDEOBPz%3D4uZPwbbwvEhGyeaSD3oA%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Tp%2BD6dfhEAGxyRQKDEOBPz%3D4uZPwbbwvEhGyeaSD3oA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJrqPH-gxxuCuubL_a3cDA1xinjJJm-bWySc3tNRARuKZ%3DA0yQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJrqPH-gxxuCuubL_a3cDA1xinjJJm-bWySc3tNRARuKZ%3DA0yQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/97482c4f-278f-56bf-ad75-ad7b5c4b9122%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/97482c4f-278f-56bf-ad75-ad7b5c4b9122%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJrqPH9%3Djg-YKJk0u1HoxmXym_a5iwXY5rVtkgkg%2BdQs8v%3Dbvw%40mail.gmail.com.
