3 ms·

> How's that logical ? Also, source? It might be logical if you hate that companies :) But seems I was wrong because Youtube rules never tells about ban but on

> How's that logical ? Also, source? It might be logical if you hate that companies :) But seems I was wrong because Youtube rules never tells about ban but only about demonetisation the "medical misinformation" https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=en ; I dont know why but Russian version of this document is twice as long as English and it tells that something is just gonna be unmonetized and something is forbitten without telling about outcomes from publish forbitten content. FB surprisingly is more democratic and recently allowed to tell a version that the virus has leaked from a lab. Maybe I should be less like hating or maybe there is a sence to make that video. > the more people get infected the more likely we are to get new variants. How about the more variants we get the better vaccines we will receive? > There are plenty of studies showing that all vaccines offer good to very good protection against every current variants. Do you know what time vaccine is working? I can not consult with a doctor in my location, but they say (not medical workers) a vac stops protecting from covid after half a year. > What do you mean? Sputnik V has not yet been approved by the EU's European Medicines Agency https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56735931 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56735931

lm28469 5y ago
> It might be logical if you hate that companies :) I can guarantee you you're not winning any sort of fight against Facebook and YouTube by not getting vaccinated. > https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=en It doesn't say anything about getting banned. Are you complaining you can't monetize videos about covid being spread by 5g &co? Or the part about licking toilet seats? Seems reasonable to me. > How about the more variants we get the better vaccines we will receive? Source? If you don't get infected you're not a mutation vector. > a vac stops protecting from covid after half a year. Source? > Sputnik V has not yet been approved by the EU's European Medicines Agency Isn't that proof that they actually ask for proofs of vaccination safety and efficiency before authorizing them? Which is a good thing You seem very focused on Russia, if you don't live there I'd recommend you to focus on something else.
- eimrine 5y ago
  > I can guarantee you you're not winning any sort of fight against Facebook and YouTube by not getting vaccinated. I believe that FB or YT is not a fighter but a fightee. They both have a long list of restrictions in their terms of service, but their censure cases is not their decision (but I do not want to develop this off-topic). > It doesn't say anything about getting banned And it doesn't have a "forbidden" word. Russian version is longer and has that word (but it doesn't say anything about ban, and about punishes, I have already realised I was a little misinformed). Here is the version, you can read it via translator if you want: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=ru https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=ru > Source? If you don't get infected you're not a mutation vector. My point is that I consider a good thing having as many mutation vectors in the world as possible, it makes future vaccines more powerful. >> a vac stops protecting from covid after half a year. >Source? 1. One Russian expert has written in 1990 that flu vaccines are working only 1 year https://medi.ru/info/6639/ https://medi.ru/info/6639/ (sorry for Russian language) 2. https://www.aier.org/article/who-deletes-naturally-acquired-immunity-from-its-website/ https://www.aier.org/article/who-deletes-naturally-acquired-... (not a proof but an indicator that something is wrong with 2019-nCoV study) 3. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08CG4DGTQ/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08CG4DGTQ/ have not read this book but I have read a blog of its Russian author and have a roughly understanding what this book is about. > Isn't that proof that they actually ask for proofs of vaccination safety and efficiency before authorizing them? One set of people has one criteria of efficiency, another set of people has another criteria. That does not look like scientific approach, but a religion one. I want these sets of people to make a consensus. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but all Stage III results of any vaccine is interim, which means that any person taken a vaccine is an object of experiment. Why to run in a front of a train? > You seem very focused on Russia, if you don't live there I'd recommend you to focus on something else. I live in Ukraine, we are hostile countries but we are speaking same language and I believe we share same culture and mentality.
  - lm28469 5y ago
    Looks like you're arguing at the same time that: - vaccines are unsafe - vaccines are inefficient - vaccines are efficient but we shouldn't take them to let the virus mutate so that we can engineer better vaccines for future hypothetical viruses (but I guess you wouldn't take these anyways for the same reasons you already mentioned) > Why to run in a front of a train? Everything indicates that the vaccines are safer than covid on literally every single metric available. You don't want to be a "test subject" for the vaccine but you're OK being a test subject for the virus? Feel free to do so but again, the logic seems very weak

lm28469 5y ago

> It might be logical if you hate that companies :) I can guarantee you you're not winning any sort of fight against Facebook and YouTube by not getting vaccinated. > https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=en It doesn't say anything about getting banned. Are you complaining you can't monetize videos about covid being spread by 5g &co? Or the part about licking toilet seats? Seems reasonable to me. > How about the more variants we get the better vaccines we will receive? Source? If you don't get infected you're not a mutation vector. > a vac stops protecting from covid after half a year. Source? > Sputnik V has not yet been approved by the EU's European Medicines Agency Isn't that proof that they actually ask for proofs of vaccination safety and efficiency before authorizing them? Which is a good thing You seem very focused on Russia, if you don't live there I'd recommend you to focus on something else.

eimrine 5y ago
> I can guarantee you you're not winning any sort of fight against Facebook and YouTube by not getting vaccinated. I believe that FB or YT is not a fighter but a fightee. They both have a long list of restrictions in their terms of service, but their censure cases is not their decision (but I do not want to develop this off-topic). > It doesn't say anything about getting banned And it doesn't have a "forbidden" word. Russian version is longer and has that word (but it doesn't say anything about ban, and about punishes, I have already realised I was a little misinformed). Here is the version, you can read it via translator if you want: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=ru https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9803260?hl=ru > Source? If you don't get infected you're not a mutation vector. My point is that I consider a good thing having as many mutation vectors in the world as possible, it makes future vaccines more powerful. >> a vac stops protecting from covid after half a year. >Source? 1. One Russian expert has written in 1990 that flu vaccines are working only 1 year https://medi.ru/info/6639/ https://medi.ru/info/6639/ (sorry for Russian language) 2. https://www.aier.org/article/who-deletes-naturally-acquired-immunity-from-its-website/ https://www.aier.org/article/who-deletes-naturally-acquired-... (not a proof but an indicator that something is wrong with 2019-nCoV study) 3. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08CG4DGTQ/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08CG4DGTQ/ have not read this book but I have read a blog of its Russian author and have a roughly understanding what this book is about. > Isn't that proof that they actually ask for proofs of vaccination safety and efficiency before authorizing them? One set of people has one criteria of efficiency, another set of people has another criteria. That does not look like scientific approach, but a religion one. I want these sets of people to make a consensus. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but all Stage III results of any vaccine is interim, which means that any person taken a vaccine is an object of experiment. Why to run in a front of a train? > You seem very focused on Russia, if you don't live there I'd recommend you to focus on something else. I live in Ukraine, we are hostile countries but we are speaking same language and I believe we share same culture and mentality.
- lm28469 5y ago
  Looks like you're arguing at the same time that: - vaccines are unsafe - vaccines are inefficient - vaccines are efficient but we shouldn't take them to let the virus mutate so that we can engineer better vaccines for future hypothetical viruses (but I guess you wouldn't take these anyways for the same reasons you already mentioned) > Why to run in a front of a train? Everything indicates that the vaccines are safer than covid on literally every single metric available. You don't want to be a "test subject" for the vaccine but you're OK being a test subject for the virus? Feel free to do so but again, the logic seems very weak