5 ms·

None of these articles have any sources and are known for fear mongering by now. It is not reflected by numbers. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/f

None of these articles have any sources and are known for fear mongering by now. It is not reflected by numbers. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2020.560685/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2020.56068... or specifically: https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/560685/fmed-07-560685-HTML/image_m/fmed-07-560685-g001.jpg https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/560685/fmed-07-56... And even they have a questionable method by aggregating people of age 40-69. If you would split it further 40-59, the middle aged group would look just as the young one. It certainly does not affect you negatively if someone under 50 is unvaccinated because ICU usage would still be very low and the indictment warrants a direct response because the poster was accusing innocents.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
If you're going to dismiss a wide range of mainstream media "unsourced, known for fear mongering" then I'm going to stop listening, it's not a worthwhile conversation. Again, what is so "very obvious" about something that a wide range of sources contradict?
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Part of the mainstream media does not have any credibility if they do not provide hard facts. Neither today nor historically do they have a clean record, this is why you need to check their statements. Either for access or financial incentives they like to write such articles, but that is irrelevant. As I said, these articles aren't sourced credibly. You can believe me or not, that does not change the facts and that is specifically that young people are not clogging up ICUs, no matter if they are vaccinated or not. If the press states otherwise, then they are wrong. Perhaps the data is wrong too, but that is more unlikely.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    It is a propaganda tactic to assert that the truth is "blatantly wrong" without justifying that, and then when asked, to rant about "bias", "credibility" " fear mongering" and "facts" in response. If you do have a point, then your presentation entirely undermines it. Your failure to answer what is so "very obvious" about something that a wide range of sources contradict, underscores it.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      Let us just disagree here what we think is correct or false information. But if you or the original poster want to blame others for their life risk, expect headwind.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > Let us just disagree here what we think is correct or false information Are you saying now that it's not obvious? So ... not blatant? > But if you want to blame others for their life risk, That's not the issue. But people's life risk doesn't exist in a vacuum, it impacts people around them. If their life risk impact me (which it does) then it's an issue. In order to deny that, you have to also deny e.g. that they end up filling the ICUs.
        raxxorrax 5y ago
        You have to live with that and the risk does not warrant blaming others. Because if they are under a certain age and therefore not in a risk group, the risk to you is marginal, completely independent from anyones vaccination status. You can reduce your risk by getting vaccinated yourself or by isolating.
        SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > You have to live with that and the risk does not warrant blaming others You could say that about any risk, e.g. "you have to live with the risk of drunk drivers, and the risk does not warrant blaming others, we just have to live with drunk driving." it's certainly an opinion that you have there, but societies in general have not chosen to treat serious risks that way, so the "have to" part isn't correct, no: we can and often do choose better than that. I see that you're no longer trying to defend your "blatant lie" comment. Good, it's indefensible.
- JPKab 5y ago
  The media sites you linked to are not "broad" at all. They are all very much left-of-center and toe a very ideologically consistent line of standard left of center COVID Hawkishness. The kind of people that told us we definitely needed to mask up outdoors last year and never apologized when it was quietly acknowledged that masking outdoors was utter nonsense and never backed by science. This cabal of ideologues in media have done nothing but back "abundance of caution" policies with zero limiting principle of analysis of costs. Rather than critique and hold the public health officials accountable, they have simply licked their boots the entire pandemic. I'm a lifelong Democratic voter, and it's become utterly transparent and obvious that the western media is filled with quantitatively/statistically illiterate activists masquerading as journalists. The CDC numbers on the risk of young people with covid speak for themselves. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics All age groups under the age of 30 COMBINED make up LESS THAN 1% OF DEATHS. For all age groups under the age of 50, the total is less than 6% of deaths. If you're going to complain about "worthwhile conversation", I would suggest understanding statistics before you get into conversations where you are clearly out of your depth.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > They are all very much left-of-center and toe a very ideologically consistent line of standard left of center COVID Hawkishness. BBC, "leftist" after being pro-UK-government (right of centre) for a long time? I do not recognise your characterisation as grounded in reality at all. It looks like you just use that as a slur-word to dismiss what you don't like.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

If you're going to dismiss a wide range of mainstream media "unsourced, known for fear mongering" then I'm going to stop listening, it's not a worthwhile conversation. Again, what is so "very obvious" about something that a wide range of sources contradict?

raxxorrax 5y ago
Part of the mainstream media does not have any credibility if they do not provide hard facts. Neither today nor historically do they have a clean record, this is why you need to check their statements. Either for access or financial incentives they like to write such articles, but that is irrelevant. As I said, these articles aren't sourced credibly. You can believe me or not, that does not change the facts and that is specifically that young people are not clogging up ICUs, no matter if they are vaccinated or not. If the press states otherwise, then they are wrong. Perhaps the data is wrong too, but that is more unlikely.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  It is a propaganda tactic to assert that the truth is "blatantly wrong" without justifying that, and then when asked, to rant about "bias", "credibility" " fear mongering" and "facts" in response. If you do have a point, then your presentation entirely undermines it. Your failure to answer what is so "very obvious" about something that a wide range of sources contradict, underscores it.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Let us just disagree here what we think is correct or false information. But if you or the original poster want to blame others for their life risk, expect headwind.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      > Let us just disagree here what we think is correct or false information Are you saying now that it's not obvious? So ... not blatant? > But if you want to blame others for their life risk, That's not the issue. But people's life risk doesn't exist in a vacuum, it impacts people around them. If their life risk impact me (which it does) then it's an issue. In order to deny that, you have to also deny e.g. that they end up filling the ICUs.
      - raxxorrax 5y ago
        You have to live with that and the risk does not warrant blaming others. Because if they are under a certain age and therefore not in a risk group, the risk to you is marginal, completely independent from anyones vaccination status. You can reduce your risk by getting vaccinated yourself or by isolating.
        SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > You have to live with that and the risk does not warrant blaming others You could say that about any risk, e.g. "you have to live with the risk of drunk drivers, and the risk does not warrant blaming others, we just have to live with drunk driving." it's certainly an opinion that you have there, but societies in general have not chosen to treat serious risks that way, so the "have to" part isn't correct, no: we can and often do choose better than that. I see that you're no longer trying to defend your "blatant lie" comment. Good, it's indefensible.
JPKab 5y ago
The media sites you linked to are not "broad" at all. They are all very much left-of-center and toe a very ideologically consistent line of standard left of center COVID Hawkishness. The kind of people that told us we definitely needed to mask up outdoors last year and never apologized when it was quietly acknowledged that masking outdoors was utter nonsense and never backed by science. This cabal of ideologues in media have done nothing but back "abundance of caution" policies with zero limiting principle of analysis of costs. Rather than critique and hold the public health officials accountable, they have simply licked their boots the entire pandemic. I'm a lifelong Democratic voter, and it's become utterly transparent and obvious that the western media is filled with quantitatively/statistically illiterate activists masquerading as journalists. The CDC numbers on the risk of young people with covid speak for themselves. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics All age groups under the age of 30 COMBINED make up LESS THAN 1% OF DEATHS. For all age groups under the age of 50, the total is less than 6% of deaths. If you're going to complain about "worthwhile conversation", I would suggest understanding statistics before you get into conversations where you are clearly out of your depth.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > They are all very much left-of-center and toe a very ideologically consistent line of standard left of center COVID Hawkishness. BBC, "leftist" after being pro-UK-government (right of centre) for a long time? I do not recognise your characterisation as grounded in reality at all. It looks like you just use that as a slur-word to dismiss what you don't like.