4 ms·

I don't think you understand how many assumptions are baked into the current conclusions that vaccines and masks are effective. This relies on accurate reportin

I don't think you understand how many assumptions are baked into the current conclusions that vaccines and masks are effective. This relies on accurate reporting of vaccination status and accurate reporting of breakthrough cases. Meanwhile in the real world covid is spreading unabated, record case counts, regardless of vaccination rate or mask compliance. Clearly something isn't adding up. Meanwhile the rosy estimates of safety and effectiveness have been repeatedly and consistently walked back. I think it's time to recognize that our institutions have had their analyses and recommendations tainted by strong and pervasive political and social biases, from the laypeople who have no incentive to report breakthrough cases, all the way up through the chain past academics and policymakers who have their careers riding on the validity of 2 years of covid research and policy that cannot be contradicted without trashing credibility. That's not to mention the career and social stigma associated with speaking out or publishing negatively against the vaccines. It doesn't help that dozens of hours of testimony on behalf of researches and clinicians before congresspeople is simply being ignored[0]. Add media to the rabidly biased groups and you're getting closer to reconciling what is being published and communicated about the vaccines and virus with what is happening in the real world. 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jMONZMuS2U&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jMONZMuS2U&t=1s

eli 5y ago
The vaccines are extremely safe and the real world data from shows they protect you from getting covid in the first place (and are much more effective at preventing severe covid). Here's the data from Sen Johnson's state: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/vaccine-status.htm#cases https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/vaccine-status.htm#ca...
- twofornone 5y ago
  Again, this is based on the assumption that adverse effects are being sufficiently reported and/or attributed to the vaccines. And once again, the real world data shows that the virus is spreading across the globe at record pace regardless of vaccination rate. I know it sounds like dangerous conspiracy talk, but sometimes we need to think outside of our official sources. Ultimately it is up to the people to hold our institutions to account. The real world data does not line up with the official claims.
  - eli 5y ago
    You seem to be alleging a massive global conspiracy that must involve tens if not hundreds of thousands of health officials, academics, and scientists all working together to hide the truth for some unstated reason. You think Wisconsin health officials are cooking the books? Along with every single other state? C'mon
    - twofornone 5y ago
      No. This is the danger of blithely dismissing everything as a "conspiracy theory". None of this requires a conspiracy. None of this requires explicit communication or collusion. That's not how bias works. Bias works as subtle (sometimes not so subtle) pressure. Pressure against asking certain questions, against publishing certain results (this is hardly unique to covid), massaging data and models (often unconsciously) in favor of certain conclusions. And then there is the very real stigma - also something which does not depend on an overt conspiracy, just an army of true believers who will publicly castigate those who speak out, putting the livelihoods of dissenters at risk.
      - eli 5y ago
        Can you explain specifically what bias leads to Wisconsin reporting most covid cases are among the unvaccinated?
      - moonshinefe 5y ago
        There should be stigma for people who spread misinformation during a deadly pandemic, in my opinion. And yes, what you're implying heavily in your posts would require some sort of conspiracy to be plausible. You're going against dozens of countries' thousands of experts and numerous studies, then choosing to believe quacks on panels on youtube whose wikipedia articles have giant "covid-19 misinformation" sections in them with ample citations.
        throwaway51235 5y ago
saturdaysaint 5y ago
That's hours of "testimony" from conspiracy theorists who all have long records of making flagrantly incorrect statements on COVID. Johnson's big leadoff panelist was a Texas cardiologist who is far from a respected authority in epidemiology and seems to be courting attention by disputing every best practice that ER doctors and the scientific community have agreed works best with acute COVID patients and hyping up silver bullet drugs that have shown limited effectiveness in the best studies. I recommend everyone look up "Dr. Peter Mcullough" and getting a whiff of his reputation before investing any of their time in that panel.

eli 5y ago

The vaccines are extremely safe and the real world data from shows they protect you from getting covid in the first place (and are much more effective at preventing severe covid). Here's the data from Sen Johnson's state: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/vaccine-status.htm#cases https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/vaccine-status.htm#ca...

twofornone 5y ago
Again, this is based on the assumption that adverse effects are being sufficiently reported and/or attributed to the vaccines. And once again, the real world data shows that the virus is spreading across the globe at record pace regardless of vaccination rate. I know it sounds like dangerous conspiracy talk, but sometimes we need to think outside of our official sources. Ultimately it is up to the people to hold our institutions to account. The real world data does not line up with the official claims.
- eli 5y ago
  You seem to be alleging a massive global conspiracy that must involve tens if not hundreds of thousands of health officials, academics, and scientists all working together to hide the truth for some unstated reason. You think Wisconsin health officials are cooking the books? Along with every single other state? C'mon
  - twofornone 5y ago
    No. This is the danger of blithely dismissing everything as a "conspiracy theory". None of this requires a conspiracy. None of this requires explicit communication or collusion. That's not how bias works. Bias works as subtle (sometimes not so subtle) pressure. Pressure against asking certain questions, against publishing certain results (this is hardly unique to covid), massaging data and models (often unconsciously) in favor of certain conclusions. And then there is the very real stigma - also something which does not depend on an overt conspiracy, just an army of true believers who will publicly castigate those who speak out, putting the livelihoods of dissenters at risk.
    - eli 5y ago
      Can you explain specifically what bias leads to Wisconsin reporting most covid cases are among the unvaccinated?
    - moonshinefe 5y ago
      There should be stigma for people who spread misinformation during a deadly pandemic, in my opinion. And yes, what you're implying heavily in your posts would require some sort of conspiracy to be plausible. You're going against dozens of countries' thousands of experts and numerous studies, then choosing to believe quacks on panels on youtube whose wikipedia articles have giant "covid-19 misinformation" sections in them with ample citations.
      - throwaway51235 5y ago

saturdaysaint 5y ago

That's hours of "testimony" from conspiracy theorists who all have long records of making flagrantly incorrect statements on COVID. Johnson's big leadoff panelist was a Texas cardiologist who is far from a respected authority in epidemiology and seems to be courting attention by disputing every best practice that ER doctors and the scientific community have agreed works best with acute COVID patients and hyping up silver bullet drugs that have shown limited effectiveness in the best studies. I recommend everyone look up "Dr. Peter Mcullough" and getting a whiff of his reputation before investing any of their time in that panel.