Whether vaccines technically work or not is kind of beside the point, they're conceptually broken. In free country, they'd be made by competing businesses that people trust enough to voluntarily take them.
But the whole premise of vaccines is that people are coerced or forced to take them at risk of social exclusion by state power. So they are guaranteed to always be "government quality" crap just good enough to please a bureaucrat - and because it's completely centralized, the risk of supply chain attacks / poison is massive.
Even if they work, states should be forbidden from practicing social exclusion. Drug companies just need to put their thinking caps on and invent something which works WITHOUT relying on totalitarian coercion.
But the whole premise of vaccines is that people are coerced or forced to take them at risk of social exclusion by state power. So they are guaranteed to always be "government quality" crap just good enough to please a bureaucrat - and because it's completely centralized, the risk of supply chain attacks / poison is massive.
Even if they work, states should be forbidden from practicing social exclusion. Drug companies just need to put their thinking caps on and invent something which works WITHOUT relying on totalitarian coercion.
@cjd
Look closer at the year 2021. The state had practically zero power to enforce any sort of mandate, and they knew it quite well. They knew precisely one half of the country was waiting to run to the cameras at the very first sign of anything resembling a mandate... And they did.
All of the mandates were put into place by businesses. First towards customers, then towards people who could be corcered into giving up medical records under threat of starvation and homelessness. You know... Employees.
Government will never ever directly take control of anything. They will get private business to do it, because that guarantees the ancap tards will see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
@r000t @cjd
> Government will never ever directly take control of anything. They will get private business to do it, because that guarantees the ancap tards will see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
To my knowledge, in the US, it's corporations that control the government, not the other way around.
I believe businesses implemented mandates because they knew that they were otherwise risking large numbers of sickness among the workforce, ultimately leading to loss of profit.
We've actually seen a pretty big example of that happening in Germany:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-ventilatio-idUSKCN24I1ON
1,500 workers infected, production shut down, forced to install HEPA filters before they were allowed to reopen.
To be completely fair, it sounds like it might have been related to the way the ventilation systems work in meat production sites: Air being constantly recirculated to save on cooling, with viruses surviving longer in the cold air...
Anyhow. I wonder what motivation you think governments have that leads them to implement vaccination mandates, other than a combination of protecting the economy (corpo profits) and protecting public health.
> Government will never ever directly take control of anything. They will get private business to do it, because that guarantees the ancap tards will see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
To my knowledge, in the US, it's corporations that control the government, not the other way around.
I believe businesses implemented mandates because they knew that they were otherwise risking large numbers of sickness among the workforce, ultimately leading to loss of profit.
We've actually seen a pretty big example of that happening in Germany:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-ventilatio-idUSKCN24I1ON
1,500 workers infected, production shut down, forced to install HEPA filters before they were allowed to reopen.
To be completely fair, it sounds like it might have been related to the way the ventilation systems work in meat production sites: Air being constantly recirculated to save on cooling, with viruses surviving longer in the cold air...
Anyhow. I wonder what motivation you think governments have that leads them to implement vaccination mandates, other than a combination of protecting the economy (corpo profits) and protecting public health.
> I wonder what motivation you think governments have
Well of course pharma makes a lot of money, and offers jobs to govt people who grease their palms with public money.
But more than that, bureaucrats like to feel like they're important and that that they're helping. Governments have done a huge amount of damage simply because bureaucrats:
1. Always think there's an emergency
2. Always think intervention is necessary to stave off disaster
3. Always think that they're qualified to intervene
In reality, there's essentially never an actual emergency, and as such, government intervention is almost never necessary and it almost always makes things worse.
But if you believe these things, then you realize that bureaucrats are more or less useless. So as a bureaucrat, you will almost by definition believe the fantasy hero story.
Well of course pharma makes a lot of money, and offers jobs to govt people who grease their palms with public money.
But more than that, bureaucrats like to feel like they're important and that that they're helping. Governments have done a huge amount of damage simply because bureaucrats:
1. Always think there's an emergency
2. Always think intervention is necessary to stave off disaster
3. Always think that they're qualified to intervene
In reality, there's essentially never an actual emergency, and as such, government intervention is almost never necessary and it almost always makes things worse.
But if you believe these things, then you realize that bureaucrats are more or less useless. So as a bureaucrat, you will almost by definition believe the fantasy hero story.
@cjd @r000t That's a really extreme position to take. I think there are a lot *more* emergencies out there that are not getting enough or even any attention. Of course, some issues may in turn be blown out of proportion for one or another reason, but I don't believe COVID was an example of that. It's easy to look away and think that everything must really be OK when you live in a small privileged bubble that's relatively unaffected.
What about New Hampshire, look at Sweden. They didn't do anything and they're still here, right?
Name a war in the last 50 years was truly necessary? Every last one of them seemed necessary at the time - but which one actually DIDN'T make things worse?
How about name a government program which actually ended poverty. Anywhere in the world.
My position is only extreme if you're an interventionist bureaucrat.
Name a war in the last 50 years was truly necessary? Every last one of them seemed necessary at the time - but which one actually DIDN'T make things worse?
How about name a government program which actually ended poverty. Anywhere in the world.
My position is only extreme if you're an interventionist bureaucrat.
@cjd @r000t
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9
> The UK and Sweden have among the worst per-capita COVID-19 mortality in Europe. Sweden stands out for its greater reliance on voluntary, rather than mandatory, control measures. We explore how the timing and effectiveness of control measures in the UK, Sweden and Denmark shaped COVID-19 mortality in each country [...]
> [...] UK mortality would have approximately doubled had Swedish policy been adopted, while Swedish mortality would have more than halved had Sweden adopted UK or Danish strategies.
I don't know, preventing the early deaths of thousands of people sounds like kind of a big deal. Of course, you'll now probably argue that this study can't be trusted for one or another reason, or that old people dying earlier isn't a big deal, or something.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9
> The UK and Sweden have among the worst per-capita COVID-19 mortality in Europe. Sweden stands out for its greater reliance on voluntary, rather than mandatory, control measures. We explore how the timing and effectiveness of control measures in the UK, Sweden and Denmark shaped COVID-19 mortality in each country [...]
> [...] UK mortality would have approximately doubled had Swedish policy been adopted, while Swedish mortality would have more than halved had Sweden adopted UK or Danish strategies.
I don't know, preventing the early deaths of thousands of people sounds like kind of a big deal. Of course, you'll now probably argue that this study can't be trusted for one or another reason, or that old people dying earlier isn't a big deal, or something.
Do you believe everything that you read in the journal Nature?
Muh appeal to authority
Well, at least the Replication Crisis *is* a crisis, so now the scientists have something fuss about.
Well, at least the Replication Crisis *is* a crisis, so now the scientists have something fuss about.
It's like demolishing a strawman argument, except I didn't have to create it 😏
@cjd @r000t @exosome What's this if not a variant of "trust me bro"?
You expect me to disregard a scientific study published in a major journal for no other reason than the fact that some random dude on the Internet said I shouldn't trust it. No reasoning, no argument, just an empty statement amounting to "they're wrong, I'm right."
You're acting stupid, and arrogant, and now pretend that you won some sort of debate. Like a pigeon on a chessboard.
You expect me to disregard a scientific study published in a major journal for no other reason than the fact that some random dude on the Internet said I shouldn't trust it. No reasoning, no argument, just an empty statement amounting to "they're wrong, I'm right."
You're acting stupid, and arrogant, and now pretend that you won some sort of debate. Like a pigeon on a chessboard.
@taylan @cjd @r000t bla bla bla
never heard of shifting burden of proof either. You assert without evidence that study is correct and "scientific" by default. You several times equated science to trust and belief. No arguments given. That he won is a weak word, he proved you are retarded liberal screetching "trust the science"
never heard of shifting burden of proof either. You assert without evidence that study is correct and "scientific" by default. You several times equated science to trust and belief. No arguments given. That he won is a weak word, he proved you are retarded liberal screetching "trust the science"
@exosome @r000t @cjd
> You assert without evidence that study is correct and "scientific" by default.
The evidence IS the study you moron. Click on the fucking link and read the text. Those are the arguments.
God, this is the most retarded line of reasoning I've encountered in a long time, and I assure you I subject myself to the writings of "screeching liberals" constantly. Even they make more sense than you.
"Bla bla bla" indeed, jesus christ you're dumb. Responding to a link to a study with "you have to argue why it's correct first" is just peak idiocy. If the study didn't argue for its own correctness already, it wouldn't have been published.
No but seriously, this is one of those moments where I'm just stunned by how hollow minded someone can be. It's not that you're just unable to understand the science, no, that would be totally fine. Statistics is hard. The problem is, you're not even able to understand how scientific studies and arguments work at a basic level.
What do you even think a study *is* at its core? It's a bunch of carefully formed arguments based around observed evidence. What else did you think it was?
Fucking poa.st never fails to deliver. Thought I had muted the whole domain...
Oh jesus fuck of course you're a nazi too. OK, fuck, I'm probably bullying a mentally ill person right now and should stop. Should have checked your profile earlier.
> You assert without evidence that study is correct and "scientific" by default.
The evidence IS the study you moron. Click on the fucking link and read the text. Those are the arguments.
God, this is the most retarded line of reasoning I've encountered in a long time, and I assure you I subject myself to the writings of "screeching liberals" constantly. Even they make more sense than you.
"Bla bla bla" indeed, jesus christ you're dumb. Responding to a link to a study with "you have to argue why it's correct first" is just peak idiocy. If the study didn't argue for its own correctness already, it wouldn't have been published.
No but seriously, this is one of those moments where I'm just stunned by how hollow minded someone can be. It's not that you're just unable to understand the science, no, that would be totally fine. Statistics is hard. The problem is, you're not even able to understand how scientific studies and arguments work at a basic level.
What do you even think a study *is* at its core? It's a bunch of carefully formed arguments based around observed evidence. What else did you think it was?
Fucking poa.st never fails to deliver. Thought I had muted the whole domain...
Oh jesus fuck of course you're a nazi too. OK, fuck, I'm probably bullying a mentally ill person right now and should stop. Should have checked your profile earlier.
