Is anyone else worried? (Covid Vaccine)

[Johnny D]

This Glenn Greenwald interview is worth watching. For those of you who really want to believe that the CDC, WHO and others are the true "authorities", it might be difficult to get through. I urge you to try.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSVNm7XbnYA

Big-tech and media are acting as information overlords and you don't have to be a conspiracist to understand this, especially when they're admitting it.

 

[Pegasus]

This Glenn Greenwald interview is worth watching. For those of you who really want to believe that the CDC, WHO and others are the true "authorities", it might be difficult to get through. I urge you to try.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSVNm7XbnYA

Big-tech and media are acting as information overlords and you don't have to be a conspiracist to understand this, especially when they're admitting it.

Who the hell is Glen that he is worth our time ? I know in the US particularly conspiricy theories have lead an attack on actual science but really these days every nutcase is on youtube.

 

[Pegasus]

And many other scientists contradict him (not to mention the numerous times he contradicted himself) so he is far from the be-all, end-all voice in the discussion. I examine the quality of the source every time and have posted repeatedly where "this other info" is coming from.
About the same as Taiwan, who hasn't implemented lockdowns. You're missing the point. The data shows no correlation between non-pharmaceutical interventions and "success". Cherry-picking countries who have done well to use as examples while ignoring places that have implemented the same measures and not done well and places that have implemented no measures and done just as well is not science.

The US did not implement the same measures in the same way Aussie did . The US people did not act in the same way the Aussie people did .
Oranges with oranges look at the western countries that did well . They followed the science from the start and their people showed some discipline .
From what I have seen the actual leading medical seem to be in agreement with the broad strokes and arguing about details .
You do know how widespread mask use is in asia ? Disciplined the people tend to be? How different the social structure is ?

 

[Party]

Yep. In China, no mask, firing squad. The government has been dictating how many children can be born to a couple for how many years now?
And mask wearing has been the rule for years because of the pollution levels, no harm, no foul there.

If I were Biden, Trump would have fined the Chinese the expense to our economy and tax payers the costs of Covid off what we owe them. What would they say? No? As it is now the U.S. will default at the rate we are printing money anyway. Something is better than nothing.

 

[Johnny D]

Who the hell is Glen that he is worth our time ? I know in the US particularly conspiricy theories have lead an attack on actual science but really these days every nutcase is on youtube.

Glenn Greenwald is no conspiracy theorist. He's a civil rights attorney and, more famously, a pulitzer prize winning journalist.

The US did not implement the same measures in the same way Aussie did . The US people did not act in the same way the Aussie people did .
Oranges with oranges look at the western countries that did well . They followed the science from the start and their people showed some discipline .
From what I have seen the actual leading medical seem to be in agreement with the broad strokes and arguing about details .
You do know how widespread mask use is in asia ? Disciplined the people tend to be? How different the social structure is ?

And now Stanford University, hardly an institution to support conspiracy theories - certainly not anti-liberal theories, is saying the same thing: Lockdowns were not effective. Looking at and analyzing data is how we actually "follow the science".

https://www.outkick.com/stanford-study-questions-benefits-of-lockdowns-and-stay-at-home-orders/

"there is no evidence that more restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions (“lockdowns”) contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases"

in fact...

"it is possible that stay-at-home orders may facilitate transmission if they increase person-to-person contact where transmission is efficient such as closed spaces"

BTW... They've been wearing masks in Asia for a long time because of pollution and allergies - not because of viruses.

 

[Pegasus]

Phah . The leading medical authorities in Aussie get together to work out how to manage covid and it works .
Likewise in NZ . It continues to work . Why because it is done well .

You don't know much about Asia go learn.

 

[Johnny D]

Cognitive dissonance

What we're seeing here is people blindly believing what they want to believe because their actions contradict the evidence. No amount of data or facts will dissuade them. It's a very common fault we have as human beings.

 

[Fizzby2233]

It depends on your information source. I do not get my information from YouTube or Wikipedia and I don't get my news from Facebook or Fox. Data is data and information is what is created from the data. You can use data or misuse data to create legitimate information or pseudo or misinformation.
When it comes to COVID some people are laying out information backed by data from legitimate sources without political spin and then there are those that are invested in contradicting the antidotal and scientific evidence that masks work. If a person wants to argue that there is no real evidence that mask wearing works, I would posit that there is no "real" evidence or data the PE works. There is a body of antidotal evidence that it works. It strains credulity to say out of one side of a persons mouth that there is no evidence that masks work and then be on a site that is almost completely comprised of shared experience of what works removed from any large data source or scientific study.
COVID is different than most things that lend themselves to point counter point or discussion. Like do we really need air to breath. I am not getting into a debate about that, even though I am sure there is some Zealot out there convinced we don't need air. Again, there is no down side to following precautions like mask wearing and social distancing (there is a horrible economic and psychological downside to lockdowns even when necessary). There is a pandemic, many countries have handled it better than us due to cultural and societal norms, the amount of death at the end of this journey will be a number so astounding it will take anyone's breath away and so COVID is a dead horse at this point. People can keep beating it but the reality is "writ large" already. A person's political views or philosophies not withstand history will award Science and Medicine the Oscar and make short shrift of those that were part of the problem not the solution.

 

[Fizzby2233]

How does Glen Greenwald relate to COVID: In the course of nearly a decade of litigation, Greenwald represented a number of controversial clients in First Amendment cases, including individuals and organizations affiliated with neo-Nazism. Greenwald has commented about how the example of the ACLU, which famously defended the rights of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, IL, inspired him to defend the free speech rights of persons and causes he considered odious.

Historically his focus has be on first amendment rights and it would seem that his arguments stem less from science than "I shouldn't have to wear a mask if I don't want to as it is an infringement on my first amendment rights". Well here is the problem, then you shouldn't have to wear a seatbelt or you should be able to smoke on a plane. Why should you have to stop at a red light? These are rules that yes impinge on the individual right for the betterment of society as a whole.

Mask wearing in a pandemic is for the communal good much as stopping at red lights. You stop at a red light (even if you feel you should have the right not to) because that allows the flow of traffic in other directions and people to cross streets safely. As a society we come up with these rules and for the most part people follow them and so we can have orderly traffic and less deaths. The same with the public safety guidelines for COVID, they may give some bitter beer face, but they are for the communal good. Yes there are people who will say it is my right to smoke on a plane, it is my right to run red lights arrest me, I will stand on the first amendment. They generally do get arrested and that is to the communal good. We need to be able to drive with a sense that most people will follow the rules board a plan with the same sense.
With a pandemic some countries have done it successfully and people are following guidelines and here we have, "I am not going to do it and you can't prove to me why I should." Well what would it look like in other areas of our lives if we adopted that? There are agreements that apply to the public arena so that there is not chaos and death.
Mask wearing will whether people agree or not become one of them. In the same way that I drive safely for my good and yours, I wear a mask for my good and yours. Sorry Mr. Greenwald.

 

[CUSP82]

California is basically locked down and everyone is wearing a mask so how come the numbers are so high?

 

[Johnny D]

It depends on your information source. I do not get my information from YouTube or Wikipedia and I don't get my news from Facebook or Fox. Data is data and information is what is created from the data. You can use data or misuse data to create legitimate information or pseudo or misinformation.
When it comes to COVID some people are laying out information backed by data from legitimate sources without political spin and then there are those that are invested in contradicting the antidotal and scientific evidence that masks work. If a person wants to argue that there is no real evidence that mask wearing works, I would posit that there is no "real" evidence or data the PE works. There is a body of antidotal evidence that it works. It strains credulity to say out of one side of a persons mouth that there is no evidence that masks work and then be on a site that is almost completely comprised of shared experience of what works removed from any large data source or scientific study.
COVID is different than most things that lend themselves to point counter point or discussion. Like do we really need air to breath. I am not getting into a debate about that, even though I am sure there is some Zealot out there convinced we don't need air. Again, there is no down side to following precautions like mask wearing and social distancing (there is a horrible economic and psychological downside to lockdowns even when necessary). There is a pandemic, many countries have handled it better than us due to cultural and societal norms, the amount of death at the end of this journey will be a number so astounding it will take anyone's breath away and so COVID is a dead horse at this point. People can keep beating it but the reality is "writ large" already. A person's political views or philosophies not withstand history will award Science and Medicine the Oscar and make short shrift of those that were part of the problem not the solution.

That's all well said. However, you seem to be taking the position that the goal is to eradicate the virus from the population at all costs. As though, if mandating masks has even the smallest effect, do it. If closing all restaurants might keep one person from spreading the virus, do it. The people on that side of the argument have essentially closed the debate stage at a time when debate is essential. You gloss over so easily, "there is a horrible economic and psychological downside to lockdowns even when necessary" as though lockdowns are inarguable without being willing to engage in the "when necessary" part of your statement. When lockdowns will do more positive than negative, you can argue that they *might* be necessary. The Stanford study authors put it in perspective: "we fail to find an additional benefit of stay-at-home orders and business closures. The data cannot fully exclude the possibility of some benefits. However, even if they exist, these benefits may not match the numerous harms of these aggressive measures." Do you consider Stanford a legitimate source or are they invested in contradicting "they antidotal (sic) and scientific evidence"?

 

[Fizzby2233]

Economic effects can be reversed death can not. When the town of Paradise California burn down the thought was not save the business and merchandise first. It was save the people first so they can rebuild. This is a lesson from history not me. After the 1918 pandemic after the great wars after all manner of catastrophes it is always life first then rebuild. COVID is a disease yes but it is a world event catastrophe which is no where near being done with us. Hard desicions are made in historic times that can be made for the good and have horrible effects on some. But what history show is that as long as people survive they will rebuild and repair the damage to their economies. Paradise has been busily rebuilding. If they had all died in that desperate fire trying to save their businesses there would be no one to rebuild. How did it get so late so soon.-Dr. Suess

 

[Fizzby2233]

The study from Stanford does have merit and has to be seen and weighed with other credible study at which point it is fair to say that a person is coming from a point of view that does have foundation. There is so much antedotal evidence coming out of countries that have effectively used lock downs that I believe this question will be examined for years once we are no longer in the heat of war at the center of the storm. Tip of the hat to you Johnny. Lockdowns have been the most complicated intrusive and harsh of all measures. Time and history will make things clearer and we will see in the rearview mirror what we did right and wrong in this pandemic. Thanks for suggesting the Stanford study it does hit all the criteria of legitimacy. Whether it is the final word...science is always evolving and course correcting.

 

[Johnny D]

"Economics can be reversed" is lacking in compassion for the guy who just lost the business he spent his life building and will never get back. The costs are more than the economy, too. Deaths from drug use and suicide are on the rise.

But we make decisions all the time with regard to preventing death vs the cost to do so. We have to - the notion of preventing death at all costs would be absurd. The obvious one right now is our response to influenza every flu season. We're ok with some number of people dying - there have been some 80k in the US alone in some years - and don't lockdown or force other measures to prevent their deaths. We do this because the cost to do so would be too high. So we know that we weigh the cost against the benefit all the time yet that argument is a non-starter to so many people right now. Why is that debate being silenced?

The Glenn Greenwald interview wasn't about his credentials with regard to Covid. I assume from your response that you didn't listen to it. He's a highly credible journalist - and, yes, an attorney who fights for civil liberties, especially 1st amendment - who is saying what I said above. That the debate is being silenced at a time when it's needed the most. Rather than having this discussion and not waiting until we have the rear view mirror (and the damage has been done), big-tech and media are silencing it.

 

[Fizzby2233]

"Economics can be reversed" is lacking in compassion for the guy who just lost the business he spent his life building and will never get back. The costs are more than the economy, too. Deaths from drug use and suicide are on the rise.

But we make decisions all the time with regard to preventing death vs the cost to do so. We have to - the notion of preventing death at all costs would be absurd. The obvious one right now is our response to influenza every flu season. We're ok with some number of people dying - there have been some 80k in the US alone in some years - and don't lockdown or force other measures to prevent their deaths. We do this because the cost to do so would be too high. So we know that we weigh the cost against the benefit all the time yet that argument is a non-starter to so many people right now. Why is that debate being silenced?

The Glenn Greenwald interview wasn't about his credentials with regard to Covid. I assume from your response that you didn't listen to it. He's a highly credible journalist - and, yes, an attorney who fights for civil liberties, especially 1st amendment - who is saying what I said above. That the debate is being silenced at a time when it's needed the most. Rather than having this discussion and not waiting until we have the rear view mirror (and the damage has been done), big-tech and media are silencing it.

Glenn Greenwald quit the Guardian in disgrace and they issued a statement that anyone who did not agree with him was considered to be censoring him as he was always right. I can certainly see his appeal to some who believe they are always right. I have shared information from reputable sources regarding COVID. If Coke comes out with a study saying sugar is harmless and should be part of everyone's diet I will consider the source. When a contrarian like Greenwald who has an agenda comes out medical advice couched in first amendment rights, correct I will not listen. The debate he think is being silenced is no debate. We have a pandemic and we know certain things about COVID and we are learning more. He is not looking for debate. There is no debate. I get my medical information on COVID from the science and medical community not lawyers who sew dissension and peddle doubt. I am content to follow the guidance of CDC Dr Fauci and the COVID Team put together by our new president comprised of reliable experts. No doubt the disgraced pulitzer prize guy will have lots to complain about regarding the new COVID team as I am sure there will be some missteps but I trust there will be more good than bad.

 

[CUSP82]

And Bidens plan to attack covid is what exactly?

 

[Fizzby2233]

Biden has had several press conferences to outline some of the plan https://joebiden.com/covid-plan/ It is refreshing to see the candor of the new team to discuss that this is going to get worse before it gets better and that they are not "down playing" it. I don't expect 47 percent Americans to greet this with applause, I understand that. I am happy that roughly 52 percent will. That is progress. I didn't write the plan so if people have issues with it probably best to send those to https://joebiden.com/covid-plan/. I am just sharing it because you asked. Cheers.

 

[Party]

Well. I for one am very happy Biden will reduce restrictions on illegal immigrants, that Trump initiated. There are 100,000 Guatamalins On their way up. Of course I’m sure they’ve had their shots. Biden wouldn’t let them in otherwise. If not? I’m sure they’ll all be wearing masks. I mean Biden wouldn’t put the health of the nation ahead of political gain? Course not. Let’s all welcome these Covid free , masked up, illegal immigrants, and future Democract voters.

 

[Fizzby2233]

Well. I for one am very happy Biden will reduce restrictions on illegal immigrants, that Trump initiated. There are 100,000 Guatamalins On their way up. Of course I’m sure they’ve had their shots. Biden wouldn’t let them in otherwise. If not? I’m sure they’ll all be wearing masks. I mean Biden wouldn’t put the health of the nation ahead of political gain? Course not. Let’s all welcome these Covid free , masked up, illegal immigrants, and future Democract voters.

Very helpful. Thanks for your remark. All the best to you and your family. Cheers.

 

[Party]

Very helpful. Thanks for your remark. All the best to you and your family. Cheers.

LOL. Sarcasm intended.