Post
by FriFlo » Fri 30 Apr 2021 14:37
Kylo, I DID read your post. But you assume there was anything I could have missed that was new to me. Believe me, I haven't! I have read multiple versions of that same lore again and again, that is why it is really difficult to not get annoyed by it at this point. I see it like this: people like you take what is actually part of my own philosophy - being critical and careful to not blindly believe everything the media is telling them. But then you draw hair-raising conclusions out of that position of skepticism - so absurd, that it makes me doubt wether the critical POV is really a good idea for everyone. You know, I donÖt like sheep, but following the mainstream in this instance is really better than what you come up with.
That is because being critical first and foremost means being critical with YOURSELF! Otherwise, you might miss that you own conclusions pose a much greater problem than the main stream simplifications, which may sometimes be incomplete or sometimes even straight lies.
I have seen this so often that it never really works to discuss with this type of person, as any fact can be countered with some pseudo-fact and even though the fraud is very obvious to me, the other person is still as convinced of his wrong conclusion as before ... it unfortunately never helps to discuss, which is why I really struggle with myself to take the time to answer to something like this!
Let me make a little example: If you were to talk to a pilot who told you, there were pink fluffy unicorns flying in the sky ... they are pretty rare, but he has already seen them two times and two colleagues also. Most people were just to much into main stream to see it. Those unicorns only appear to children and adults with the heart of children. What would you do? Would you change your assumption about pink fluffy unicorns not being a serious discussion? I bet you wouldn't spend much time in doubting what you thought to be your view of what is a reasonable doubt and what is just rubbish. And you probably would not spend a lot of time in trying to persuade that person of the non-existence of those unicorns, if that person would just counter every of your reasonable arguments with just rhetorical trickery! That person might not be really dumb in terms of unable to find a lot of reasons and be rhetorically strong ... it would just not be worth it and you would let it go ...
Of course, my unicorn example is much more drastic and I freely admit there is more doubt and criticism justified when talking about government, big business, big Pharma, etc! So far, we even don't disagree! However, it is of critical importance WHERE exactly to have doubts and where that otherwise valid skeptical POV might lead to dangerous mis-conlusions due to the lack of experience you yourself (just as myself) might have in this particular field! And - sorry - a job in an emergency call center does not qualify you to make me disbelieve everything I know from all the MDs who I know and talk to ... Even though, I do not think that MDs are "gods in white" as we jokingly call them in German, I still think it is important to know when you better listen to them and all those other experts like virologists in this case.
These are some of the problems with your assumptions:
My thing is, it doesn't matter if I get vaccinated because it doesn't prevent me from getting or carrying the virus.
Wrong! While there is simply not enough data available at this point to say how much a vaccination does reduce the risk of you transmitting it - and that is the reason vaccinated people should still wear masks and keep distance - it is safe to assume that it does significantly reduces infections! This will of course be different regarding which substance you look at, but generally: the more people vaccinated, the fewer infections there will be! Hence, my earlier comment about taking responsibility for your decision, as it is not a decision that just affects you yourself Viral spread is a bit more complex than just looking at two people. You have to see the whole picture: when 50% of the population is vaccinated, the statistical probability of infections will be reduced by much more than 50%. That is the major point of vaccinations: they protect the individual, but they have the potential of almost eradicating the virus (almost in this case, because the covid can be spread by animals).
Again the reasoning is simple: blame covid even if it's not a major factor if you detect it on a corpse - because the CDC can ask for more money and covid can't sue you for blaming it.
The vaccine on the other hand has an entire army of lawyers ready to contest that - because it would mean that people could sue pfizer/moderna for damages, while throwing away the billions on RnD they spent on the vaccine.
More over, if you pay attention to the language used by the professionals, they carefully state that they are unable to link the cause of death to the vaccine, not that the vaccine didn't kill them.
One problem with this is when you basically declare any scientific data as irrelevant - it just serves the goals of big Pharma or whatever - you just render any means of objectifying things useless! I DO think that SOME clinical studies are driven by wrong interests (mostly money). But nobody should therefore doubt the general concept of clinical studies - especially meta-studies (looking at the results of multiple studies and comparing them). That is precisely the problem with the Trump-camp and the Fox-News-camp (by the way, are you joking by associating me with those?)! If facts do not matter any more, nobody will ever loose an argument and even the most stupid arguments and positions will remain valid!
And the simple truth is this: mortality rises by a factor X whenever many infections took place before (a wave of infections)! Death is a complicated thing and it might in some cases be difficult to decide, wether covid was the reason for death, wether it was just one of the causes or wether it was entirely unrelated to that case of death. But if you simply care to draw the right conclusion from (A) deaths are rising drastically and (B) covid is found in the bodies and add (C) in most of the cases, covid-related symptoms like severe lung tissue damage was found in the body, you should easily see that it is preposterous to assume, that many of those deaths are not even related to covid. How else do you explain the rise of deaths and why are all of those hospital beds used up that quickly!? Of course that is related to the virus!
So, the scientist is just honest in telling you that sometimes it may be difficult to say with certainty what exactly an individual died from. But you on the other hand draw completely crazy conclusions from that! It is of course crystal clear that covid does cause most of the deaths that are above the usual mortality! With simple logic thinking this should be self-evident ...
As you also question the scientific data on risks of covid vaccines and claim that actually a much larger number of people would die from those vaccinations ... well, it always comes back to that: we cannot find a conclusion to what is right and what is wrong, if you question repeatedly proven data gathered by science ... with that attitude you make it impossible to have a thoughtful dispute or argument. That way, you will never be proven wrong but at the same time, nobody serious will really care for your opinion.
The issue with this, is when you give it to people who are severely in danger of mortality from covid itself, you're also risking killing them with a vaccine that's going to cause respiratory distress as well. The only fact I stated, was that I've taken a ton of calls as a 911 operator of people who were perfectly healthy, got the shot, went to the hospital once or twice for severe respiratory distress - and sadly the 2nd/3rd call far too often was their loved ones finding them dead in the morning. Same story, elderly couple gets the shot - one is fine, and the other declines like a sack of bricks.
Again: you understand half of the basics of how vaccination works and draw wrong conclusions! I already mentioned why your personal observations of some dude are not a valid proof to me that will make me doubt all I know from scientists. So, let's hit the shit directly:
First, no vaccination literally is the injection with the virus! In the case of mRNA (Biontec/Pfizer and Moderna) it is not even the virus itself, but just parts of its DNA. For the vector vaccinations it is killed viruses AFAIK that get injected. I don't want to go into details here, as neither me nor you are experts enough to do so ...
However, both you and me are able to understand that fact, that studies have clearly shown that the injection of those vaccines are extremely safe! Sure, there were some complications - some more with the vector based vaccines with women of certain age. Whenever you use medicine on a huge part of the populations, there will be some few cases with complications and even deaths related to it. But what you fail to acknowledge is that this is the case with ALL vaccinations and even freely available drugs like pain killers - even with food or some chemicals in your sanitary needs or whatever!
It is simply a matter of statical probability that something bad will happen in a few cases when you do it to millions and billions of people. E.g., the risk of dying from thrombosis is drastically higher with most birth-control pills then it was with AstraZeneca. Why so many people were afraid to take that vaccine, but not nearly as many women were afraid to swallow those birth control pills is not evidence based, but purely a decision based on emotion, attention to a topic, false information and some people not being sharp enough to get it. Of course, I understand that those women rather choose the vaccine with even less dangerous potential, which is just as fine as more and more women refuse to take birth control pills nowadays. But you on the other hand compare potentially getting covid and the risks related to that with those slim risks! You can use a comdom to not get pregnant, but there is nothing as good as the vaccine in reducing the chances of you catching that virus.
Just take look at the numbers of deaths of people vaccined and compare them to those who had the virus. You don't even have to add to that all the people who did survive covid but suffer from long-term effects to make the right decision.
