Dr. Aseem Malhotra - initially pro-vax, he changed his mind after his father died. His father died six months after being vaccinated, at the age of 73. Dr. Malhotra was already fussing with the British medical establishment over the use of statins and his promotion and claims for his celebrity diet. Look him up.
Which one? The one that used to agree with the rest of them until his 73 year old father died six months after getting a vaccine, or the one that's made shaky predictions in the past and is now undergoing disciplinary hearings?
It is always the case with tyrannies that those who speak the truth are prosecuted. We are version 2.0 of Soviet Russia where dissidents were diagnosed as having a form of schizophrenia, the chief symptom of which was speaking out against the regime. Now we are not quite as ham fisted. Instead of sending people to the Gulag we destroy their professions and livelihoods or we deplatform them so that they cannot be heard and then the tuchidiots can talk about consensus among the profession.
I don't know what you do for a living, but if you and a thousand others doing the same thing had to deal with a single colleague who was calling you all out publicly for the harm they claimed you were causing people, you would react exactly the same way. Because you're human.
We are version 2.0 of Soviet Russia
You should try writing for Harlequin. They love pearl-clutching.
You and a bunch of other people here need to spend some time considering the concept of yelling 'Fire" in a crowded theatre before you know for a fact there's a fire. You keep telling each other there is, but never produce any proof.
So far all you've offered is journalists' opinions and years old information. Without some reference to material that backs up your claims you're just talking in order to listen to yourself.
Covid-19 presents a negligible risk for adults younger than the age of 60"
You say that as if he were wrong. The risk of death if you are not old, or do not have comorbidities, is negligible. Much less than 1 percent. He is absolutely right.
Even if 200k died, which is probably a very suspect number, you as usual confuse prevalence with individual risk. It is not a big number considering how many people got infected and survived.
As an analogy - if you give peanut butter to a billion people you will almost certainly get several thousands dying of severe allergic reactions to the peanut butter. But peanut butter is not dangerous. The reason is that in large enough numbers you will always produce certain results, even when the risk of that result is individually very low.
Conversely, people underestimate the risk when the occurrence is rare. Tetanus has a 6 percent fatality rate even with treatment. It is at least 600 percent more deadly than covid. But we do not worry about it or even consider it a personal risk because getting tetanus is fairly rare. But if tetanus infected as many people as covid you would have hundred of million dead. It just seems less deadly because the actual numbers of dead is low (due to low prevalence) while covid seems more dangerous because of the higher number of dead (due to high prevalence).
Covidiots fall for the tuchidiocy of being unable to assess individual risk every time.
You are intelligent enough to find facts that marginally support your position but stop cold when they might contradict you. The issue of comorbidites and age as the primary factor in who dies is well known. Learn to google.
If not, here is a typical finding. You can try to attack this specific reference, but there are countless others.
When analyzing the breakdown of deaths by age and condition [source], we can observe how, out of 15,230 confirmed deaths in New York City up to May 12, only 690 (4.5% of all deaths) occurred in patients under the age of 65 who did not have an underlying medical condition (or for which it is unknown whether they had or did not have an underlying condition).
and
So far there has been 1 death every 1,166 people under 65 years old (compared to 1 death every 358 people in the general population). And 89% of the times, the person who died had one or more underlying medical conditions.
Clearly the deaths are not evenly distributed, being concentrated in older people and or people who have underlying conditions.
This is not a fuck you argument. This is a fuck you vaxxers argument. You fuckers had no right to set up a medical apartheid state, to deprive me of my constitutional and human rights, just because you were scared and could not make reasoned decisions. The measures you cheered on did nothing to protect this group. Vaxxines do not prevent them from catching it. If they really think it helps them they can go and get jabbed. But for the sake of this hysterical moral panic that you and your ilk perpetuate, you have traded the illusion of security for oppression and discrimination.
Standard cautions folks:
Peter A. McCullough: "Covid-19 presents a negligible risk for adults younger than the age of 60" https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23242430-abim-decision-on-mccullough
US people under 60 who have died from covid so far: @200,000 https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/
Dr. Aseem Malhotra - initially pro-vax, he changed his mind after his father died. His father died six months after being vaccinated, at the age of 73. Dr. Malhotra was already fussing with the British medical establishment over the use of statins and his promotion and claims for his celebrity diet. Look him up.
This is always the case with Tuchidiots
Which one? The one that used to agree with the rest of them until his 73 year old father died six months after getting a vaccine, or the one that's made shaky predictions in the past and is now undergoing disciplinary hearings?
It is always the case with tyrannies that those who speak the truth are prosecuted. We are version 2.0 of Soviet Russia where dissidents were diagnosed as having a form of schizophrenia, the chief symptom of which was speaking out against the regime. Now we are not quite as ham fisted. Instead of sending people to the Gulag we destroy their professions and livelihoods or we deplatform them so that they cannot be heard and then the tuchidiots can talk about consensus among the profession.
I don't know what you do for a living, but if you and a thousand others doing the same thing had to deal with a single colleague who was calling you all out publicly for the harm they claimed you were causing people, you would react exactly the same way. Because you're human.
You should try writing for Harlequin. They love pearl-clutching.
You and a bunch of other people here need to spend some time considering the concept of yelling 'Fire" in a crowded theatre before you know for a fact there's a fire. You keep telling each other there is, but never produce any proof.
So far all you've offered is journalists' opinions and years old information. Without some reference to material that backs up your claims you're just talking in order to listen to yourself.
You say that as if he were wrong. The risk of death if you are not old, or do not have comorbidities, is negligible. Much less than 1 percent. He is absolutely right.
Even if 200k died, which is probably a very suspect number, you as usual confuse prevalence with individual risk. It is not a big number considering how many people got infected and survived.
As an analogy - if you give peanut butter to a billion people you will almost certainly get several thousands dying of severe allergic reactions to the peanut butter. But peanut butter is not dangerous. The reason is that in large enough numbers you will always produce certain results, even when the risk of that result is individually very low.
Conversely, people underestimate the risk when the occurrence is rare. Tetanus has a 6 percent fatality rate even with treatment. It is at least 600 percent more deadly than covid. But we do not worry about it or even consider it a personal risk because getting tetanus is fairly rare. But if tetanus infected as many people as covid you would have hundred of million dead. It just seems less deadly because the actual numbers of dead is low (due to low prevalence) while covid seems more dangerous because of the higher number of dead (due to high prevalence).
Covidiots fall for the tuchidiocy of being unable to assess individual risk every time.
You are correct
Pre mRNA mass vaccination, in 2020, kids were asymptomatic and or mild to no symptoms.
https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/kids-and-covid-19-why-they-are-not-getting-as-sick/
Post mass vaccination, 2021, 2022, record hospitalization rates for kids cold and flu with severe infections
Ah yes. The "Fuck those guys" argument. Classy.
No links. No data. Opinions only. You could keep this up forever without offering a shred of proof.
I'm sure you think you're making sense, but you're just giving yourself a warm fuzzy feeling by singing the old hymns in the anti-vax choir.
You are intelligent enough to find facts that marginally support your position but stop cold when they might contradict you. The issue of comorbidites and age as the primary factor in who dies is well known. Learn to google.
If not, here is a typical finding. You can try to attack this specific reference, but there are countless others.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/
and
Clearly the deaths are not evenly distributed, being concentrated in older people and or people who have underlying conditions.
This is not a fuck you argument. This is a fuck you vaxxers argument. You fuckers had no right to set up a medical apartheid state, to deprive me of my constitutional and human rights, just because you were scared and could not make reasoned decisions. The measures you cheered on did nothing to protect this group. Vaxxines do not prevent them from catching it. If they really think it helps them they can go and get jabbed. But for the sake of this hysterical moral panic that you and your ilk perpetuate, you have traded the illusion of security for oppression and discrimination.
And you're saying that the people with asthma and dozens of other chronic conditions should be out of luck. Why is that?
Yeah, screw them, I guess.
And screw those other 11%, right?
Look at you! You're a martyr.
That would be public health they're taking about folks.