Why don't politicians talk about the risks of pushing v a cc ines on billions

[oldtimer28]

Yes, this will probably get some angry brainwashed people to sing the praises of v a c c ines.

I have taken many v a c c ines to this point.

However,

Fact these vacc ines were approved on maximum two months of test subject side effect study.

The testing was on thousands.

They have already been injected into almost 5 billion.

Please rationally discuss the above and why neither side of politics are discussing it.

Thanks

Edit. Yes I have studied statistics at university...

[jstern]

It's a forbidden subject, in the main. It simply is.

You're not going to see it in the main stream media, and talking about it on major social media platforms could get you banned. (Ish is not a major social media platform, so you don't have to write it v a c c ines.)

I mentioned that there was a Facebook group (I forgot to mention that it had 200,000 members) where people who were vaccinated would talk about side effect. Could be mild or major. That sounds very reasonable, humans going over their experiences with the vaccines. And then the group, banned.

But then if you're what I think Warriorfan refers to as vaccines cucks, or something like that, then you're like, "Good, because I'm a vaccine cuck and I want to win."

[iamgine]

It's a forbidden subject, in the main. It simply is.

You're not going to see it in the main stream media, and talking about it on major social media platforms could get you banned. (Ish is not a major social media platform, so you don't have to write it v a c c ines.)

I mentioned that there was a Facebook group (I forgot to mention that it had 200,000 members) where people who were vaccinated would talk about side effect. Could be mild or major. That sounds very reasonable, humans going over their experiences with the vaccines. And then the group, banned.

But then if you're what I think Warriorfan refers to as vaccines cucks, or something like that, then you're like, "Good, because I'm a vaccine cuck and I want to win."
Groups like this could be dangerous as they could slow down the rate of vaccination and thus slowing the rate of herd immunity and economic recovery. In emergency times like today, that might not be acceptable, reasonable as they may be. Especially when this kind of groups are very vulnerable to hoaxes and intruders.

[theman93]

Groups like this could be dangerous as they could slow down the rate of vaccination and thus slowing the rate of herd immunity and economic recovery. In emergency times like today, that might not be acceptable, reasonable as they may be. Especially when this kind of groups are very vulnerable to hoaxes and intruders.

Dangerous? You're assuming these vaccines are going to provide herd immunity...who's to say it's not the vaccinated driving the novel variants - variants that they could end up vulnerable against - due to the virus only having to mutate the one protein the vaccines are engineered to focus on? As for economic recovery it's not the vaccination rate that's inhibiting it, it's the nonsensical and negative mandates our governments and businesses are enforcing. Such as losing your job if you don't want the shot.

I would argue censoring these groups leads to more hesitancy. It sews the thought that there is something to hide and they don't want word to get out that went wrong with them could go wrong with you. Let people digest the information freely and let them come to their own conclusions. Also, who's to say it's not these fact checkers who credit the ongoing censorship that are the hoaxers and intruders? These clowns have been wrong countless times.

[jstern]

Groups like this could be dangerous as they could slow down the rate of vaccination and thus slowing the rate of herd immunity and economic recovery. In emergency times like today, that might not be acceptable, reasonable as they may be. Especially when this kind of groups are very vulnerable to hoaxes and intruders.

That's assuming that it is an absolute fact that the vaccines have no side effects. And even so people should not be prevented from sharing their experiences. Most people are not conspiracy nuts and will be able to determine what's BS and what's not.

With information, people can come to a general conclusion on best practices to do after getting injected to prevent side effects.

Also, you clearly follow the media narrative. But again, what if you're being misled? There's only one reality, yet people have their absolute beliefs and people should stick to them. Which means that most people think they are absolutely right about everything in their mind, yet the vast majority are wrong because reality is only one truth. What if you're wrong?

Is the person on CNN who said that we need to get vaccine passports and make life a living hell for non vaccinated right? Are they simply vaccine cucks like, Warriorfan would say? Or are they're self focused vengeful people?

They clearly want misery because they only care about their team winning.

What if the vaccine does not prevent people from getting this flu, only have less severe symptoms. And as a result not only are they still passing the virus around, not only leading to more mutations, but leading to mutations that is starting to affect the vaccinated? Should people not be allow to talk about that?

What if there are alternatives, such as Axe's Ivermectin, but you can't get any information about it, people's real life experience, other than very misleading "fact checking" from the mainstream media?

[oldtimer28]

Groups like this could be dangerous as they could slow down the rate of vaccination and thus slowing the rate of herd immunity and economic recovery. In emergency times like today, that might not be acceptable, reasonable as they may be. Especially when this kind of groups are very vulnerable to hoaxes and intruders.

So you are saying censorship is justified. By who, when, and how?

Who will be accountable for harm?

V a c c ine manufacturers have contracted out of liability. Governments would face an uprising if people discovered they were harmed by va cc ines

[iamgine]

The urgency to achieve herd immunity and economic recovery trumps these concerns to me. We are talking global scale. The are many nations where tens of thousands of people literally die of hunger and thousands more go into extreme poverty every single day the pandemic continues.

The assumption is herd immunity based on science. Have science been wrong before? Yes. Could it be that all the vaccinated people develop cancer in 10 years? Sure, unlikely but anything is possible. Is it our best course forward? I believe so. Unless there are significant new findings against it.

Should people be able to talk about side effect? Sure, but not to the point it's dangerous to vaccination efforts.

Most people are not conspiracy nuts, but also NOT able to determine what's BS or not. Again, we're talking global scale.

Censoring these groups does NOT lead to more hesitancy simply because the message doesn't spread.

[theman93]

The urgency to achieve herd immunity and economic recovery trumps these concerns to me. We are talking global scale. The are many nations where tens of thousands of people literally die of hunger and thousands more go into extreme poverty every single day the pandemic continues.

The assumption is herd immunity based on science. Have science been wrong before? Yes. Could it be that all the vaccinated people develop cancer in 10 years? Sure, unlikely but anything is possible. Is it our best course forward? I believe so. Unless there are significant new findings against it.

Should people be able to talk about side effect? Sure, but not to the point it's dangerous to vaccination efforts.

Most people are not conspiracy nuts, but also NOT able to determine what's BS or not. Again, we're talking global scale.

Censoring these groups does NOT lead to more hesitancy simply because the message doesn't spread.

The "fact checkers" who are carrying out the censorship have proven themselves unable to determine what's BS or not as well. What's the difference?

[iamgine]

The "fact checkers" who are carrying out the censorship have proven themselves unable to determine what's BS or not as well. What's the difference?

Not sure what you're talking about.

[theman93]

Not sure what you're talking about.

I’ll give you a couple examples to shoot at:

1) The fact checkers censoring discussion about the possibility of the virus leaking from the Wuhan lab.

2) The fact checkers censoring HCQ by using what turned out to be a fraudulent study published by the Lancet.

Both times they couldn’t determine what was BS and their censorship was based on lies. They themselves have proven incapable of determining what’s BS or not so why are you for their censorship?

[oldtimer28]

The urgency to achieve herd immunity and economic recovery trumps these concerns to me. We are talking global scale. The are many nations where tens of thousands of people literally die of hunger and thousands more go into extreme poverty every single day the pandemic continues.

The assumption is herd immunity based on science. Have science been wrong before? Yes. Could it be that all the vaccinated people develop cancer in 10 years? Sure, unlikely but anything is possible. Is it our best course forward? I believe so. Unless there are significant new findings against it.

Should people be able to talk about side effect? Sure, but not to the point it's dangerous to vaccination efforts.

Most people are not conspiracy nuts, but also NOT able to determine what's BS or not. Again, we're talking global scale.

Censoring these groups does NOT lead to more hesitancy simply because the message doesn't spread.

Nice try to evade my post questions. You are condoning possible genocide on herd immunity- herd immunity for covid has been declared by many pro vaccine experts. Eg read Bloomberg news for others.

Clearly you are not open minded and are now blocked so I do not waste any more time on irrational people who ignore evidence contrary to what they want to believe.

[iamgine]

I’ll give you a couple examples to shoot at:

1) The fact checkers censoring discussion about the possibility of the virus leaking from the Wuhan lab.

2) The fact checkers censoring HCQ by using what turned out to be a fraudulent study published by the Lancet.

Both times they couldn’t determine what was BS and their censorship was based on lies. They themselves have proven incapable of determining what’s BS or not so why are you for their censorship?

In a non emergency situation, I'd not be for censorship. People wanna believe 9/11 caused by martians? Fine by me. Like the virus leaking from Wuhan doesn't seem to be an emergency situation. I'd be against censoring that.

[theman93]

In a non emergency situation, I'd not be for censorship. People wanna believe 9/11 caused by martians? Fine by me. Like the virus leaking from Wuhan doesn't seem to be an emergency situation. I'd be against censoring that.

My point is that their censorship is often wrong. Why should it continue as they’re likely blocking people from critical information?

[iamgine]

My point is that their censorship is often wrong. Why should it continue as they’re likely blocking people from critical information?

My point is that's irrelevant. So if they're seldom wrong, it should continue?

[theman93]

My point is that's irrelevant. So if they're seldom wrong, it should continue?

They’re not seldom wrong though, that was just 2 examples. There’s plenty more.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/11-worst-fact-checks-facebooks-new-fact-checkers-aaron-bandler

https://www.dailywire.com/news/candace-owens-challenges-fact-checker-and-wins

Why are you ok with censoring, when the ones censoring get it wrong so often?

That’s like saying you’re ok with confirmed liars who repeatedly lie telling people what is and isn’t true.

[PistonsFan#21]

In a non emergency situation, I'd not be for censorship. People wanna believe 9/11 caused by martians? Fine by me. Like the virus leaking from Wuhan doesn't seem to be an emergency situation. I'd be against censoring that.

What about censorship of highly qualified doctors, epidemiologists and virologists that don't share the same opinion as the mainstream media doctors based on their own expertise, researches and knowledge?

Are you in favor of them being censored too?

[theman93]

They’re not seldom wrong though, that was just 2 examples. There’s plenty more.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/11-worst-fact-checks-facebooks-new-fact-checkers-aaron-bandler

https://www.dailywire.com/news/candace-owens-challenges-fact-checker-and-wins

Why are you ok with censoring, when the ones censoring get it wrong so often?

That’s like saying you’re ok with confirmed liars who repeatedly lie telling people what is and isn’t true.

Bump in case it wasn’t seen at the bottom of page one

@iamgine

[iamgine]

What about censorship of highly qualified doctors, epidemiologists and virologists that don't share the same opinion as the mainstream media doctors based on their own expertise, researches and knowledge?

Are you in favor of them being censored too?
Of course not. What kind of question is that?

[iamgine]

They’re not seldom wrong though, that was just 2 examples. There’s plenty more.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/11-worst-fact-checks-facebooks-new-fact-checkers-aaron-bandler

https://www.dailywire.com/news/candace-owens-challenges-fact-checker-and-wins

Why are you ok with censoring, when the ones censoring get it wrong so often?

That’s like saying you’re ok with confirmed liars who repeatedly lie telling people what is and isn’t true.

In the case of that facebook group, I'm ok with that.

[theman93]

In the case of that facebook group, I'm ok with that.

Are you referring to the group @jstern mentioned?

[iamgine]

Of course

[theman93]

Of course

So...even though there's a very likely possibility the fact checkers censorship is illegitimate given their poor track record, your good with them censoring individuals sharing their personal experiences that allows other people to come to a more informed decision?

I mean hey seems a little 1984 to me, but if you want put your trust in liars that's your prerogative. :lol

[iamgine]

So...even though there's a very likely possibility the fact checkers censorship is illegitimate given their poor track record, your good with them censoring individuals sharing their personal experiences that allows other people to come to a more informed decision?

I mean hey seems a little 1984 to me, but if you want put your trust in liars that's your prerogative. :lol
I think you misunderstood. I don't agree or disagree or trust or care at all about these fact checkers. They happened to agree with me in that case. That's why I didn't know what you were talking about.

[theman93]

I think you misunderstood. I don't agree or disagree or trust or care at all about these fact checkers. They happened to agree with me in that case. That's why I didn't know what you were talking about.

Well you made the claim that most people aren't able to determine what's BS or not so they should be censored because it's dangerous to vaccination efforts which has global implications.

As it turns out, the fact checkers that censor aren't able to determine what's BS or not either and their incorrect censorship is also dangerous and has global implications as well.

If nobody is able to determine what is/isn't BS, you're ok with censoring the opposition so long as it aligns with your worldview?

[iamgine]

Well you made the claim that most people aren't able to determine what's BS or not so they should be censored because it's dangerous to vaccination efforts which has global implications.

As it turns out, the fact checkers that censor aren't able to determine what's BS or not either and their incorrect censorship is also dangerous and has global implications as well.

If nobody is able to determine what is/isn't BS, you're ok with censoring the opposition so long as it aligns with your worldview?
Again, I don't care about fact checkers. The science on vaccine is pretty sound, this is the basis, not fact checkers. In an emergency situation, censoring these groups is ok for reasons I already stated.

[theman93]

Again, I don't care about fact checkers. The science on vaccine is pretty sound, this is the basis, not fact checkers. In an emergency situation, censoring these groups is ok for reasons I already stated.

The science on mortality models, lockdowns, surface transmission, outdoor transmission, asymptomatic transmission, and masks was also pretty sound. Until it wasn't.

Censoring people's legitimate experiences because of a dynamic method that can lead to drastically different conclusions is asinine tbh.

[iamgine]

The science on mortality models, lockdowns, surface transmission, outdoor transmission, asymptomatic transmission, and masks was also pretty sound. Until it wasn't.

Censoring people's legitimate experiences because of a dynamic method that can lead to drastically different conclusions is asinine tbh.
We are talking facebook group here.

There are lots of things that are being done to monitor people's experiences with the vaccine. How do you think they find out and change mind about surface transmission etc? Via facebook group?

[theman93]

We are talking facebook group here.

There are lots of things that are being done to monitor people's experiences with the vaccine. How do you think they find out and change mind about surface transmission etc? Via facebook group?

Many use social media as a source of information. So yes that is one prevalent way.

[iamgine]

Many use social media as a source of information. So yes that is one prevalent way.
Exactly why the censoring is ok.

[theman93]

Exactly why the censoring is ok.

Why is censoring ok when it's wrong?

[iamgine]

:confusedshrug:

[theman93]

:confusedshrug:

Mhm.

Keep trusting that censorship that proves itself wrong time and time again.

[iamgine]

Going in circle :confusedshrug: