You lack of a citation is telling. Could it be that you don't have any?
No, it could be that I've decided that most people can't be bothered to read the links I provide anyway. And if you're willing to engage in historical revisionism, not much I could say would help anyway.
But if you're up for some Googling, here are just some of the claims that were made that turned out to be completely wrong;
- Vaccinated people do not carry the virus.
- Vaccinated people become "dead ends" for the virus.
- 6 ft of distance reduces spread.
- Plexiglass barriers reduce spread.
- Masks are important when walking to your table at a restaurant, but it's perfectly acceptable to take them off for hours on end while you eat.
- Babies should be masked in NYC daycare centers, except when they're all napping together in the same room.
- Masking doesn't harm the development of a child.
You continue to speak in absolutes. Covid vaccine does not prevent all transmission, but it does prevent some transmission.
"Some" is doing an awful lot of work in that statement, and as you pointed out earlier, is not quantified. I suspect that "some" is somewhere south of 5%.
That is a benefit to the community. Also, people who enter the health system unnecessarily (by being unvaccinated and getting covid) make health care less accessible for everyone else. That is a detriment to the community.
COVID monomania.
People who speed and cause accidents are a detriment to the community. People who smoke are a detriment to the community. People who don't work out and overeat are a detriment to the community. All of these things, and countless more, make health care less accessible for everyone else.
Again, your lack of citations is telling. Could it be that you don't want us to look into these many many doctors that are every bit as qualified as Dr. Fauci and Dr. Ashish Jha and Dr. Rochelle Walensky.
BAHAHAHAHA!
Dr. Ashish Jha's greatest qualification was that he had a large Twitter following and had proven he was willing to gaslight the American people.
Dr. Rochelle Walensky's greatest qualification was her willingness to shamelessly flip-flop on a dime. Just watch her squirm as Jake Tapper at CNN calls her out on her completely illogical explanation on stating schools should be open while simultaneously saying they should be closed as per their guidelines.
Jake Tapper presses CDC director on reopening schools - CNN Video
More baseless claims. It seems you have given up on citations and are resorting solely to emotional charges.
If it's not incredibly obvious yet, I've given up on
you. Anyone that has spent any amount of time interacting with me on these forums knows that I spend a great deal of time providing links, charts, graphics and all sorts of other data and citations. It gets tiresome when the other side just plugs their ears and shuts their eyes and pretends like no citations have been given.
It is not that different. It is only a recommendation.
Oh please. There is a world of difference between "Should not get vaccinated except under very specific medical circumstances" and "Should get vaccinated no matter what". Surely you have to know that.
But I see you ignored the fact that even Denmark agrees that vaccines in general are beneficial, focusing instead on this one point of disagreement with children under 18.
And I see you're (predictably) trying to wave it away as if it's no big deal.
That point of disagreement does nothing to advance your extreme view that vaccines in general are not beneficial.
That has NEVER been my position.
Or do you now admit that they are both safe and effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalizations, and death? I am open to being corrected on what your position is, if you would just state it clearly
I don't think you are, because I've been very clear.
The benefit of COVID vaccination is dependent upon a myriad of factors, including but not limited to, your age, your prior infection status, your co-morbidities, your weight and your overall health.
For an older or immunocompromised person that has never had COVID (if there are any left), there is likely a real benefit to vaccination.
For a young child, vaccinating them and pretending like that's the reason they're protected from severe disease is like putting a sign that says "NO ELEPHANTS" in your front yard and then claiming the reason you don't have any elephants is because of that sign.
Nuance. That is and always has been my position.
Yes, anyone with the desire to question a scientific theory should do so.
Now I don't know what you believe. A moment ago, you said I should defer to experts. Now you tell me it's OK to question scientific theories.
But understand that seriously questioning a scientific theory does not mean sitting back in and easy chair and saying "I don't think that's true!" It involves educating yourself to the level of the people who are experts in the field so that you can understand the theory well enough to criticize it.
Yeah, it doesn't involve that at all. It involves using some common sense.
If you tell me that it's raining outside and I look outside and it's not raining, I don't care if you're the world's best, most educated meteorologist or not. You're still wrong. That's how basic many of these errors have been.
Too often today people criticize scientific theories they don't even understand.
I can read a graph. I understand that if I was told infections would be reduced once vaccination rates reach a certain level and that's not what actually happens, then the hypothesis that high vaccination rates would mean no more surges was dead wrong.
In their arrogance they discount the value of education so they can imagine their own armchair musings as on a par with researchers with decades of career experience.
You just can't quit appealing to authority.
In my career I've worked with some really intelligent, highly-educated people. I've also worked with some really stupid, highly-educated people. And, believe it or not, I've also worked with some highly intelligent people who had no education beyond high school. So yes, education is valuable, but it is not a good predictor of whether people know what they're talking about.
This is not what it means to question a theory. People who are unwilling or unable to put in the hard work of learning the field of study are well advised to follow the consensus of those experts who have dedicated their life to that study.
This is nonsense. If an "expert" tells you something that is demonstrably untrue, and they stick to it in the face of empirical evidence that proves they were incorrect, you don't have to go to school to become an epidemiologist to know that they were wrong.
Carl Sagan also claimed that the possibility of there being a God is extremely small. So be careful which philosophical authority you hang your hat on.
Unlike you, I'm interested in the substance of what is stated and not the source who states it. While it is abundantly clear to me by your repeated appeals to authority that you are quite concerned with the source, I'm more concerned if what that person says is correct.
