First omicron Covid case in U.S.---and it's a fully vaxxed person

[Tinker Grey]

I understand, but then people shouldn't tell me what to do since their good advice today may be bad advice tomorrow.

But in an emergency, people need the best advice available today, regardless of what the best advice is tomorrow.

 

[durangodawood]

I understand, but then people shouldn't tell me what to do since their good advice today may be bad advice tomorrow.

That just requires that you pay attention to the way advice changes in response to reality.

Its amazing how often people here refer to data or recommendations from a year ago or more. Pay attention, people!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't both be right.

Why not? I did not make your error, nor did he.

 

[Rachel20]

Why not? I did not make your error, nor did he.

Maybe I misunderstood their point - I took it as agreement that Fauci et al has been wrong on predictions (example 2 weeks to flatten the curve, % vaccination to achieve herd immunity, OK for cruises to continue big mistake, etc...) but that it was due to fact things change in the sense we gain more info as we move forward.

 

[Rachel20]

That just requires that you pay attention to the way advice changes in response to reality.

Its amazing how often people here refer to data or recommendations from a year ago or more. Pay attention, people!

Maybe I'm just more keenly aware how I can be wrong than others are, so am hesitant to say "get the vax" or "don't get the vax". I always worry about giving advice that may end up harming others. So at most, I post concerns that I think others should know about so they can research & make informed decisions.

 

[durangodawood]

Maybe I'm just more keenly aware how I can be wrong than others are, so am hesitant to say "get the vax" or "don't get the vax". I always worry about giving advice that may end up harming others. So at most, I post concerns that I think others should know about so they can research & make informed decisions.

I think thats a good goal, referring to up to date and reputable sources like The Lancet should be part of that.

I am concerned with people referring to scientific data without any sense of context. Then they draw alarming and utterly wrong conclusions from it. Or they even misread the data itself. We can see this in the "Pfizer Document" thread.

I think anyone who drops professional level (as opposed to consumer level) information should be able to explain it at a professional level.

 

[cow451]

Accurate theories provide accurate predictions. What are yours? So far, Fauci & Inc. have been wrong on all theirs.

Your semantics are cute. A theory is based on known information and historical experience. Your bizarre contention that all of Fauci’s projections have been wrong shows your lack of dispassionate observation.

 

[cow451]

I understand, but then people shouldn't tell me what to do since their good advice today may be bad advice tomorrow.

Everything is information. You get to decide what to do with the information.

 

[Rachel20]

But in an emergency, people need the best advice available today, regardless of what the best advice is tomorrow.

For me, that begs the question what constitutes an "emergency". I keep seeing a 99.9% survival rate with this virus (at least the original one). I'm also concerned about the censorship of "advice available today". As a recent example, Twitter slapped an "Unsafe Link" label on an American Heart Association journal !! Try it yourself:

Twitter Slaps "Unsafe Link" Label on American Heart Association mRNA Vaccine Warning

 

[Rachel20]

Your semantics are cute. A theory is based on known information and historical experience. Your bizarre contention that all of Fauci’s projections have been wrong shows your lack of dispassionate observation.

I shouldn't have said "all". I do know better ... "many".

 

[Rachel20]

I am concerned with people referring to scientific data without any sense of context. Then they draw alarming and utterly wrong conclusions from it. Or they even misread the data itself. We can see this in the "Pfizer Document" thread.

Agree, but there's a danger at the opposite extreme too of laymen not being allowed to question the science (even if they get it wrong). Sagan put it best:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe I misunderstood their point - I took it as agreement that Fauci et al has been wrong on predictions (example 2 weeks to flatten the curve, % vaccination to achieve herd immunity, OK for cruises to continue big mistake, etc...) but that it was due to fact things change in the sense we gain more info as we move forward.

So you cannot support any of your claims?

 

[Subduction Zone]

For me, that begs the question what constitutes an "emergency". I keep seeing a 99.9% survival rate with this virus (at least the original one). I'm also concerned about the censorship of "advice available today". As a recent example, Twitter slapped an "Unsafe Link" label on an American Heart Association journal !! Try it yourself:

Twitter Slaps "Unsafe Link" Label on American Heart Association mRNA Vaccine Warning

You need to properly vet your sources. It is not really what a scientist would call an abstract, since the article was not peer reviewed. Even the AHA makes errors at times. The writers of this should have been told "Get back in touch with us after your article has passed peer review:

Fact Check-Research abstract is not reliable evidence of a link between mRNA vaccines and heart disease

Reuters is one of the most reliable news sources in the world. It got that way by being extremely honest. News sources that are reliable make sure that they remain that way be staying honest. Lying hurts them.

Okay, from that article, even that AHA had doubts about that article:

"The American Heart Association published an “expression of concern” in its journal on Nov. 24 to warn that the passage may not be reliable and that a “suitable correction” was needed (here)."

And a little bit more:

"It added: “Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used.”

Multiple other experts have expressed similar sentiments online (here , here and here), including one who shared parts of a presentation about the abstract and said it lacked data and any references, and was only written by one person (her"

It looks like Twitter did the right thing.

 

[Aldebaran]

You need to properly vet your sources. It is not really what a scientist would call an abstract, since the article was not peer reviewed. Even the AHA makes errors at times. The writers of this should have been told "Get back in touch with us after your article has passed peer review:

Fact Check-Research abstract is not reliable evidence of a link between mRNA vaccines and heart disease

Reuters is one of the most reliable news sources in the world. It got that way by being extremely honest. News sources that are reliable make sure that they remain that way be staying honest. Lying hurts them.

Okay, from that article, even that AHA had doubts about that article:

"The American Heart Association published an “expression of concern” in its journal on Nov. 24 to warn that the passage may not be reliable and that a “suitable correction” was needed (here)."

And a little bit more:

"It added: “Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used.”

Multiple other experts have expressed similar sentiments online (here , here and here), including one who shared parts of a presentation about the abstract and said it lacked data and any references, and was only written by one person (her"

It looks like Twitter did the right thing.

None of what you posted here supports your claims.

 

[Rachel20]

So you cannot support any of your claims?

I already gave examples, like the % to achieve herd immunity. You can hear the claim of 70 to 85% at ~5:45 in the link below. But this fails with Gibralter with ~99% vax rate now showing an increase in cases over last few months.

In the same video, he also claims the mRNA vaccines "absolutely cannot" change DNA, but this article currently in preprint shows a lab study in which some pieces of Covid-19 RNA were converted to DNA and then integrated into human chromosomes. Also the below study out of Sweden disputes Fauci on this claim:
SCIENCE HORROR: Vaccine spike protein enters cell nuclei, suppresses DNA repair engine of the human body, will unleash explosion of cancer, immunodeficiency, autoimmune disorders and accelerated aging

Other claims like "safe" and "effective" are questionable when you consider the number of AEs reported in VAERS and the waning immunity of double-vaxed.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

There were no global mandates pushing a vaccine that had only been around for less than a year either.

I’m willing to bet most people got vaccinated, no questions asked. I’m thinking people trusted doctors more when there wasn’t a 24 hour disinformation campaign in their faces all the time.

 

[Rachel20]

It looks like Twitter did the right thing.

Pretty much tells me all I need to know.

 

[Bradskii]

I understand, but then people shouldn't tell me what to do since their good advice today may be bad advice tomorrow.

I guess you've never seen a doctor for some ailment or other.

 

[Rachel20]

I guess you've never seen a doctor for some ailment or other.

? The person I was referring to isn't my doctor, which I try to choose more carefully than I do my mechanic.

 

[Bradskii]

? The person I was referring to isn't my doctor, which I try to choose more carefully than I do my mechanic.

So your comment doesn't apply to medical advice. That's good to hear.