Have you considered that your position in this matter may not depend on what's true at all?
I think you should consider that your worldview is contrarian to try to make yourself feel that you're smarter than others but actually tarnishes your ability to view these things objectively. We're also approaching a tertiary problem not very related to covid here--there's enough information on the internet that you can find some information somewhere to support any contrarian claim. As a contrarian I fall into this trap sometimes, but the data on this subject is quite clear. Just to be nice, I typed in "Covid vaccine safety" into google, and copy and pasted the first link. I shouldn't really need to copy and paste links from simple google searches. If this was more niche not easily accessible data you might have a point.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/research/publications/index.html
There are only a gajillion studies in there, some of them the original double blind IIRC, and most concerns related to the vaccine have multiple studies posted under them.
There are outlier events for lots of vaccines, usually allergic/autoimmune reactions, but there is pretty clear that, no, there is not a higher mortality rate among the vaccinated. There is the opposite.
magnax1
1yr ago
Being boosters, they are inherently looking at the effect vs the previous dose.
Its a bit ridiculous to ask for something so easily accessible on google as moderna vaccine trials.
magnax1
1yr ago
Winning arguments is about evoking a story or a mythos more than offering up meaningful facts. This is why politicians have random people they don't know come and sit in during their policy speeches. Like, "Our refugee program saved Jenny's life when gangs were hunting her down in el salvador." Or whatever.
Find a meaningful emotionally resonant consequence of their beliefs and turn it into a story. Tell them about the person just like them whose life would be harmed by their beliefs.
magnax1
1yr ago
My bad. I'm just working off memory of Russia making a big deal over it years ago.
magnax1
1yr ago
Deregulate housing/zoning, cut taxes, increase rural infrastructure, implement a land value tax, and support other policies which would incentivize moving away from the densest urban areas. If you can get something more radical through then the next policy would be something like removing taxes for married women who have 3 children with the same man. I don't think you could get that passed in any country though. You could probably get small short term bumps in pregnancy rates by welfare/paid leave policies but in the longer term they'd crater birth rates harder because it incentivizes or normalizes single motherhood which produces unproductive members of society and all the other social burdens that accompany that.
magnax1
1yr ago
That double blind trial data is a lot better and very clear that this isn't the case. We don't have to do guessing games with outside factors (such as risk taking when you know you're vaccinated), so why would we?
magnax1
1yr ago
They used copies of them, so basically. Not sure about Ukraine but Russia and Belarus did.
magnax1
1yr ago
It's required to tell what excess mortality means, which is the whole point of this discussion.
magnax1
1yr ago
The cause of death and data surrounding it would be more what I'm worried about.
magnax1
1yr ago
This is pretty spot on, but I have one thing to add--I think far more than people believing ideas that confer social status, they believe things that benefit their role in society. For example, professors almost always believe things that would elevate their role in society--some sort of technocratic socialism/marxism being the obvious historical example along with its descendant cultural marxist philosophies. Likewise, people in industries that suffer from expensive federal regulation, like oil, tend to be libertarian (the koch brothers)
I'm not criticizing anything. You don't have to be a 3rd world hell basket to have poor data. It's a pretty common problem. Detroit has poor data tracking and is not anything approaching a 3rd world hell basket, even if it's crime is pretty close. There are pretty big swathes of most countries which don't track data well. For example, its pretty well established that China probably isn't quite sure what it's exact population or GDP are. The specific problems in China are likely different (incentives for people collecting data to lie) but the problem as a whole is pretty universal.
EDIT:I'm not sure why you wouldn't just compare US vaccinated vs unvaccinated. That's basically what the trials did, and the data is public.
https://eua.modernatx.com/covid19vaccine-eua/providers/clinical-trial-data
magnax1
1yr ago
Would you trust data from Peru or Hungary? I sure wouldn't. I suspect even US data is quite fuzzy.
magnax1
1yr ago
I would bet there is no reliable data in unvaccinated countries. Every country developed enough for a vaccine campaign (except for China) has used the Western mrna vaccines. Also, if there was good data it wouldn't be comparable. Africa's mortality is not comparable to countries where half the country is over 50 (or whatever it is). Especially when you factor in all the excess mortality in Africa from other things (AIDS, untreated diseases that wouldn't matter in the developed world, etc)
magnax1
1yr ago
The excess deaths are probably caused by the after effects of Corona. Myocarditis and other heart issues are moderately common in people who didn't even have severe cases. Most of the people who have these issues probably don't know they have them. Then there are the severe cases, of which there were a lot, where people were stuck on ventilators and likely had all sorts of complications. Those people often aren't long for this world. There's also a case to be made that isolation caused by the pandemic has increased all cause mortality, bit that's pretty foggy and may not be true. It's also possible that the data is just off.
If the vaccines caused noticeable health risks it would be absurdly easy to see a correlation. Vaccination=higher mortality. That correlation isn't there. Also, hiding a health issue caused by a drug is so outside of the FDAs historical behavioral pattern that it's really ridiculous to lean into some conspiratorial coverup. Remember, when 2 J&J vaccine patients had heart issues out if millions (a rate which is far less than the rate in the random population) the FDA pulled the vaccine immediately. Yet they're covering up mass sickness from other vaccines?
This is one of those conspiracies that's really hard not to be condescending about because it's just so thinly supported.
magnax1
1yr ago
That's not an argument against what I'm saying. You can't predict exactly how future growth will work, but betting it will be there is pretty obvious.
magnax1
1yr ago
I think its good to make a fuss. I just think this is all a bit exaggerated. There are specifics which are more or less problematic.
magnax1
1yr ago
Some are easier than others. Mass shootings are a very easy problem to dismiss. If you are less likely or roughly equally as likely to be harmed by something as a lightning strike, then it is a non issue in my view. Mass shootings are within the rough range of lightning strikes. Children drowning in pools is a much bigger issue, albeit also a total non issue in relative terms.
Other problems are indeed more complex. I don't really want to go into detail on global warming right now (I've spent way too much time on here today, I need to get work done), but I think it's quite easy to see that if you do a very pessimistic estimate of economic and technological growth on the timescales where global warming might be devastating (100+ years) and then include the opportunity cost of the measures taken to deal with it (which are all basically growth dampening) then I think it's quite clear that its at best a non-issue and at worst the policies are significant cost to society with little to no benefit. It seems to me very similar to the panic in the early late 19th and early 20th century about malthusian population collapse. It probably would not have taken much of a leap in 1890 to take an extremely pessimistic economic model, look at it, and say "This is fucking dumb, we're going to be too rich for this to matter."
magnax1
1yr ago
I don't expect that either are outliers. I suspect boards pretty closely match upper middle class demographics of whatever region predominates their recruiting pool. Go google Microsoft's board. I bet it's mostly white people because Seattle is very white. Likewise, I bet Ford is very white because midwestern upper middle class people are almost all white.
magnax1
1yr ago
Society won't collapse because a few companies might lose out to French, Japanese or maybe Chinese companies, and then have to reform, create new organizations, or limp on as a second rate economy (like Europe has been doing for 50+ years without a sign of collapse). The gap between where the US is now and collapse is monumental. It is the most powerful, rich, and culturally dominant nation in human history. It basically has to conjure up boogiemen to create competitive incentives. Undoubtedly the US will collapse someday, just like every other civilization or nation ever, but woke won't be the cause.
Btw I'm not saying woke stuff is good. It's just an exaggerated threat to terminally online right leaning types. You could realistically go a month in a wealthy suburb living out your life and never have it affect you at work, home or your kids school's. One of the actual biggest issues in America right now is a huge gap between the perceived importance of a problem (Global warming, school shootings, woke, or whatever) and actual significant problems.
magnax1
1yr ago
There's a pretty gaping chasm between "You will have to hire x% women and x% minorities or you'll be blacklisted" and "The payment companies won't let kiwi farms use their services." I don't think payment systems should be weaponized, but blacklisting kiwi farms was not about wokeness, diversity quotas, etc.
magnax1
1yr ago
Most top European talent also immigrates out. Its impossible to start a new industry upending business in Europe because of regulation. Spacex, Uber, and many others could never have started anywhere in Europe because they would have been regulated out of existence.
magnax1
1yr ago
Someone should tell Musk that since he sure doesn't seem to care and is the richest man alive.
The nasdaq and banking sector are themselves part of the free market. I also suspect you overestimate the rigidity of these guidelines anyways (someone look up Walmarts board real quick and tell me when they're going to be blacklisted), Either way, the banking sector itself has a lot of competition internationally and internally. Most startups don't finance themselves off bank loans.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/research/publications/index.html
There is another study in there as well with the same conclusion. This is just non-covid mortality risk, obviously the risk for COVID itself is much lower for people who took the vaccine, and that data is in there as well IIRC.
More options
Context Copy link