By the way, if you want to see a pro-Covid vaxxer actually make good arguments, (WHICH I'VE BEEN SEARCHING FOR ALL THIS TIME) here it is:
https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/are-the-op ... crackpots/
My responses after each argument: (It's a long read, just to warn you)
Unz Argument #1: Lockdowns didn't work here because they were done half-assedly, while they were done "well" in China and other Asian countries (with the proof being lower death rates).
The counter to this argument is whether "saving lives" is the only goal...I can already think of 5 instances where people value convenience/time over lower risk of death yet nobody objects to this trade-off
Well...not until "Covid-19" arrived...lol...then everybody claimed "saving every life is sacred"... one could ALMOST be forgiven for thinking these people had anything but altruistic motives and were totally not just virtue signaling retards
The second counterargument is...in order for there to be a proper "lockdown," which Mr. Unz believes is the "right choice," you need either
1) A strong-armed government that enforces rules with strict penalties for disobedience
2) A "high level" of social trust (people willing to sacrifice for the greater good).
The USA is not the former (at least not relatively speaking)...so let's get to that "trust" pact that was broken early on...I won't even get into the multiculturalism that makes "social trust" less likely:
I would say that half the reason people, justifiably so, did not believe in the "lockdown saves lives" narrative is that while all of this was happening, BLM protests were allowed to continue unchecked.
Apparently the (((media))) told everyone that racism was a far worse scourge than Covid-19, so BLM protests (which we were supposed to equate with "anti-racism") should be allowed to continue and that everyone else needs to be holed up at home and not be able to go to church or buy stuff at struggling local small businesses, etc.
(Churches + small businesses tended to vote for Trump...gosh, there COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN A POLITICAL MOTIVE TO ALL OF THIS CHICANERY?)
Of course, anyone with a brain called them out for this BS.
If there were ANY consistency in the oligarchs' propaganda, people would probably be more inclined to accept some sacrifice for the "greater good."
Unfortunately as we have seen, liberal lockdown proponents did not do their part and thus they have only their own little selves to blame for destroying what, according to them, could have been a solution.
(And don't even get me started on hypocritical politicians, the list of violations by the same politicians promoting lockdowns is arduous.)
I will accept the POSSIBILITY that Mr. Unz is right, that lockdowns do work, but unfortunately the sheer mendacity of the corrupt/self serving bureaucrats/politicians and the hypocrisy of liberal retards PRECLUDED any proper implementation.
So those 2 groups can go **** themselves.
Unz Arg #2: (On the "China" case study of lockdowns supposedly eradicating the virus)
As Mike Whitney already said, there's a lot of controversy on whether the Chinese numbers are accurate...I am quite biased against any "government numbers" just because I know they tend to spin the stats quite easily to fool the sheeple (with the USA CDC/BLS/etc. being no exception to that rule...anyone familiar with my rants against fake CPI numbers knows...)
As Carl Sagan's "BS detection" kit explains, you MUST ALWAYS SEEK INDEPENDENT, THIRD PARTY CONFIRMATION.
A government agency is not "third party" and is certainly not "independent."
(Funny how the same people who claim China is imprisoning Uyghers but lying about it to global press orgs, lying about their GDP growth rate, lying about [X] suddenly take their "Covid deaths" # at face value...CONFIRMATION BIAS?
To be fair Mr. Unz doesn't believe in the "China imprisoning Uyghers" narrative so I can't fault him for inconsistency, but the same cannot be said for 0-1 SD IQ progressive retards...LOL...Mr. Unz is 3+ SD so he is unlikely to make that foolish mistake)
But let's say China only suffered < 5000 deaths.
The difference is China can lock people up in their apartments/homes and stop all travel without any backlash because anyone who disobeys will be punished severely, i.e. thrown in jail.
Try doing that in the USA.
Oh wait, we have something called state constitutions. And people with guns.
Not every state governor was willing to shut down the churches, small retail stores, etc. while still allowing Walmart, Target, and Costco to be crowded with people (cuz you know, crowding more people in a smaller # of stores is great @ preventing the spread of Covid).
Mr. Unz needs to evaluate why lockdowns in certain countries "worked," while the "half-assed" lockdown states in the US fared poorly compared to no-lockdown states.
If we just go by the "evidence," then what we essentially see is a huge mess:
1) Lockdown countries (China, Australia, etc.) fared well.
2) Half-assed lockdown countries (USA, UK, France, etc.) fared poorly
3) Half-assed lockdown American states did worse than no lockdown/light lockdown American states.
So what is going on here? Is it just proper lockdown > no lockdown > half-assed lockdown? (But DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE?)
Here's another important question:
What countries/American states LIED about their numbers? Are they all trustworthy?
Just for the record, I don't think every country lied about their cases/deaths, or at least MADE AN HONEST ATTEMPT AT REPORTING, EVEN IF THEY WERE SLIGHTLY "OFF."
However, I do believe a HANDFUL of countries indeed lied about their numbers profusely, including the (((GLOBALIST OWNED))) USA.
Or are there some other variables that aren't being accounted for (e.g. the use of non-patented therapeutics that reduce the death rate?)
This is a subject that is not clear-cut and warrants some investigation.
Unz Arg #3: Since critics don’t like the lockdowns, masking, or social distancing, they make legal/constitutional arguments against them. But most people would find those legalistic issues ridiculous if the alternative was so many millions of American deaths.
I want Mr. Unz to substantiate the claim that "the alternative was so many millions of American deaths."
So far we already know the CFR is < 1%. This <1% CFR is already NOT IN DISPUTE.
Even if everyone did all the **** they wanted to with no restrictions (or "voluntary" restrictions), "many millions of American deaths" is a highly suspect claim. When you say "many millions of deaths" I think 5 million deaths at the BARE minimum. Mr. Unz is probably thinking something like 2 million, which I estimate is still far too high.
There was another moderate alternative proposed early on, which was ignored. If Covid-19 is more likely to kill the elderly and frail, then you can simply do a "hard lockdown" for those groups while allowing others to go about their lives normally.
I need Mr. Unz to also explain why we need to apply lockdowns to people under 20 since
1) Those are crucial development years, and locking them at home almost certainly increases the risk of depression/social disorders (not an issue to take lightly)
2) The seasonal flu is more dangerous to children under the age of 10, yet nobody calls for lockdowns/school closures due to seasonal flus...yes, not even progressive retards think 5 year olds should sit in front of an iPad for all of 1st grade just so maybe 20 out of 4 million (or however many) 5 yr old kids don't die
Unfortunately Mike Whitney was unable to (or forgot to) make these points, which would have DRAMATICALLY improved his case.
Unz Arg #4: (On Covid-19 Vaccines)
There are probably tens of thousands of scientific vaccine experts all around the world, and as far as I can tell maybe three or four of them seem to have very serious doubts about whether to vaccinate people against Covid, which suggests that 99.9+% of them support the vaccination effort. According to the AMA, almost all the doctors in America have had themselves vaccinated. Since I don’t know anything about vaccines, that seems good enough for me.
And here is arguably his best point (which some might say is an "appeal to authority" fallacy but I see it as a legitimate argument; that is, if the medical "experts" trust the vaccine, so should you):
With all due respect, Mr. Unz, I would not take the word of the (((AMA))) on anything...it is a LOBBYING ARM of Rockefeller "medicine" and mainstream hogwash, which basically amounts to -
"1 symptom, 1 [SOMETIMES MORE] pill."
For example, if you have some eczema or skin rash, you might be tempted to go to a dermatologist, who will then prescribe some "cream" or "ointment" to suppress your immune system...EXCEPT YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM IS TELLING YOU SOMETHING INSIDE YOUR BODY (LIKELY IN THE LARGE OR SMALL INTESTINE) IS SUFFERING.
Also, the (((AMA))) lobbies against all sorts of "alternative" medicine, claiming they are "quackery" or whatever. They hate the idea of competition and are trying to establish a pseudo-monopoly on "medicine."
While I DO NOT DOUBT that there is indeed a lot of "quackery" one must sort through in the various fields of "alternative" medicine, the fundamental basis of ROCKEFELLER MEDICINE is filled with deception.
I would also add that my PERSONAL EXPERIENCES with ROCKEFELLER "MEDICINE" have been anything but great...mostly ranging from a waste of time/money to slightly dangerous for my long-term, overall health.
Now I know some people will try to COUNTER me with the argument, "Well your experiences don't invalidate [blah blah blah]. You need to show me some numbers/evidence."
Then go look at the statistics on American overall health, and get back to me. Do you think those numbers are great?
LOL. They are **** GARBAGE.
And please don't COME BACK TO ME AND say "If ONLY we had Universal Health Care."
Giving everyone access to taxpayer funded "ROCKEFELLER MEDICINE" is not going to change the outcomes. It just means you deliver **** "Rockefeller medicine" to even more people so they get prescribed a bunch of pills/meds.
Mr. Unz is saying to trust these "medical organizations."
I do not trust them, and don't see how we can reconcile these views.
Unz Arg #5:
The evidence quoted in the newspapers seems to show that although vaccination doesn’t completely prevent the disease, it reduces the risk of a serious or fatal case by something like 90%, and therefore is obviously beneficial. On the other hand, vaccinated people can still apparently spread the disease to others, greatly reducing the public benefit in getting vaccination rates to very high levels.
I agree with most of this actually, with one caveat - Mr. Unz didn't distinguish between relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction.
For retards who don't understand basic math/fractions...I can illustrate below (and why I will not be taking the "vaccine"):
If you're some obese 65 year old with 6 comobordities (whether because you were just an unlucky draw from the gene pool or a retard for not taking care of your health) then yes...there is a good amount of evidence showing that the vaccine would reduce your risk of death....maybe even by 90% compared to if you were unvaccinated.
Your risk profile might look like this:
Unvaccinated risk of death: 1%
Vaccinated risk of death: 0.1%
Your RRR is 90%. Your ARR is 0.9%
In that case, IF I WERE THIS PERSON, I would deem the pros of the vaccines to outweigh the possible cons
(Alternatively I would change my crappy lifestyle/"diet"...oh wait, can't do that...that's too much "work" ~ progressive retards)
Someone like myself does not fit this obese, 6 comorbidity profile.
My profile is probably something like:
Unvaccinated risk of death: 0.001%
Vaccinated risk of death: (?) 0.0005%
My RRR is 50%. My ARR is 0.0005%.
In other words, NOTHING. THAT 50% IS MEANINGLESS. I ONLY CARE ABOUT THE ARR. THAT 0.0005% IS A ROUNDING ERROR. PROGRESSIVE RETARDS ARE MATHEMATICAL ILLITERATES.
(I put the (?) for reasons anyone with 115+ IQ can deduce)
Mr. Unz has acknowledged the shortcomings of these C-19 vaccines, and I do not object to his assessment (other than the one above). Of course it bears mentioning the vaccine is not some "risk free" choice, which is doubly true when you consider the (LACK OF) length of time these vaccines have been circulating in the general public.
Being skeptical about Covid-19 vaccines is not being an "anti-vaxxer." Please don't propagate this narrative. We already know how the "pros" and "cons" of the Covid-19 vaccine and decided the cons outweigh the pros.
It's a simple weighing of benefits/costs, and maybe if progressive retards understood something called "natural immunity" (which I already stated has been KNOWN SINCE ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS, BUT SOMEHOW ELUDES PROGRESSIVE RETARDS IN 2021 AD) then maybe we could reach some agreement, but they are retarded asswipes so that seems unlikely.
Aug 20, 2021
Go to original post on Aug 21, 2021 2:24am