Nobody is silencing you here. Nobody is obligated to engage with you though. Nobody is obligated to engage with people who peddle misinformation and lies, and make it clear that there's nothing that can be done to get through to them. That doesn't mean you're being silenced. It just means you're being ignored. But go ahead and stomp your feet and get mad that you aren't getting the attention you crave.

PacifistAg said:

---

This is one thing I've tweeted about that has me worried. The anti-vax movement used to be this fringe movement of granola-eating moms who gobbled up everything on naturalnews.com. This widespread rejection of the medical and scientific communities has made that fringe group mainstream now, and I'm worried about the long-term ramifications. Specifically with old diseases coming back because people can't see the world through any lens other than "Dem vs Repub" or "our Dear Leader vs your Dear Leader".

---

You may be right, but it is completely due to politicization of this issue and the loss of credibility by the CDC (and the medical community in general).

NVM

Edited as it was mean-spirited and not productive. Self imposed break time until my stress level drops

PacifistAg said:

---

Nobody is silencing you here. Nobody is obligated to engage with you though. Nobody is obligated to engage with people who peddle misinformation and lies, and make it clear that there's nothing that can be done to get through to them. That doesn't mean you're being silenced. It just means you're being ignored. But go ahead and stomp your feet and get mad that you aren't getting the attention you crave.

---

Oh the irony of this post about attention craving from this poster is just awesome. Thanks for making my morning.

Opposition to various measures has not usually been censored unless the opposition is stupid. Many epidemiologists published dissenting opinions and meta analyses about the efficacy of masks and various treatments which did not result in any kind of punishment, because their work was reasonable. Many people have written responsibly on the possibility of a lab leak, and not been censored or punished because their work was reasonable. Reasonable, qualified work doesn't end up in your Twitter feed. Only sensationalist garbage does, and scientists aren't supposed to write sensationalist garbage. Hence the sanctioning.

Other people have written and published low quality work on those topics and have been fired or punished. You can't tell the difference between high and low quality work because you're not scientifically literate, in this field at least. This is also why you have this credibility issue. You don't care that the vaccine is FDA approved because you don't know what that means. You don't know how the data is collected or analyzed, so you fill in the gaps in your knowledge by assuming nonsense.

The 3 letter organizations in question (FDA, CDC) are as credible as organizations get. The scientific literature is a place where dissent is allowed provided you have a strong argument. Dissenting publicly without having a strong argument, particularly on a pre-print server, on a "hot topic" is likely to get you in trouble. That's because of your segment of the public which only reads the headlines.

There is some pressure that exists to publish things in line with consensus, and that pressure is heightened on this topic. But you're wildly exaggerating the magnitude of it. Most of the people being overtly punished have made objective mistakes; the problem isn't that the Man is keeping them down.

Riiiiiight. The anti-vaxxers who get their medical information from youtube and facebook certainly haven't politicized this, and are far more credible than scientists and doctors.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I can't get you to trust or believe that most of what you're saying isn't true, but I do want to point one thing out. What you're saying about treatment is easily seen as objectively false.

There are and have been thousands and thousands of studies looking at therapies. There have been therapies identified from these studies. The competition between vaccines and therapies seem to exist solely in the minds of people who are against the vaccines.

---

I call BS.

The number of people who, when receiving a positive diagnosis for Covid are told, "go home and rest and come to the hospital if you have trouble breathing" is ridiculous.

Rather than even allowing experimentation, any treatments become political; HCQ, Ivermectin, Remdesivir etc...

Social Media outlets end up censoring anything that promotes something the FDA or CDC or WHO haven't approved.

---

You can call BS if you want, but you're wrong. This is from February of 2021.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-021-00037-3

Quote:

---

The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated intense efforts to find effective therapeutics for all stages of the disease. ...
At the close of our broad assessment, we had identified more than 2,024 trials (separable into 2,895 individual treatment arms), encompassing total enrolment in excess of 500,000 patients. We estimate that our focus (that is, open interventional trials of drug products and antibody-based agents) represents about one-third of all COVID-19 trials...

---

The fact that we haven't been able to identify a silver bullet therapeutic doesn't mean people aren't trying their damndest to do so.

There have been HUNDREDS of studies done on hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and remdesivir. That's why we know hydroxychloroquine doesn't work, and remdesivir does. Ironically the politicization probably increased the number of research dollars and hours spent on useless and probably harmful things like azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine. The fact that people went all in to try based on flimsy in vitro results demonstrates the willingness to test and desperation to find therapeutics.

Btw, still waiting on you to explain how my sense of right and wrong is warped because I believe it's wrong to falsify medical documents in order to deceive your employer and violate company policy.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Considering that I'm working overtime trying to keep COVID deniers alive in the hospital when they get infected, I would like to think my "opinion" should count a whole h*ll of a lot more than yours

---

Your post is making my point about the loss of credibility for much of the medical community. Just because they didn't get the vaccine doesn't make them a denier. You sound like your one step away from the Florida doctor who didn't want to treat unvaccinated patient.

Dilettante said:

---

Opposition to various measures has not usually been censored unless the opposition is stupid. Many epidemiologists published dissenting opinions and meta analyses about the efficacy of masks and various treatments which did not result in any kind of punishment, because their work was reasonable. Many people have written responsibly on the possibility of a lab leak, and not been censored or punished because their work was reasonable. Reasonable, qualified work doesn't end up in your Twitter feed. Only sensationalist garbage does, and scientists aren't supposed to write sensationalist garbage. Hence the sanctioning.

Other people have written and published low quality work on those topics and have been fired or punished. You can't tell the difference between high and low quality work because you're not scientifically literate, in this field at least. This is also why you have this credibility issue. You don't care that the vaccine is FDA approved because you don't know what that means. You don't know how the data is collected or analyzed, so you fill in the gaps in your knowledge by assuming nonsense.

The 3 letter organization are as credible as organizations get. The scientific literature is a place where dissent is allowed provided you have a strong argument. Dissenting publicly without having a strong argument, particularly on a pre-print server, on a "hot topic" is likely to get you in trouble. That's because of your segment of the public which only reads the headlines.

There is some pressure that exists to publish things in line with consensus, and that pressure is heightened on this topic. But you're wildly exaggerating the magnitude of it. Most of the people being overtly punished have made objective mistakes; the problem isn't that the Man is keeping them down.

---

i love this post so much. spitting straight facts.

PacifistAg said:

---

This is one thing I've tweeted about that has me worried. The anti-vax movement used to be this fringe movement of granola-eating moms who gobbled up everything on naturalnews.com. This widespread rejection of the medical and scientific communities has made that fringe group mainstream now, and I'm worried about the long-term ramifications. Specifically with old diseases coming back because people can't see the world through any lens other than "Dem vs Repub" or "our Dear Leader vs your Dear Leader".

---

You can kind of trace it back to the ham-handed panic, misinformation, and length of the shut-downs that caused a lot of stress. As a response, many people began to reject that Covid was even real, and therefore if not real, why would a vaccine be needed.

But, as my wife pointed out, there were people minimizing the reality of Covid before any of the shutdown measures were even taken, so there was an anti-vax element present even 18 months ago.

But again, there is a disconnect, because a lot of those same people insist that the virus was deliberately released by China (I think it was accidentally released by China). This introduces another contradiction - if it's a nothing burger, why does it matter where it came from?

So yeah, it's the mainstreaming of cognitive dissonance, and it's not based on ignorance. And that's troubling.

He did not specify the "disease".

Several things
Most of y'all know I am very conservative and was very skeptical of masking, social distancing, and shut downs as that has never worked with respiratory spread viruses in the past.

And I was called out by the corona forum for my views.

I also know many docs due to my advanced age, and trust me, all kinds of therapies have been tried. None of my colleagues are being told not to prescribe anything.

All that being said, the vaccines work and are effective.

I understand the reluctance because a lot of people feel they were misled, lied to, and told a bunch of hooey.

Except for very few instances, there is little treatment for viruses except for supportive measures. So getting the vaccine is the treatment of choice.

President Trump was the first postmodern president, the first antihero. It's not really his fault, he was a symptom or product of the collective change in our culture. But the same thing that got him elected the first time probably lost him the second one, and his anti-institutional stance had severe blowback during covid. Eroding the trust in institutions has chaotic results, and when you spend years telling people not to trust the USG its really hard to go back and say well no, trust this part but not that. He was hoisted with his own ironic petard.

Its a bit like Wile E Coyote sawing off the branch the roadrunner is sitting on, but then the tree falling instead.

Zobel said:

---

President Trump was the first postmodern president, the first antihero. It's not really his fault, he was a symptom or product of the collective change in our culture. But the same thing that got him elected the first time probably lost him the second one, and his anti-institutional stance had severe blowback during covid. Eroding the trust in institutions has chaotic results, and when you spend years telling people not to trust the USG its really hard to go back and say well no, trust this part but not that. He was hoisted with his own ironic petard.

Its a bit like Wile E Coyote sawing off the branch the roadrunner is sitting on, but then the tree falling instead.

---

I will delve into a little politics and then shut up.

Trump lost because of COVID. Period. He would have won in a landslide without COVID because of the economics especially with minorities.

Now I will shut up.

I agree. But a different president might have won because of covid. The word crisis comes from a Greek word (krisis) that came from judgment (krino). It's the cusp, the turning point, the judgment. Crises are opportunities. This one broke against him.

dermdoc said:

---

Trump lost because of COVID. Period. He would have won in a landslide without COVID because of the economics especially with minorities.

---

Trump's highest approval rating per Gallup was 49%, and even before Covid it bottomed out around 35%. Why do you believe that he would have won in a landslide?

dargscisyhp said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Trump lost because of COVID. Period. He would have won in a landslide without COVID because of the economics especially with minorities.

---

Trump's highest approval rating per Gallup was 49%, and even before Covid it bottomed out around 35%. Why do you believe that he would have won in a landslide?

---

Electoral landslide, not popular vote landslide. His numbers among key demographics, the economy, the weakness of his opponent.

Zobel said:

---

I agree. But a different president might have won because of covid. The word crisis comes from a Greek word (krisis) that came from judgment (krino). It's the cusp, the turning point, the judgment. Crises are opportunities. This one broke against him.

---

I seriously doubt it. Respiratory spread viruses are going to do what respiratory spread viruses do.

And Presidents do not know medicine and if Obama or whoever were President they would have done what Fauci told them also.

Actually Trump showed great leadership on the vaccine development.

Incumbents never lose when the economy is good. And it was great.

I don't think the electoral results had much to do with the outcome of the spread. I don't believe anyone could have done better objectively at dealing with the outbreak. I actually think he did a very good job moving the bureaucracy into gear and engaging the private sector. Amazing, really.

In politics perception is reality. A different president could have turned the same results into a political victory. Any president from Ronald Reagan to George W Bush could have done that. Probably would have.

Quote:

---

I understand the reluctance because a lot of people feel they were misled, lied to, and told a bunch of hooey.

---

This was true for me, it took me some time to come around on it.

PacifistAg said:

---

This is one thing I've tweeted about that has me worried. The anti-vax movement used to be this fringe movement of granola-eating moms who gobbled up everything on naturalnews.com. This widespread rejection of the medical and scientific communities has made that fringe group mainstream now, and I'm worried about the long-term ramifications. Specifically with old diseases coming back because people can't see the world through any lens other than "Dem vs Repub" or "our Dear Leader vs your Dear Leader".

---

and I find it disturbing to just assume that anyone who has an objection to the first ever human mRNA vaccine, being produced in less that 20% of the time typically required for vaccine development for an illness that for most people has a less than 1% chance of severe complications or death, are automatically grouped in with the vast majority of anti-vaxxers from the last 20 years.

The DPT, / Tetanus / Polio / Meningitis shots and this new Covid vaccine are not the same.

Throw in the fact that there is no liability for vaccine manufacturers if anything goes wrong, and the ignoring of any VAERS data as being inconsequential, or not managed well enough to be useful, and people should be cautious about it.

THEN add on top of that the massive public campaign to guilt and belittle anyone who questions the vaccine, and, for me, it raises huge alarm bells.

So I stand by my earlier assertion, if no one says "no", then we will get to the point where no one is allowed to say "no".

I say "no".

Which is your God given right.

Just don't screwup Aggie games for me. I want a full Kyle and no reschedules.

Zobel said:

---

I don't think the electoral results had much to do with the outcome of the spread. I don't believe anyone could have done better objectively at dealing with the outbreak. I actually think he did a very good job moving the bureaucracy into gear and engaging the private sector. Amazing, really.

In politics perception is reality. A different president could have turned the same results into a political victory. Any president from Ronald Reagan to George W Bush could have done that. Probably would have.

---

Completely disagree with today's media.

And come by for a beer before a game.

Quote:

---

THEN add on top of that the massive public campaign to guilt and belittle anyone who questions the vaccine, and, for me, it raises huge alarm bells.

---

As opposed to those on your side screaming "faith over fear", implying we lack faith, or flat out saying that we're living in fear simply because believe the vaccine is the smart route to go especially as it minimizes the risk of death?

Quote:

---

So I stand by my earlier assertion, if no one says "no", then we will get to the point where no one is allowed to say "no".

I say "no".

---

Please don't mistake yourself for some grand freedom fighter here. The majority of Texans have said 'no'. You're free to say 'no', unless it violates your company's policy. But just realize that yours, and the 50% of Texans who also so 'no', will only result in this dragging out, so don't complain about companies changing their policies to account for that.

Man that sounds awesome. I didn't go to games last year, I'm beyond ready for Kyle field.

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

THEN add on top of that the massive public campaign to guilt and belittle anyone who questions the vaccine, and, for me, it raises huge alarm bells.

---

As opposed to those on your side screaming "faith over fear", implying we lack faith, or flat out saying that we're living in fear simply because believe the vaccine is the smart route to go especially as it minimizes the risk of death?

Quote:

---

So I stand by my earlier assertion, if no one says "no", then we will get to the point where no one is allowed to say "no".

I say "no".

---

Please don't mistake yourself for some grand freedom fighter here. The majority of Texans have said 'no'. You're free to say 'no', unless it violates your company's policy. But just realize that yours, and the 50% of Texans who also so 'no', will only result in this dragging out, so don't complain about companies changing their policies to account for that.

---

don't box me in with the "faith over fear" crowd. Did you ever read me post that?

"the majority of Texans have said 'no' "

Yes, for now, but there appears to be a movement to push us out of public life because of it. "you are free to say no, but you must be willing to lose your job and not be allowed to be in public", is effectively the same as saying, "you can't say no". I can just hear the response, "you are free to make that choice, but not free of the consequence of that choice" Which rings absolutely hollow when those consequences are not just the natural consequence of not getting a vaccine (greater chance of catching the illness) but the massive range of restrictions that so many are proposing for the "un-vaxxed" which range from "you have to wear a mask and get tested" to "we won't treat you" to even worse.

The number of people I know who have said something to the effect of "I didn't want to get the vaccine, but I had to if I wanted to.... (see my grandparents, travel with my daughter, work in the office, attend this event, etc...) is ridiculous.

I really believe it is mass psychosis and I refuse to participate.

eta: "My side" is me. I speak for no one else. for a pacifist, you sure seem to be good at dividing "us versus them"

Quote:

---

don't box me in with the "faith over fear" crowd. Did you ever read me post that?

---

Not "faith over fear", but I believe you've talked about us living in fear. Maybe I'm wrong, and if so, I apologize. "Faith over fear", though, is something we hear often from the anti-vaxxers.

Quote:

---

"the majority of Texans have said 'no' "

Yes, for now, but there appears to be a movement to push us out of public life because of it. "you are free to say no, but you must be willing to lose your job and not be allowed to be in public", is effectively the same as saying, "you can't say no". I can just hear the response, "you are free to make that choice, but not free of the consequence of that choice" Which rings absolutely hollow when those consequences are not just the natural consequence of not getting a vaccine (greater chance of catching the illness) but the massive range of restrictions that so many are proposing for the "un-vaxxed" which range from "you have to wear a mask and get tested" to "we won't treat you" to even worse.

---

Businesses have a very valid business/operational reason to mandate the vaccine for employees. They also have the right, morally and legally, to require it. You may not like the choice you have, but you aren't entitled to that job. You adhere to company policies, and if you are unable to, you find employment elsewhere. Businesses have a very valid business/operational reason to mandate the vaccine for customers. You want your cake and to eat it too, but the problem is that your employer has no obligation to "bake that cake" for you.

Quote:

---

The number of people I know who have said something to the effect of "I didn't want to get the vaccine, but I had to if I wanted to.... (see my grandparents, travel with my daughter, work in the office, attend this event, etc...) is ridiculous.

---

Why is that ridiculous? Why is it ridiculous that people set their own boundaries, much like you are with not getting the vaccine? Companies can set their boundaries. Individuals can set their boundaries. I have a friend with an immunocompromised young child who can't get the vaccine. They won't let their unvaxxed family see them. Why is that ridiculous? Those family aren't entitled access to their child. You aren't entitled access to a private business. You can set your boundary and say you won't go into any business requiring masks, but you want to throw a fit when a business sets their own boundary?

Quote:

---

I really believe it is mass psychosis and I refuse to participate.

---

Okay, it's not "faith over fear", but just "mass psychosis"? Or are you talking about the large number of Texans who choose to believe their crazy uncle on facebook over the medical and scientific communities?

Quote:

---

eta: "My side" is me. I speak for no one else. for a pacifist, you sure seem to be good and dividing "us versus them"

---

Oh, is this where we gaslight? You speak for nobody else, but you will have no issue accusing me of being the one "dividing us vs them"? Do you even understand what a pacifist is? Nothing I've said here violates the principles of pacifism/nonviolence. I don't support government mandates, but I also don't support using government to infringe on the rights of business owners to set their policies either.

When my sister had her first kid in 2012 she required anyone who wanted to come visit to get a pertussis booster. I did, even though pertussis wasn't a risk for me. What's the big deal?

I'm starting to think most of y'all are just scared of needles.

You have repeatedly implied that the only reason to getting the vaccine is to protect oneself.

Stop doing that. It isn't true. It's been pointed out several times to you.

Dilettante said:

---

You have repeatedly implied that the only reason to getting the vaccine is to protect oneself.

Stop doing that. It isn't true. It's been pointed out several times to you.

---

I would say he done more than imply it. He's flat-out said that he doesn't accept the notion that the vaccine is "caring for neighbor".

You're the one who said "your side".

I don't consider you on a "side". I just consider you as being wrong.

Dilettante said:

---

You have repeatedly implied that the only reason to getting the vaccine is to protect oneself.

Stop doing that. It isn't true. It's been pointed out several times to you.

---

yes, and I still don't buy it.

I do not agree with the premise that a vaccine for me, protects you. It seems that it only slightly protects me.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

You're the one who said "your side".

I don't consider you on a "side". I just consider you as being wrong.

---

Yes, we're talking about a matter here that has two very distinct "sides". Those who are pro-vaccine, and those who are opposed to it. The reasons that one may fall in either camp may vary, but there are two very distinct sides, at least for the sake of this conversation.

No, you don't just consider me as being wrong. You now have made it clear you think we suffer from mass psychosis. But please feel free to explain where I'm wrong. I don't want government mandating anything. I believe people, and businesses, can set their standards as they see fit. Want to place yourself, and those around you at greater risk because you don't understand the vaccine, okay. Just expect to be called on it, especially if one claims to be pro-life.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

You have repeatedly implied that the only reason to getting the vaccine is to protect oneself.

Stop doing that. It isn't true. It's been pointed out several times to you.

---

yes, and I still don't buy it.

I do not agree with the premise that a vaccine for me, protects you. It seems that it only slightly protects me.

---

There is no amount of actual information that will convince you otherwise. When there is information presented that conflicts with your perspective, you simply attempt to discredit the source.