Controversial General Political Discussion

[Gaimon The Pirate]

There was a consensus at the time : Vaccines are necessary to protect yourself from sever case of COVID.

What were not, on the other hand, are sayings that Vaccines stop transmission or that Vaccine are without side effects. In fact scientist at the time were sceptical about a lot of things and did not draw conclusions.

It's politics and missinformed people or scientists who did.

But to know that, you need to actually do the work of looking beyond missinformation: https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...-19-vaccines-misconstrued-in-v-idUSL1N2L82Q4/

Ok but those politics and scientists were speaking in TV and making laws and whoever contradicted them was depicted as a crazy science hating truth denier.
Read my examples, those events HAPPENED and the scientific consensus was that the GREEN PASS was a necessity because it will STOP THE SPREAD.

Source for the head of a medical departmwnt + a guy that was considered THE expert saying that the Vaccine was good for young girls:
https://www.quotidianosanita.it/m/scienza-e-farmaci/articolo.php?articolo_id=94362

This is not a local doctor, but one of the "leaders". He created the consensus, and thanks to people like you who blindly follow a lot of girls died for thrombosis.

 

[Logiko]

Ok but those politics and scientists were speaking in TV and making laws and whoever contradicted them was depicted as a crazy science hating truth denier.

I don't think you understand what I said.

I said that people at the time were sceptical about the fact that the Vaccine reduced transmission, not that it was not necessary to implement cautionnary measures !

It WAS necessary. And you know why ? Because at the end, we KNOW that the vaccine reduces transmission. It's a scientific FACT.

So green pass ? Necessary

The vaccine is not only good for young people, it's good for any people with lower defensive barrieres.

As for your example, risk of Thrombosis are rare. Vaccine can have side effects, but those effects are minimal in the risk / benefit balance.

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

I don't think you understand what I said.

I said that people at the time were sceptical about the fact that the Vaccine reduced transmission, not that it was not necessary to implement cautionnary measures !

It WAS necessary. And you know why ? Because at the end, we KNOW that the vaccine reduces transmission. It's a scientific FACT.

So green pass ? Necessary

The vaccine is not only good for young people, it's good for any people with lower defensive barrieres.

As for your example, risk of Thrombosis are rare. Vaccine can have side effects, but those effects are minimal in the risk / benefit balance.

My friend, they were not that rare among girls, to the point itngot banned from being prescribed to them.
And the experts in italy were saying that it STOPS then virus, not slows it down.
Please read what i write and answer that, not other things

 

[Logiko]

And the experts in italy were saying that it STOPS then virus, not slows it down.

Then, they were not experts.



And thus you listened to people that didn't know about the consensus at the time. Because experts - US or France - at the time explained clearly that they didn't know, but there was a big chance that it reduced transmittion. And thus that preventive measure were needed.

My friend, they were not that rare among girls

Yes, they were rare.

Severe, but rare. What Andrea Crisanti did, is defend the vaccine but explained by caution that - even if rare - other vaccine than Astrazeneca should be prioritize with young people if given a choice.

You have to understand that while there is a consensus, it's always evolving with new informations. So yes, there might have been an error of communication, but in this specific case. And with this context it's perfectly understandable as there was a URGENT need to stop the virus from destroying our civilization.

--

What you are doing in reality is not a deep look at the problem that was covid and the communication around the importance of the vaccin, that was far from perfect in many cases. What you do is a systemic attack on scientific principls on the basis that some people said wrong things and because you are lazy to take a deeper look into what the consensus says, or the context behind those discourses.

Yes, people make mistake, even scientists, noone is perfect, but science is STILL the one things that will help you to understand the world correctly in its most fundamental aspect.

So you can swallow back your cherry picking that is mainly based on fear propagated by complotists and science deniers and start listening really to what scientific are saying outside of the barriere of instantaneity.

When I say that my basis is science, I do not only talk about the method, the practice or the consensus, but the knowledge of the CONTEXT behind said practice as well.

Science requieres times and researches. Social progress need urgent actions. Both are needed for us leftists. So we are basis on reasonning on both those principles.

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

Then, they were not experts.



And thus you listened to people that didn't know about the consensus at the time. Because experts - US or France - at the time explained clearly that they didn't know, but there was a big chance that it reduced transmittion. And thus that preventive measure were needed.



Yes, they were rare.

Severe, but rare. What Andrea Crisanti did, is defend the vaccine but explained by caution that - even if rare - other vaccine than Astrazeneca should be prioritize with young people if given a choice.

You have to understand that while there is a consensus, it's always evolving with new informations. So yes, there might have been an error of communication, but in this specific case. And with this context it's perfectly understandable as there was a URGENT need to stop the virus from destroying our civilization.

--

What you are doing in reality is not a deep look at the problem that was covid and the communication around the importance of the vaccin, that was far from perfect in many cases. What you do is a systemic attack on scientific principls on the basis that some people said wrong things and because you are lazy to take a deeper look into what the consensus says, or the context behind those discourses.

Yes, people make mistake, even scientists, noone is perfect, but science is STILL the one things that will help you to understand the world correctly in its most fundamental aspect.

So you can swallow back your cherry picking that is mainly based on fear propagated by complotists and science deniers and start listening really to what scientific are saying outside of the barriere of instantaneity.

When I say that my basis is science, I do not only talk about the method, the practice or the consensus, but the knowledge of the CONTEXT behind said practice as well.

Science requieres times and researches. Social progress need urgent actions. Both are needed for us leftists. So we are basis on reasonning on both those principles.

They were the experts.
They spoke in tv, contributed to law making and were considered the scientific consensus.
If you criticised them you were considered an anti vax.
Why are you contesting me on something you don't know?
The scientists in this got driven by money and power to just say what put them in the right spotlight.
And given nobody has the tools to distinguish a priori between a scientist in bad or good faith, a good rule of thumb is to distrust anyone who is profiting from saying what they say.
All the scientists who pushed fake narratives like immunity got retarded with government seats or similar.
If you criticised this or refused to get the vaccine you would lose your job

 

[Logiko]

They were the experts.
They spoke in tv, contributed to law making and were considered the scientific consensus.

No, they were considered expert by media and politics.. And you know what, an actual scammer and public danger was also considered an expert for our politics and the guy was an ANTI VAX. Meanwhile scientists were VERY cautious including the one quoted in this example above.

The fact that radical measures were needed do not negate that.

So yeah, a lot of things and errors of communications happened at the times, so good and some less good choices, but the choice promoted by actual scientists were needed. Without them, we would be in a bad shape at the moment.

Instead of holding on to 4 years old articles, listen to what scientists are saying NOW. And you will understand that the vaccines were a necessity.

Stop listening to fear mongering people.

If you criticised this or refused to get the vaccine you would lose your job

Yes, you would, because questionning the vaccination and pushing people not to take the vaccine in a period of mass virus transmission and world wide crisis emergency is CRIMINAL.

A lot of people have blood on their hands and they are not scientists.

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

No, they were considered expert by media and politics.. And you know what, an actual scammer and public danger was also considered an expert for our politics and the guy was an ANTI VAX. Meanwhile scientists were VERY cautious including the one quoted in this example above.

The fact that radical measures were needed do not negate that.

So yeah, a lot of things and errors of communications happened at the times, so good and some less good choices, but the choice promoted by actual scientists were needed. Without them, we would be in a bad shape at the moment.

Instead of holding on to 4 years old articles, listen to what scientists are saying NOW. And you will understand that the vaccines were a necessity.

Stop listening to fear mongering people.


Yes, you would, because questionning the vaccination and pushing people not to take the vaccine in a period of mass virus transmission and world wide crisis emergency is CRIMINAL.

A lot of people have blood on their hands and they are not scientists.

I am not talking about now.
Why would talk about now when a crime and deaths happened inthe past because scientists got driven by power and money to support and a fake narrative?
They were experts because their titles and jobs supported it. You're saying that a chief of medicine in a prestigious hospital is not an expert, now?
They claimed immunity.
And youcall them errors, but it's so convenient that people died because of these errore while the ones committing them profited.
So convenient.
Also I am nowhere saying that Vaccines are not needed,why are you so dishonest that you have to put words in my mouth?

 

[Ravagerblade]

What strawman, are you stupid?
I used 2 examples of very accredited people that WERE the consensus.
Are you reading what i write?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1WDoRXIuiYI?feature=share

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1WDoRXIuiYI?feature=share

Ok i might miss something but what are you trying to tell me here

 

[Logiko]

Why would talk about now when a crime and deaths happened inthe past because scientists got driven by power and money to support and a fake narrative?

What crimes and deaths are you talking about Einstein ? The fact of saying to people not to take the vaccines ? This type of crimes ?

What do you not understand in "Radical and preventive measures conditionned by a world wide health crisis" ?

Errors of communications are bound to happen in such context, but those errors are NOTHING compared to people who spread missinformation about the inefficiency of vaccines, worse than taking vaccines would be more damaging than the risk of Covid.

THIS, is criminal. Not the work of scientists.

They claimed immunity.

Yeah, because at the time, it was the consensus that herd immunity would be possible. But too many vairable got in the way and scientist were forced to EVOLVE in their methods to fight the virus and take it as an endemic one.

But to understand that, you need to actually need to make the work of looking for the right information.

And youcall them errors, but it's so convenient that people died because of these errore while the ones committing them profited.
So convenient.

Convenient ? You know what is convenient ?

That a president who is responsible for thousands of death because he refuted the publically the efficiency of the vaccine being elected president by people like you who keep denying the scientific consensus.

Also I am nowhere saying that Vaccines are not needed,why are you so dishonest that you have to put words in my mouth?

You are questionning me when I tell you that we must listen at the consensus.

Spoiler : It evolves and it's the best way to look at the scientific researches.

 

[Monkey D Theories]

https://x.com/chudjak/status/1865581355452776857

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

What crimes and deaths are you talking about Einstein ? The fact of saying to people not to take the vaccines ? This type of crimes ?

What do you not understand in "Radical and preventive measures conditionned by a world wide health crisis" ?

Errors of communications are bound to happen in such context, but those errors are NOTHING compared to people who spread missinformation about the inefficiency of vaccines, worse than taking vaccines would be more damaging than the risk of Covid.

THIS, is criminal. Not the work of scientists.



Yeah, because at the time, it was the consensus that herd immunity would be possible. But too many vairable got in the way and scientist were forced to EVOLVE in their methods to fight the virus and take it as an endemic one.

But to understand that, you need to actually need to make the work of looking for the right information.




Convenient ? You know what is convenient ?

That a president who is responsible for thousands of death because he refuted the publically the efficiency of the vaccine being elected president by people like you who keep denying the scientific consensus.


You are questionning me when I tell you that we must listen at the consensus.

Spoiler : It evolves and it's the best way to look at the scientific researches.

Why are you talking about Trump when we are talking about Europe?
Why are you switching topic?

Herd immunity was a lie because even pfizer knew you could transmit, and this is documented. And yet they kept lying about immunity.
Why? I do not know, but yhe role of the scientist is to relay the facts, not to have the science fit the narrative.
Immunity was a lie from day one.
And they kept repeating it.

 

[Logiko]

Why are you talking about Trump when we are talking about Europe?
Why are you switching topic?

Because the point is anti-scientifism and the death related to that. Trump participated in that.

Herd immunity was a lie because even pfizer knew you could transmit

Wrong. They did not lie about that. Scientist didn't say that taking the Vaccine wouldn't stop the transmition. In fact they explicitely said that they were cautious.

Herd immunity was not a lie, it was simply the first strategy and it did not pay out.

Herd immunity is STILL the goal

But in front of the variable, scientist choose another method which is to treat the virus as an endemic one.

https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...-19-vaccines-misconstrued-in-v-idUSL1N2L82Q4/
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/what-is-herd-immunity-and-how-can-we-achieve-it-with-covid-19
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n494

You are focusing on fear mongering rethorics. Scientists are clear, they might make some mistake here and there, but the majority is not "payed just promote their interest" or some BS like that.

Their COVID respounse saved millions of people and your are spitting on their work at the moment.

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

Because the point is anti-scientifism and the death related to that. Trump participated in that.



Wrong. They did not lie about that. Scientist didn't say that taking the Vaccine wouldn't stop the transmition. In fact they explicitely said that they were cautious.

Herd immunity was not a lie, it was simply the first strategy and it did not pay out.

Herd immunity is STILL the goal

But in front of the variable, scientist choose another method which is to treat the virus as an endemic one.

https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...-19-vaccines-misconstrued-in-v-idUSL1N2L82Q4/
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/what-is-herd-immunity-and-how-can-we-achieve-it-with-covid-19
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n494

You are focusing on fear mongering rethorics. Scientists are clear, they might make some mistake here and there, but the majority is not "payed just promote their interest" or some BS like that.

Their COVID respounse saved millions of people and your are spitting on their work at the moment.

Why are you gaslighting me quoting articles from other countries?
I am talking about europe and you keep talking about Trump, are you deranged?

Again, we had media and scientists and government officials in Italy for example saying that the Vaccine made you immune. Not only you could not give it, you could not get covid.
This was the base foe the green pass in Italy and other countries.
This lie was perpetrated and repeated.
Do not change topic.
Who perpetrated this retorica got government positions.

https://lanuovabq.it/it/lammissione-di-aifa-riscrive-la-storia-il-vaccino-non-ferma-il-contagio

 

[Blax Blah]

A quote from Are we good enought abput this if you would like to hear it

And I would like to mention authoritarianism is spoken against and partly refuted in the paragraphs before this quote, this is not from a person suppirting the ussr or China

Spoiler: are we good enough quote

Old words in a new shape; words said and repeated since the first attempt at any reform, political or social, in any human society. Words which we heard before the abolition of slavery; words said twenty and forty centuries ago by those who like too much their own quietness for liking rapid changes, whom boldness of thought frightens, and who themselves have not suffered enough from the iniquities of the present society to feel the deep necessity of new issues!


Men are not good enough for Communism, but are they good enough for Capitalism? If all men were good-hearted, kind, and just, they would never exploit one another, although possessing the means of doing so. With such men the private ownership of capital would be no danger. The capitalist would hasten to share his profits with the workers, and the best-remunerated workers with those suffering from occasional causes. If men were provident they would not produce velvet and articles of luxury while food is wanted in cottages: they would not build palaces as long as there are slums.


If men had a deeply developed feeling of equity they would not oppress other men. Politicians would not cheat their electors; Parliament would not be a chattering and cheating box, and Charles Warren’s policemen would refuse to bludgeon the Trafalgar Square talkers and listeners. And if men were gallant, self-respecting, and less egotistic, even a bad capitalist would not be a danger; the workers would have soon reduced him to the role of a simple comrade-manager. Even a King would not be dangerous, because the people would merely consider him as a fellow unable to do better work, and therefore entrusted with signing some stupid papers sent out to other cranks calling themselves Kings.


But men are not those free-minded, independent, provident, loving, and compassionate fellows which we should like to see them. And precisely, therefore, they must not continue living under the present system which permits them to oppress and exploit one another. Take, for instance, those misery-stricken tailors who paraded last Sunday in the streets, and suppose that one of them has inherited a hundred pounds from an American uncle. With these hundred pounds he surely will not start a productive association for a dozen of like misery-stricken tailors, and try to improve their condition. He will become a sweater. And, therefore, we say that in a society where men are so bad as this American heir, it is very hard for him to have misery-stricken tailors around him. As soon as he can he will sweat them; while if these same tailors had a secured living from the Communist stores, none of them would sweat to enrich their ex-comrade, and the young sweater would himself not become the very bad beast he surely will become if he continues to be a sweater.


We are told we are too slavish, too snobbish, to be placed under free institutions; but we say that because we are indeed so slavish we ought not to remain any longer under the present institutions, which favour the development of slavishness. We see that Britons, French, and Americans display the most disgusting slavishness towards Gladstone, Boulanger, or Gould. And we conclude that in a humanity already endowed with such slavish instincts it is very bad to have the masses forcibly deprived of higher education, and compelled to live under the present inequality of wealth, education, and knowledge. Higher instruction and equality of conditions would be the only means for destroying the inherited slavish instincts, and we cannot understand how slavish instincts can be made an argument for maintaining, even for one day longer, inequality of conditions; for refusing equality of instruction to all members of the community.


Our space is limited, but submit to the same analysis any of the aspects of our social life, and you will see that the present capitalist, authoritarian system is absolutely inappropriate to a society of men so improvident, so rapacious, so egotistic, and so slavish as they are now. Therefore, when we hear men saying that the Anarchists imagine men much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition? The only difference between us and those who make the above objection is this: We do not, like them, exaggerate the inferior instincts of the masses, and do not complacently shut our eyes to the same bad instincts in the upper classes. We maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation; while our opponents seem to admit that there is a kind of salt of the earth – the rulers, the employers, the leaders – who, happily enough, prevent those bad men – the ruled, the exploited, the led – from becoming still worse than they are.


There is the difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers, ‘unpractical men’.


An old quarrel, that quarrel between the ‘practical men’ and the ‘unpractical’, the so-called Utopists: a quarrel renewed at each proposed change, and always terminating by the total defeat of those who name themselves practical people.

 

[Logiko]

Why are you gaslighting me quoting articles from other countries?
I am talking about europe and you keep talking about Trump, are you deranged?

1. That's not what Gaslighting is.
2. Because the subject is not Europe, it's SCIENTIFIC TRUST.

Because what you are saying here comes in response to me explaining that we must trust science.

And in this context, the fact that Trump is elected by people who criticized scientist for being liar is the BIGGEST hypocrisy there is and because this election shows that the problem is not scientists, but people who uses their words, deform them ro completely deny their existence.

Again, we had media and scientists and government officials in Italy for example saying that the Vaccine made you immune. Not only you could not give it, you could not get covid.

Media and gov official, I can believe that, the fact that a majority of scientist say that, not really. Or they are not experts in their domain and thus listening to them on this topic is a bit useless.

Again, at the time the consensus was caution and preventive measures. Not baseless affirmations.

This was the base foe the green pass in Italy and other countries.

No. The basis for that was the preventive measure that were needed to protect people and the fact that we KNEW that there was a big chance that Vaccine could:

1 - Protect people
2 - Help reduce the transmission. Because YES - once again - It does and it's a scientific fact.

This measure was needed just like our pass in France were needed. Without those, we would be missing a lot more people at the moment.

You are targetting an error of communication and confusing it for a scientific lie.


Stop the BS.

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

1. That's not what Gaslighting is.
2. Because the subject is not Europe, it's SCIENTIFIC TRUST.

Because what you are saying here comes in response to me explaining that we must trust science.

And in this context, the fact that Trump is elected by people who criticized scientist for being liar is the BIGGEST hypocrisy there is and because this election shows that the problem is not scientists, but people who uses their words, deform them ro completely deny their existence.

Scientific trust must be held anywhere, I am showing you example in ITALY and you reply with the US. STay on topic, if you can, otherwise you just look stupid.
BTW Trump was the first to race to vaccine, and the opposition, the fantastic scientific driven opposition said:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/05/kamala-harris-trump-coronavirus-vaccine-409320

Media and gov official, I can believe that, the fact that a majority of scientist say that, not really. Or they are not experts in their domain and thus listening to them on this topic is a bit useless.

Again, at the time the consensus was caution and preventive measures. Not baseless affirmations.

https://www.quotidianosanita.it/m/scienza-e-farmaci/articolo.php?articolo_id=94362
https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/20...-hanno-vaccinato-i-giovani-per-smaltire-dosi-
inutilizzate-e-per-immunita-di-gregge/6228017/

This was the lead scientist, talking in every talk show, speaking on every newspaper.
In 2 months, from saying that Astrazeneca is perfect for girls to say it should be given only to 60+.
April to June.
Completely different opinion.
Lead "expert" on the matter.

No. The basis for that was the preventive measure that were needed to protect people and the fact that we KNEW that there was a big chance that Vaccine could:

1 - Protect people
2 - Help reduce the transmission. Because YES - once again - It does and it's a scientific fact.

This measure was needed just like our pass in France were needed. Without those, we would be missing a lot more people at the moment.

You are targetting an error of communication and confusing it for a scientific lie.


Stop the BS.

Why are you talking out of your ass.
Why do you have to lie.
Verbatim from PM of Italy:

«Il Green Pass è una misura con cui gli italiani possono continuare ad esercitare le proprie attività, a divertirsi e andare al ristorante, a partecipare a spettacolo all’aperto o al chiuso con la garanzia, però, di ritrovarsi tra persone che non sono contagiose. In questo senso è una misura che, nonostante abbia chiaramente delle difficoltà di applicazione, è una misura che dà serenità, non che toglie serenità. Grazie».

«The Green Pass is a measure with which Italians can continue to carry out their activities, have fun and go to the restaurant, participate in outdoor or indoor shows with the guarantee, however, of finding themselves among people who do not they are contagious. In this sense, it is a measure which, although clearly having difficulties of application, is a measure that gives serenity, not that takes away serenity. Thanks ».

«Le Green Pass est une mesure avec laquelle les Italiens peuvent continuer à exercer leurs activités, s'amuser et aller au restaurant, participer à des spectacles en plein air ou en intérieur avec la garantie, cependant, de se retrouver parmi les personnes qui ne sont pas contagieuses. En ce sens, c'est une mesure qui, bien qu'ayant clairement des difficultés d'application, est une mesure qui donne la sérénité, non qui enlève la sérénité. Merci ».

The measure was to be AROUND PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT CONTAGIOUS. So yes, they lied.
And even the doctor foundation in Italy immediately replied to the PM saying that it was FALSE, and yet they made it law.
https://secoloditalia.it/2021/07/dr...ederazione-dei-medici-lo-smentisce-fake-news/

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

Oh yes, because you are above that.

You really love to stire chaos, right ?

Top one woke culture warrior calling ME a culture warrior

There was a consensus at the time : Vaccines are necessary to protect yourself from sever case of COVID

Who protects us from vaccine damages fluffy?

 

[AL sama]

I believe in science cause I can verify whether something is right or wrong

I wouldn't believe in science if things weren't verifiable

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

I believe in science cause I can verify whether something is right or wrong

I wouldn't believe in science if things weren't verifiable

Science ain't that simple. It's a work in progress, not a tool that provides simple yes or no answers.