What is the defining characteristic of a flat earther or a vaccine skeptic as compared to say, the majority who accept science, nuance, new discoveries, the evolution of a virus, that viruses can be deadly, and who have gotten vaccinated twice, three times and soon four, wear the mask with resignation and accept that COVID is something w…
What is the defining characteristic of a flat earther or a vaccine skeptic as compared to say, the majority who accept science, nuance, new discoveries, the evolution of a virus, that viruses can be deadly, and who have gotten vaccinated twice, three times and soon four, wear the mask with resignation and accept that COVID is something we can prevent killing us if we do certain things, even though those things are not 100% because nothing is 100%.. But doing them beats suffocating in an ICU or living with long COVID for months or years.
The skeptics are mesmerized by Facebook's algorithms and Fox News' highly paid liars and the MSM don't stand a chance against that daily diet of horseshit millions are tuned into and refuse to question. I love it when wingnuts say they appreciate both sides being aired when they choose the ignorant side every time. They aren't interested in the other side. They want their side receiving air time and attention.
Yes, the messaging was at times confusing but the basics were easy to grasp. The virus is deadly and keeps changing. The vaccine we thought would prevent transmission doesn't in populations where some people refuse to get vaccinated; but the good news is the vaccinated population isn't disproportionately hospitalized if they contract the virus. I'm average in my reading and keeping up but I got this message loud and clear. Most of us did. The unvaccinated pop is disproportionately represented in the ICU and people who refuse to wear masks keep the spread going. Antivaxxers know millions have died from COVID but still call it the flu and they still claim vaccinated people are dying by the millions.
You mention nuance and yet don't allow for nuance with arguments from a different angle. Amazing.
You mention that people don't question their right wing narrative, while you refuse to question the official narrative. Amazing.
Let me put it simply. We weren't permitted to question the official narrative. In fact, if you did, you lost your job, you got censored, you got ignored. I'm sorry, but if we don't allow for debate (free speech), how can you expect people to trust the official narrative?
Do you propose we strip all vaccine sceptics of their rights and freedoms simply because they don't accept the official narrative? How far are you willing to go with that?
I just want to warn you, the more you do that to one side, the more likely the other side will do the same and potentially worse. There's a reason why free speech and the right to disagree need to exist. Without them, we end up with nothing short of violence
I agree with you, we need to be able to discuss a subject and allow each other their own opinions, we can agree to disagree without denigrating anyone.
You're correct that I don't dispute facts or question proven things. Calling proven vaccines "a narrative" is just stupidity and every word out of your pie hole just proves what I've said about convoy morons.
Which part of 95% effectiveness was "proven scientific fact"? Or how about the one where they said that those who got the vaccines wouldn't get covid? Was that proven science? Because the proof sure suggests otherwise right now. Even the argument that it reduces serious illness and hospitalization is showing to be rather scant of evidence.
What is the defining characteristic of a flat earther or a vaccine skeptic as compared to say, the majority who accept science, nuance, new discoveries, the evolution of a virus, that viruses can be deadly, and who have gotten vaccinated twice, three times and soon four, wear the mask with resignation and accept that COVID is something we can prevent killing us if we do certain things, even though those things are not 100% because nothing is 100%.. But doing them beats suffocating in an ICU or living with long COVID for months or years.
The skeptics are mesmerized by Facebook's algorithms and Fox News' highly paid liars and the MSM don't stand a chance against that daily diet of horseshit millions are tuned into and refuse to question. I love it when wingnuts say they appreciate both sides being aired when they choose the ignorant side every time. They aren't interested in the other side. They want their side receiving air time and attention.
Yes, the messaging was at times confusing but the basics were easy to grasp. The virus is deadly and keeps changing. The vaccine we thought would prevent transmission doesn't in populations where some people refuse to get vaccinated; but the good news is the vaccinated population isn't disproportionately hospitalized if they contract the virus. I'm average in my reading and keeping up but I got this message loud and clear. Most of us did. The unvaccinated pop is disproportionately represented in the ICU and people who refuse to wear masks keep the spread going. Antivaxxers know millions have died from COVID but still call it the flu and they still claim vaccinated people are dying by the millions.
Why give them any air time.
You mention nuance and yet don't allow for nuance with arguments from a different angle. Amazing.
You mention that people don't question their right wing narrative, while you refuse to question the official narrative. Amazing.
Let me put it simply. We weren't permitted to question the official narrative. In fact, if you did, you lost your job, you got censored, you got ignored. I'm sorry, but if we don't allow for debate (free speech), how can you expect people to trust the official narrative?
Do you propose we strip all vaccine sceptics of their rights and freedoms simply because they don't accept the official narrative? How far are you willing to go with that?
I just want to warn you, the more you do that to one side, the more likely the other side will do the same and potentially worse. There's a reason why free speech and the right to disagree need to exist. Without them, we end up with nothing short of violence
I agree with you, we need to be able to discuss a subject and allow each other their own opinions, we can agree to disagree without denigrating anyone.
You're correct that I don't dispute facts or question proven things. Calling proven vaccines "a narrative" is just stupidity and every word out of your pie hole just proves what I've said about convoy morons.
Which part of 95% effectiveness was "proven scientific fact"? Or how about the one where they said that those who got the vaccines wouldn't get covid? Was that proven science? Because the proof sure suggests otherwise right now. Even the argument that it reduces serious illness and hospitalization is showing to be rather scant of evidence.
Hah! Proven scientific facts. That's a good one!
Nothing is ever 100%. Correction, you are a 100% verified moron.
Good cope there, pal. How many times do they have to be wrong for you to realize the truth?