So.....biased, because the CDC are biased as heck, especially with Covid as with most "reputable" organizations.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Austria first country to make Covid vaccine mandatory
- Thread starter subcon959
- Start date
- Views 57,494
- Replies 1,183
- Likes 9
- Status
The CDC is not considered to be a biased source of information. I think you are confusing the word "biased" with "something I disagree with."
As far as I'm aware, the CDC hasn't put out any information about COVID-19 that wasn't verifiable fact.
You mean like you and 85% of the people here? Yeah, ok.
https://townhall.com/columnists/way...e-and-ivermectin-the-question-is-why-n2595312
You mean like this? Or how it was oh so true that the vaccine was better than natural immunity? (spoiler alert: it isn't) Oh yes, I so trust the CDC and the honest government.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I use "biased" the way the word is intended to be used. I don't consider something to be biased just because I disagree with it.
This website you posted is biased. It's a right-wing website that used to be run by the Heritage Foundation. You don't have to go far to find laughably biased headlines. Do you see the irony in decrying bias before posting biased sources? Probably not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townhall
The vaccine is better than natural immunity. If not for any other reason, vaccine immunity is more consistent than natural immunity. In addition, getting vaccinated after recovering from an infection offers much more protection than natural immunity alone.
Yes you do, almost all the time.
And others post sources run by left wing foundations and government who are biased and post straight up lies in their headlines alone, so what's the difference? And natural immunity is stronger, it's based on the science you and others like to preach so much. If you truly listen to the science and believe it, then you don't get to pick and choose what you want to hear or not, it doesn't work both ways.
Says would-be conspiracy Rambo with conservative talk show radio clips for "sources". As far as my sources go...
We did nothing of the sort, as the CDC is a federal agency funded by the federal government as part of the US Department of Health and Human Services. This is exactly the foot in mouth sort of thing I was talking about elsewhere. If you want to go after individuals with conflicts of interests under their roof, you MIGHT be able to at least make a case, but stating that the CDC is "literally funded by Pfizer" is to "literally" display you don't understand what you're talking about. They're paid regardless of what political party is in power, have a strict code about not displaying bias, and their paychecks don't revolve around fealty to the left or right or pharma.
This is so naive that it's almost cute. I don't really want to go over this whole thing again as some of us discussed it at length already. The CDC Foundation has it's list of donors on it's website (forced to disclose after some pressure). If you don't see the conflict of interest with them getting millions from Merck and Pfizer then there's really no point in going any further with this.
Lol, someone was talking about "foot in mouth" and then got served. Someone else said "I don't consider something to be biased just because I disagree with it." and then turned around to call something biased because it was "right wing".
Who will publish the complete, unadulterated truth, for free?
Who will publish the complete, unadulterated truth, for free?
I just checked the list of corporate donors again and this time I noticed AstraZeneca, J&J and Novavax are also there.
While partially off-topic, let's address the gun topic, since it relates to governments overstepping their boundaries.
Regardless of the reliability of the data sources, it is just common sense (defined here as applied logic, experience and intuition) that unarmed people are easier to control.
Criminals do not care about the law. They will just get their guns from corrupt police/army officers.
What actually happens is that we just die without having the means to fight back, whether it is against crime or tyranny.
Compare the US (permissive gun laws) with our country (restrictive gun laws, #1 in the world in firearms homicides):
https://www.statista.com/statistics/249803/number-of-homicides-by-firearm-in-the-united-states/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/867779/number-homicides-firearms-brazil/
If anything, this shows that more than control, people need proper education, (actual) culture and a good social standing to reduce firearm related deaths.
In summary, it's impossible to find a completely unbiased source.
In the best case scenario, you'd have to deal with the bias from the journalist/owners.
Media Bias Fact Check actually helps a lot in this regard, but you'd have to be at least minimally wary of that site itself as well.
You have to filter news, and scientific studies/reports as well, again, using common sense.
You have to research: check the sources, the backers, the authors, the methodology, the premises, the citations, the conclusions.
Check the news/work itself for loaded language, subtle bias, erroneous conclusions (these are more frequent than you'd think).
That Townhall site looks pretty biased.
Even if they are/were telling the truth, they'd need more citations and a more neutral language overall.
Their columnists are stating outright lies there.
That said, I wouldn't outright disregard the CDC.
They are completely based on science, so they are at least superficially credible.
They have a guideline to prevent possible conflict of interests from the foundation.
Potential issues could arise from which scientific results they favor.
As I've learned in academy recently (last 2 years), there is no space for failed studies in science.
You either publish positive outcomes, even with marginal gains, compared to the state of the art, or your work is useless.
That in itself is the first big failure of the scientific community: You can't even warn others that their potentially years-long work is going to result in no gain.
From what I'm hearing in the local medical community, there has been a great pressure to avoid the publishing in the great media outlets of anything challenging the status quo of CoViD-19 treatment, vaccination or not.
For instance, there is scientific evidence that ivermectin reduces SARS-CoV-2 viral load:
-https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext#seccesectitle0019
And a review study that confirms it (the viral load reduction) while assessing that the current (as of May/2021) status of ivermectin for treating CoViD-19 is at least inconclusive:
-https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full
And here's for those willing to deeply investigate the matter:
https://c19ivermectin.com/
Regardless of the reliability of the data sources, it is just common sense (defined here as applied logic, experience and intuition) that unarmed people are easier to control.
Criminals do not care about the law. They will just get their guns from corrupt police/army officers.
What actually happens is that we just die without having the means to fight back, whether it is against crime or tyranny.
Compare the US (permissive gun laws) with our country (restrictive gun laws, #1 in the world in firearms homicides):
https://www.statista.com/statistics/249803/number-of-homicides-by-firearm-in-the-united-states/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/867779/number-homicides-firearms-brazil/
If anything, this shows that more than control, people need proper education, (actual) culture and a good social standing to reduce firearm related deaths.
Someone who has their ethical and moral standards preserved.
In summary, it's impossible to find a completely unbiased source.
In the best case scenario, you'd have to deal with the bias from the journalist/owners.
Media Bias Fact Check actually helps a lot in this regard, but you'd have to be at least minimally wary of that site itself as well.
You have to filter news, and scientific studies/reports as well, again, using common sense.
You have to research: check the sources, the backers, the authors, the methodology, the premises, the citations, the conclusions.
Check the news/work itself for loaded language, subtle bias, erroneous conclusions (these are more frequent than you'd think).
That Townhall site looks pretty biased.
Even if they are/were telling the truth, they'd need more citations and a more neutral language overall.
Their columnists are stating outright lies there.
That said, I wouldn't outright disregard the CDC.
They are completely based on science, so they are at least superficially credible.
They have a guideline to prevent possible conflict of interests from the foundation.
Potential issues could arise from which scientific results they favor.
As I've learned in academy recently (last 2 years), there is no space for failed studies in science.
You either publish positive outcomes, even with marginal gains, compared to the state of the art, or your work is useless.
That in itself is the first big failure of the scientific community: You can't even warn others that their potentially years-long work is going to result in no gain.
From what I'm hearing in the local medical community, there has been a great pressure to avoid the publishing in the great media outlets of anything challenging the status quo of CoViD-19 treatment, vaccination or not.
For instance, there is scientific evidence that ivermectin reduces SARS-CoV-2 viral load:
-https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext#seccesectitle0019
And a review study that confirms it (the viral load reduction) while assessing that the current (as of May/2021) status of ivermectin for treating CoViD-19 is at least inconclusive:
-https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full
And here's for those willing to deeply investigate the matter:
https://c19ivermectin.com/
Yes, I also believe in garage I read on Facebook. Wonderful garage, I see often.
All the People who cried "Mandatory Vaccination" will have the same Enthusiasm and Mettle in the Future with
"other mandatory" Vaccinations,I am pretty sure.....
Surprise,surprise,what ever the Future brings...
"other mandatory" Vaccinations,I am pretty sure.....
Surprise,surprise,what ever the Future brings...
Please be so kind and please read this with Carefulness:
https://www.krone.at/2577119
I will try to translate it as good as I can:
Unvaccinated people stay in lockdown - only a stitch helps
He personally, according to Nehammer in the Ö3 “Wecker”, is not a big fan of the compulsory vaccination.
“I would prefer it if we don't need any.” But at some point you will be at the point “where there are not only rights, but also obligations”.
Only the vaccination can bring us a normal life again, so the following applies: If you get vaccinated, you can end the lockdown immediately from next week, according to Nehammer. For the unvaccinated, it continues.
The Chancellor therefore asked again that unvaccinated persons seek advice from a doctor they trust: “Find a conversation with the doctor you trust and confront him with your questions, he will give you security.”
"The nicest thing about the vaccination is, “ that we can all live with her in our freedom ”.
Personally,I am speechless...
https://www.krone.at/2577119
I will try to translate it as good as I can:
Unvaccinated people stay in lockdown - only a stitch helps
He personally, according to Nehammer in the Ö3 “Wecker”, is not a big fan of the compulsory vaccination.
“I would prefer it if we don't need any.” But at some point you will be at the point “where there are not only rights, but also obligations”.
Only the vaccination can bring us a normal life again, so the following applies: If you get vaccinated, you can end the lockdown immediately from next week, according to Nehammer. For the unvaccinated, it continues.
The Chancellor therefore asked again that unvaccinated persons seek advice from a doctor they trust: “Find a conversation with the doctor you trust and confront him with your questions, he will give you security.”
"The nicest thing about the vaccination is, “ that we can all live with her in our freedom ”.
Personally,I am speechless...
It's the point of view of a site that makes it biased, not the fact that I personally disagree with the information. If a site doesn't have a neutral point of view, it's very likely biased.
I know you've been struggling lately with the basic spelling of my username, but please make sure to tag me if you're going to address me. You can also hit the quote button and respond directly to my posts so you don't have to worry about spelling my name correctly.
Can you clarify what "only a stitch helps" means in this context?
I've already explained the science regarding natural immunity, and I'm not the only selectively choosing to hear only what I want to hear.
Natural immunity can result in an immune response comparable to vaccine immunity, but I've explained that vaccine immunity is more consistent, and getting the vaccine after getting sick results in a much more robust immune response than relying on natural immunity on its own.
@Alexander1970 Is this a correct translation for what he said:
"Furthermore, 3G - vaccinated, recovered or tested - applies at the workplace."
Does that mean, you are allowed at work even if you aren't vaccinated as long as you test negative? Because that seems like a good common sense rule to me.
"Furthermore, 3G - vaccinated, recovered or tested - applies at the workplace."
Does that mean, you are allowed at work even if you aren't vaccinated as long as you test negative? Because that seems like a good common sense rule to me.
Thank you for reading.
Yes,that is correct.
You have the Responsiblity,to DAILY submit a negative PCR Test on Time.
Then you are allowed to do your Work ...
You maybe see it clearly,we are fully tested from Monday 0:00 to Sunday 24:00 (12 P.M.)
So I cannot really see a "Threat "to the vaccinated Society"....and why we MUST get vaccinated.
We are safe,we are tested daily ! Sorry,I do not understand that endless broken Record
"You must Vaccinate,you must vaccinate,you must vaccinate......"
ONLY ONE Stich..as it says.You see,very unlogical.....
Yes,that is correct.
You have the Responsiblity,to DAILY submit a negative PCR Test on Time.
Then you are allowed to do your Work ...
You maybe see it clearly,we are fully tested from Monday 0:00 to Sunday 24:00 (12 P.M.)
So I cannot really see a "Threat "to the vaccinated Society"....and why we MUST get vaccinated.
We are safe,we are tested daily ! Sorry,I do not understand that endless broken Record
"You must Vaccinate,you must vaccinate,you must vaccinate......"
- Status
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Veho:
It's not like they're complaining that their Slurpee is 99% ice or something, but if the cocktail calls for "shot of vodka, shot of vermouth, shot of gin, shot of Campari, three shots of juice, squirt of lemon" and ends up being a thimbleful of booze, that's a problem. -
@
The Real Jdbye:
the funny thing is cocktails in norway are only allowed to have 1 20ml shot of booze -
-
-
-
-
@
The Real Jdbye:
but you could buy as many shots of whisky (or anything else) as you want and ask for a glass of ice and pour them in
-
-
-
@
Veho:
There was a comparison of the number of Ibuprofen poisonings before and after they limited the maximum dosage per box or per pill (i'll look that up). No limit on the number of boxes you can still buy as many as you want, so people argued it was pointless.
-
@
Veho:
But the number of (accidental) poisonings dropped because drinking an entire package of ibuprofen pills went from "I need a new liver" to "I need a new box of Ibuprofen".
-
@
Veho:
Here we have ketoprofen that used to be prescription-only because of the risk of toxic dosages, but then they halved the dose per pill and sell them in bottles of six pills apiece instead of twenty and it doesn't need a prescription any more. Yes you can buy more than one bottle but people simply don't.
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Usually accidentally overdose of ibuprofen here is from people taking like cold medicine then ibuprofen for a headache and the combination is over what they need -
-
