What is your opinion on coronavirus vaccines?

  • Thread starter Deleted User
  • Start date
  • Views 7,558
  • Replies 109
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted User

Guest
OP
I would like to take this opportunity to make it clear that in my shitposts I was mocking the source, not promoting it.

https://gbatemp.net/threads/the-coronavirus-is-not-contagious-and-does-not-cause-disease.571967/

This is slightly off-topic:

The author of this blog entry (and one of the authors of the book) consistently pumps out articles which are readable for people with little to no background knowledge on the subject, grammatically correct, uses images and links to evidence to support her claims. She produces high quality articles designed to disinform readers.

When the person posting the article is me everyone disregards it as bullshit not worth listening to. The problem is that conspiracy theorists who have already fallen down the rabbit hole share these sort of articles with each other on Whatsapp and actually believe them. Most people who read these articles aren't well educated on the science being discussed but trust the author. The author becomes a sort of hero to them. Someone who they can look up to for evidence to reinforce their beliefs. The author is actually cherry picking studies and misrepresenting science to use as false evidence.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jun/25/qanon-facebook-conspiracy-theories-algorithm

Sally Fallon is the founder of her own health group, a non profit organization. I strongly doubt she truly believes in her content. If she's researched these topics herself then she knows she's misrepresenting information. She can convince herself its true when she needs to speak at events and convey sincerity through her body language. When a lie is told often enough even the teller believes it to be true.

What I really want to know are her motives. Her health group is a non profit organization. She claims she does not receive any kickbacks from the companies manufacturing the health products she recommends. Perhaps she takes cash under the table? Do companies cover her travel expenses as she travels around America speaking at various events? Maybe companies give her a lot of free samples which she enjoys? There's no way she would spend time and effort writing high quality bullshit without getting something in return.
 

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,782
Trophies
1
XP
4,391
Country
Laos
If shes in any event circuit (as in regular), she is likely to be payed at least indirectly by the companies financing them. Which should be supplement vendors.

Just going by probability, its also supplement vendors, because those have the most to gain (they are running a 90+% margins business, if they know what they are doing).

Listing selfpublished books on amazon can both be a source of revenue, as well as PR - but usually thats not enough to sustain someone 'managing' a community. (Depends how dumb her followers are probably.)

Samples dont make you do anything - if you have acquired a decent following.

All of this is speculation of course.

edit: Zuck the Berg recently had to defend bubbles again, because of the protester killings (protesters were killed) btw:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=axios+on+hbo+zuckerberg
 
Last edited by notimp,

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,011
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
26,671
Country
Poland
If shes in any event circuit (as in regular), she is likely to be payed at least indirectly by the companies financing them. Which should be supplement vendors.

Just going by probability, its also supplement vendors, because those have the most to gain (they are running a 90+% margins business, if they know what they are doing).

Listing selfpublished books on amazon can both be a source of revenue, as well as PR - but usually thats not enough to sustain someone 'managing' a community. (Depends how dumb her followers are probably.)

Samples dont make you do anything - if you have acquired a decent following.

All of this is speculation of course.

edit: Zuck the Berg recently had to defend bubbles again, because of the protester killings (protesters were killed) btw:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=axios+on+hbo+zuckerberg
That's the one thing I truly hate about modern Internet - large, popular sites fabricating reality custom to the user so that "everyone has a good time". Filter bubbles are extremely damaging, I can't really see an up side besides conflict avoidance. Targeted advertising, fine, I get it. Targeted news events? No, thank you. Just "news" is good enough, I don't need them tailored, I'll pick what I want to see myself. Nowadays everyone thinks they have the majority opinion and no views are ever challenged because that's all people see - they don't get to see the other side anymore. This is one of the reasons why I still see forums and BB's as superior to mass social media networks - they feel more "real" and you get to meet people from all walks of life. You don't always agree with them, but at least you get to interact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: notimp

UltraSUPRA

Happy Child Molestor Month!!
Member
Joined
May 4, 2018
Messages
1,483
Trophies
0
Age
17
Location
Reality
XP
1,286
Country
United States
What do you mean that "I have to" wear clothes in public? I'm not going tear off my limbs and be soaked in sweat.
Clothing has been a natural instinct since Eve ate the apple.
Also, if your clothes are tearing your limbs off, I don't know what clothes you're wearing.
 

gregory-samba

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2020
Messages
535
Trophies
0
XP
360
Country
United States
I've got no issues with vaccines personally. I was immunized as a child and have kept up with various shots since then. That includes my yearly flu shot, which I got in the past couple of weeks. I know there are risks, but there's risks drinking water and taking aspirin, risks crossing the street, risks changing your car battery, etc ... There are risks in life, but I find that the reward outweighs the risks when it come to vaccinations.

I also don't support socialism/communism, so if you don't want to get a shot you shouldn't be forced to get one. I am a bit weary of the COVID19 vaccines due to them being "fast tracked" as that simply means normal testing phases and safety measures are being ignored to get it out sooner. If there are not any devastating reactions regarding the first few batches that people more brave then I am take then I think I'd be willing, but not right away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deleted User

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,782
Trophies
1
XP
4,391
Country
Laos
Last edited by notimp,

Axido

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
1,164
Trophies
1
Age
30
XP
3,286
Country
Germany
Paid for by hefty taxes, with lower quality, where you're put on a long waiting list. Sounds great!

First of all, did you ever hear someone from a country with universal health care complain about it being expensive?
And what's that part about the waiting list. Would you rather die not being able to get the treatment at all? :wacko:
Or are you sure "it will always hit the others but not me"? If you treat your whole life as a gamble, you might find that the longer you live the higher the chances become that you'll lose (that's basic law of chance, actually).

Then again, I can partly understand your point. Lots of workers in the US get paid such a low wage that they need to fear the loss of every cent they make. Must be painful if you have to decide whether you want your current or your future finances to be stable. Before universal health care is an option people in the US would either have to get paid more (which I guarantee you won't happen anytime soon, since your government is obviously run by corporations regardless of which party is in the oval office) or it had to be financed by means not affecting the poorest of people. And there's a lot of resistance against the latter as well that stems from decades of getting told that anything you should care about is yourself. Whenever I see US officials or media outlets comparing European standards to Communism, it baffles me. However, I do recognize that more and more US citizens come to understand that they are mistreated and bullshitted. And that gives me hope.

Back to topic, I'd get the vaccine if it is thoroughly tested through all of the stages. Though, since my immune system is in its prime, I might at least consider volunteering as a test subject in order to help out getting a vaccine on the way (even though I don't really know whether or not I even caught the virus yet).
 
Last edited by Axido,
  • Like
Reactions: IncredulousP

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,011
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
26,671
Country
Poland
First of all, did you ever hear someone from a country with universal health care complain about it being expensive?
And what's that part about the waiting list. Would you rather die not being able to get the treatment at all? :wacko:
Or are you sure "it will always hit the others but not me"? If you treat your whole life as a gamble, you might find that the longer you live the higher the chances become that you'll lose (that's basic law of chance, actually).
Yes, you do, and that person is me. :lol: A death by a million cuts is still a death, you can boil a frog alive if you set the stove just low enough for it not to notice. The often-touted example here is Sweden, the left's poster child for universal healthcare. Their top personal tax bracket sits at *57.1%* (for anyone earning X1.5 national average income) and average tax rate isn't much lower. On top of that you have to add VAT (25% flat rate) and municipality taxes (varies between municipalities, the average is 32%). You might be happy about all the "free" stuff you're getting from the state as a result, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're a slave for over half of the year and you're thankful for it. I'll pass, thank you. I don't even care how much someone earns, that's none of my business, but as a general rule taking *the majority* of someone's earnings in taxation is morally repugnant. Making someone work in indentured servitude and feeling good about it because you give them metaphorical "food and lodge" is slavery, plain and simple.
 

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,782
Trophies
1
XP
4,391
Country
Laos
Yes, you do, and that person is me. :lol: A death by a million cuts is still a death, you can boil a frog alive if you set the stove just low enough for it not to notice. The often-touted example here is Sweden, the left's poster child for universal healthcare. Their top personal tax bracket sits at *57.1%* (for anyone earning X1.5 national average income) and average tax rate isn't much lower. On top of that you have to add VAT (25% flat rate) and municipality taxes (varies between municipalities, the average is 32%). You might be happy about all the "free" stuff you're getting from the state as a result, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're a slave for over half of the year and you're thankful for it. I'll pass, thank you. I don't even care how much someone earns, that's none of my business, but as a general rule taking *the majority* of someone's earnings in taxation is morally repugnant. Making someone work in indentured servitude and feeling good about it because you give them metaphorical "food and lodge" is slavery, plain and simple.
When a moderator of a forum has no clue, that public infrastructure doesnt fall from the sky, and after an exchange of more than half a dozen messages still fails to realize, that people largely have to use that paygap to buy overpriced insurance in the US. Of course not at the top end of the income spectrum, but our moderator - likely hasnt reached that, hasnt realized what it means, that wealth is concentrating more and more, and social cohesion is getting less and less. But still plays an effing unreflected cheerleader for a model he got spoonfed by GOP party taglines. (Deregulate healthcare!)


Here is the actual deal. ANY country in the world neads public infrastructure to be built. Private businesses arent interested (too long term) in doing any of it on their own risk. So citizens, and corporations have to pay taxes. To get any of it.

Or as per an already defunct US model, you give certain families exclusive development rights for generations, and hope that in the end you are left with a functioning railroad system. Which then doesnt get maintained very well.

In the US historically they only had to pay taxrates that were on par with those of tax heavens, and countries in the developing world. Reason? US companies, pretty much controlled 70% of worldwide GDP. So if you could make them pay a pittens in country - US had everything that was needed.

Thats slipping away currently. Percentage of world wide GDP in the US is falling, because everyone in the international class is developing other nations, with better demographic structures, with known tech, and no new investments in R&D needed.

But, if you keep the US GDP (in PPP after inflation) 'stable', and have a higher percentage of it be earned by a smaller and smaller financial elite. And the rest of your people working in service jobs. While competing against homelessness and crippling sickness, under declining social mobility, you kind of get US populations that voted three times in a row for 'change' but STILL get more of the same as their only option. ;)

The moderator, who doesnt unterstand much, then tells you - yes, but if we only deragulate healthcare, so younger people can get less of it, so they have more disposable income, in exchange for health risks, and higher health costs later in life (treat early, actually saves costs) -- thats all the US needs really.

Issue: US suffers from cartel building in the pharma industry, and ridiculous treatment and medication prices, because the industry basically has decoupled from the bottom half of americans, while charging the remaining half more than double of market pricing. So part of your underclass not getting full health coverage to have more 'disposable income' while they are young - exactly solves NOTHING - in terms of all those US health industry issues. And doesnt get you a wider coverage (the reverse is true actually).

Yet, because the US really, really has an education problem on top of this, half of their population gets sold on 'public option' on healthcare would take your plan, and your money away. Crafted for utter morons.
-

That said, US GDP is held stable, while the rest of the worlds GDP increases, and while more and more of GDP is created by less and less jobs (service sector jobs get you nowhere). Thats america in decline.

But for politicians - as long as GDP stays roughly the same, they get roughly the same financing - so why change anything? Oh yeah, riots in the steets, and people dying from a virus, yeah - theres that... But really, nothing that the military used internally cant solve..
 
Last edited by notimp,

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,011
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
26,671
Country
Poland
When a moderator of a forum has no clue, that public infrastructure doesnt fall from the sky, and after an exchange of more than half a dozen messages still fails to realize, that people largely have to use that paygap to buy overpriced insurance in the US. Of course not at the top end of the income spectrum, but our moderator - likely hasnt reached that, hasnt realized what it means, that wealth is concentrating more and more, and social cohesion is getting less and less. But still plays an effing unreflected cheerleader for a model he got spoonfed by GOP party taglines.


Here is the actual deal. ANY country in the world neads public infrastructure to be built. Private businesses arent interested (too long term) to doing any of it on their own risk. So citizens, and corporations have to pay taxes. To get any of it.

Or as per an already defunct US model, you give certain families exclusive development rights for generations, and hope that in the end you are left with a functioning railroad system. Which then doesnt get maintained very well.

In the US historically they only had to pay taxrates that were on par with those of tax heavens, and countries in the developing world. Reason? US companies, pretty much controlled 70% of worldwide GDP. So if you could make them pay a pittens in country - US had everything that was needed.

Thats slipping away currently. Percentage of world wide GDP in the US is falling, because everyone in the international class is developing other nations, with better demographic structures, with known tech, and no new investments in R&D needed.

But, if you keep the US GDP (in PPP after inflation) 'stable', and have a higher percentage of it be earned by a smaller and smaller financial elite. And the rest of your people working in service jobs. While competing against homelessness and crippling sickness, under declining social mobility, you kind of get US populations that voted three times in a row for 'change' but STILL get more of the same as their only option. ;)

The moderator, who doesnt unterstand much, then tells you - yes, but if we only deragulate healthcare, so younger people can get less of it, so they have more disposable income, in exchange for health risks, and higher health costs later in life (treat early, actually saves costs) -- thats all the US needs really.

Issue: US suffers from cartel building in the pharma industry, and ridiculous treatment and medication prices, because the industry basically has decoupled from the bottom half of americans, while charging the remaining half more than double of market pricing. So part of your underclass not getting full health coverage to have more 'disposable income' while they are young - exactly solves NOTHING - in terms of all those US health industry issues.

Yet, because the US really, really has an education problem on top of this, half of their population gets sold on 'public option' on healthcare would take your plan, and your money away. Crafted for utter morons.
-

That said, US GDP is held stable, while the rest of the worlds GDP increases, and while more and more of GDP is created by less and less jobs (service sector jobs get you nowhere). Thats america in decline.

But for politicians - as long as GDP stays roughly the same, they get roughly the same financing - so why change anything? Oh yeah, riots in the steets, and people dying from a virus, yeah - theres that... But really, nothing that the military used internally cant solve..
I'm well-aware of "where public infrastructure comes from", but there is a golden mean here, and "the majority of an individual's income" isn't it. I don't see how me "being a moderator" is a factor here. Ad hominem like this isn't going to take you far, I'm just a guy on the Internet with a nickname that shows up as a different colour than yours.

It is my point of view that individuals know best how to spend their own income that they, not you nor the government, worked for. Taxation should be kept to an absolute bare minimum required to support public infrastructure, and I make that concession only for the purposes of facilitating private commerce which admittedly does use public resources, for instance roads. There's also the question of keeping up the peace (police) and national defense (military), so there are some genuine expenses the government has, and those should absolutely be funded with taxation. Social engineering and keeping people "safe from themselves" via a variety of convoluted social programs and restrictive regulation are not among those legitimate expenses. The government exists in order to protect the inalienable rights of the citizens, that is its primary and only interest, its sole raison d'etre.

You're welcome to disagree, but don't pretend that your position is the only sensible one - it's not. There are extremes on both ends of the spectrum, you have total anarcho-capitalism on one end and "real" communism on the other, sensible people sit somewhere in-between of the two. There is absolutely nothing outlandish in thinking that the government shouldn't reap *the majority* of the fruits of someone's labour, we're not a feudal society operating under a caste of lords, I reject the notion that people should be worked to the bone and receive the scraps, even if the state "provides" for them as a result. I can provide for myself, thank you.

In short, you're using argumentum ad absurdum and strawmen - you're exaggerating my position well past the point of what I argued because it's very comfortable and easy to dismiss it that way. Nice fallacy, but you're arguing with yourself - nobody said that there should be no taxes, just that excessive taxation is not something anyone should aim for.

EDIT: This particular argument is especially funny to me. You can disagree with me, that's fine. You know who agrees with me? The Swedish government.

https://www.businessinsider.com/swedish-government-collects-too-much-tax-2017-2

Due to a reduction of interests rates they've collected a surplus of $9.5 billion over the course of 2016 and they had no idea what to do with it. Negative interests rates encouraged *overpayment* as taxpayer accounts offered better interest than those of banks. Nice system you've got there, it'd be a real shame if someone used it to make some mad dolla. :lol:
 
Last edited by Foxi4,

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,782
Trophies
1
XP
4,391
Country
Laos
I'm well-aware of "where public infrastructure comes from", but there is a golden mean here, and "the majority of an individual's income" isn't it.
Actually it is middle class tax payments and consumption taxes, which also impact lower and middle classes more. If you are high income tax dodging becomes increasingly possible, if you are a multinational these days, ist pretty much where all of your efforts are going into. (Also why you like dealing with those developing nations, even at slightly higher risk, they offer you tax exemptions as incentives.)

You almost literally cant get the money anywhere else.

(We can stop the ad hominem, I agree.)

edit: Video for most easy explanation:
 
Last edited by notimp,

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,011
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
26,671
Country
Poland
Actually it is middle class tax payments and consumption taxes, which also impact lower and middle classes more. If you are high income tax dodging becomes increasingly possible, if you are a multinational these days, ist pretty much where all of your efforts are going into. (Also why you like dealing with those developing nations, even at slightly higher risk, they offer you tax exemptions as incentives.)

You almost literally cant get the money anywhere else.

(We can stop the ad hominem, I agree.)
It is my opinion that if you have the means, you should protect all of your income and pay as little tax as humanly possible as long as you're not breaking the law in the process. Depending on political persuasion some might call that "using loopholes", others will call it "protecting what is rightfully yours". That's a discussion for another thread though, we're getting further and further away from the topic of vaccines. My initial point, just so that it is not overshadowed by the economics discussion, was that the "free" healthcare isn't free - everyone pays for it. We can have the argument of whether it is just to burden high income earners with it until the cows come home, but that has no relation to COVID in and out of itself, so I'll leave it at that - "there's no such thing as a free lunch". :)
 

r0achtheunsavory

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
241
Trophies
0
Age
112
XP
253
Country
United States

Anarchy is promoted by very low IQ people who don't comprehend that anarchy is nothing more than a power vacuum - an extremely brief transition period before the power vacuum is then filled by a strong man. "Anarchists" in practice are always nothing more than useful idiot canon fodder used by outside forces to destablize a government before they take it over.

The only way "anarchy" would work is if you somehow managed to convince every nation on the planet to disarm itself all at the same time and abolish their entire military, nuclear weapons, etc. Of course this will never happen in any game theory scenario, so anarchists are then resigned back to the position of useful idiot pawns for other powers.

They usually throw in the anarchists + communists/socialists all at once for destabilization purposes in places like Latin America, and even though on the surface the groups appear to be ideologically different, they both help accomplish the exact same destabilization end goal. Then the inhabitants are ripe for exploitation.
 
Last edited by r0achtheunsavory,

r0achtheunsavory

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
241
Trophies
0
Age
112
XP
253
Country
United States
Is this a joke? Who links Noam Chomsky? Anyone who isn't banned from TV, Twitter, Facebook, and the rest of the internet in the year 2020 is CONTROLLED OPPOSITION. The last person I want to hear any political opinion from is a Zionist like Noam Chomsky who pretends he doesn't know Jeffrey Epstein is a Mossad agent sent to blackmail western leaders for Israel.

He feigns ignorance on the subject is and is like....ah...never heard of him HAHAHAHA.
 
Last edited by r0achtheunsavory,

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,782
Trophies
1
XP
4,391
Country
Laos
It is my opinion that if you have the means, you should protect all of your income and pay as little tax as humanly possible as long as you're not breaking the law in the process. Depending on political persuasion some might call that "using loopholes", others will call it "protecting what is rightfully yours". That's a discussion for another thread though, we're getting further and further away from the topic of vaccines. My initial point, just so that it is not overshadowed by the economics discussion, was that the "free" healthcare isn't free - everyone pays for it. We can have the argument of whether it is just to burden high income earners with it until the cows come home, but that has no relation to COVID in and out of itself, so I'll leave it at that - "there's no such thing as a free lunch". :)
In the US state will likely pay for your vaccine doses. US economic fallout is largely because you are currently destroying structural wealth as a result of high unemployment - which were an indirect result of the US healthcare system not caring about the poor. Late reactions of part of your 'leadership' in part were a reaction to the US not being able to scale up testing early, as the capacity wasnt nearly there - to do something that would have you care about everyone of your citizens.

And if you see tax avoidance, even using loopholes as your duty, to what end? Look at Apple - all of their worth increase in the Tim Apple (Cook) aera has come from productivity increases, and licensing. Money mountain grows, whenever a european country tries to tax them US threatens to stop german car imports. Yipee, what a life?

You are simply an extremist, following an outdated ideology that is not fit to solve anything at the downturn of a bust cycle. What you dont understand is what mainstream economists realized 80 years ago.
 
Last edited by notimp,
Status
Not open for further replies.
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    Dark_Phoras @ Dark_Phoras: Take the hint, man