Hodad

🙄"With COVID"? The cause of death is the cause of death. It's documented. It's countable. And there's not a single confirmed child death attributed to the vaccines. So what math are you using to NOT recommend vaccination? I gave you the study that show how dramatically, even among children, the vaccines reduced risk of hospitalization, ventilation and death. What math, what facts are you using to to tell people that they should take the high risk road instead? There simply isn't a logical case to be made. Based on the data, across ages and regions, there's no significant downside to vaccination, and there's considerable upside. So what is the damn objection? The truth is that the anti-vax backlash is simple anti-authority, anti-science nonsense. It's a knee-jerk reaction that people are grasping at straws to rationalize and justify.

After 5 years, are you really too farking dumb to understand the difference between numbers and rates and why the latter is the measure of efficacy? Really? After 5 years of pointing it out I can't imagine that ANYONE is that dumb. But I am am 100% certain you are that dishonest. You'd rather mislead people on matters of life and death than let go of your anti-vax dogma and be wrong on the internet. Jeebus. As always, it was unequivocally safer and smarter to be vaccinated. These are numbers from the same source you are using. -- If a person wanted to be hospitalized or wanted to die, they'd pick the high, unvaccinated line. And you've been telling people for 5 years that they should pick the dramatically worse line. GTFO. And in the US, where there are more dumbshits like you and the vax participation rate wasn't as high, the difference is even more stark.

Nobody ran over a cop--nor tried to--and shooting a fleeing "suspect" is not self defense. Jeebus, we can all see the video. Like Noem and co, you don't have any hesitation or shame about lying, and aren't really concerned with credibility.

Indeed, no winners. I appreciate the fairness you've applied. As you point out, the video of the incident is WILDLY different than the story the government is telling. Anyone who heard that description first and then tried to find the video would have wondered if they are even looking at the right footage. Night and day difference. This is concerning for two reasons. The first is that that, though spin is a part of politics, we should all be alarmed when the government outright lies about events, particularly when they involved the killing of a citizen. The second reason is that it's clear that they have no concern about maintaining credibility. It's a non-issue for them. They know the video is available. They know we can all see what they are trying to do. They just don't care. The calculus is that facts simply don't matter anymore, in a very 1984 way. And, sadly, most of this thread bears that out.

Maybe I don't "learn" all this conspiracy bullshit because I source real news instead of the random shit you read and immediately believe on Twitter? Just a theory. Again, there was no compensation for listing COVID as a cause of death. By the lowest count, 1600+ kids died of COVID in the US. It's a simple record to look up, but you want to claim it didn't happen. Good luck with that. Meanwhile... The vaccines were highly effective at preventing those serious outcomes. Results: A total of 445 case patients and 777 controls were enrolled. Overall, 17 case patients (4%) and 282 controls (36%) had been fully vaccinated. Of the case patients, 180 (40%) were admitted to the ICU, and 127 (29%) required life support; only 2 patients in the ICU had been fully vaccinated. The overall effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine against hospitalization for Covid-19 was 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90 to 96); the effectiveness was 95% (95% CI, 91 to 97) among test-negative controls and 94% (95% CI, 89 to 96) among syndrome-negative controls. The effectiveness was 98% against ICU admission and 98% against Covid-19 resulting in the receipt of life support. All 7 deaths occurred in patients who were unvaccinated.

I don't know if there was obstruction at some point off film, but not on, and there was certainly no threatening. By all appearances, they were just annoyed by the civilian scrutiny, as power tripping LEOs often are. Sane people don't think that killing civilians is a valid way of discouraging scrutiny. Surely, knowing that these masked agents are clear to use lethal force for petty annoyances will have a chilling effect. But to see that as a positive? That's a pretty crazy take.

You don't know the difference between someone pressing an attack on trapped civilians and someone trying to flee from LEO? Those situations seem similar to you?- I guess that adds up. You wouldn't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Eesh. Makes debate Joe Biden look like Kennedy. To clarify: John Fitzgerald, not the unhinged kook currently running HHS.

This. It was an entirely unnecessary shooting--a killing that did not protect the officer or anyone else. She was not a threat to him. Rather than being targeted, he stepped in front of the car. She was simply trying to leave, not to harm, and did not "aim" her car at anyone. And indeed he was not visible harmed. And, in spite of all that, there's likely a viable defense of his actions in the moment and he will likely not face consequences. But this absurd idea that his killing with was somehow heroic or deserved or helpful or positive in any way is simply nonsense. It's just an excuse for the peace-loving conservatives to celebrate the killing of someone who might have voted the other way.

Hospitals got paid for delivering medical care? Say it ain't so! They got paid for treating COVID, as they should, regardless of the outcome. They did not get paid to list COVID as the cause of death. Which is what you are accusing them of doing when you dismiss the death rates tracked for COVID. What you are insinuating, in the conspiracy manner, is that medical providers committed fraud and falsified their medical records, risking extreme personal loss, including medical license, fines, 15 years in jail, etc., all in exchange for a few dollars for the hospital. (Every business fantasizes about employees that loyal.) And also that this insane rationale was so widespread that it meaningfully skews the data. That's nutty. GTFO. A. Thanks for the link to the student newspaper article that you clearly didn't read, but what you are claiming is simply not true. You can criticize the secondary effects of lockdown, but there is no mechanism by which people staying home and reducing exposure to the virus causes the virus to spread more quickly. B. Even if you believe that kookery, it does not change the fact that young people in lockdown were not out doing the things that most frequently kill young people, accounting for the reduction in expected deaths. C. Even ignoring A and B, your hunches and speculations about why there were fewer than expected deaths among children, it DOES NOT CHANGE the fact that we have an actual count of COVID deaths among children. You said something dumb. Now your defense of it is just waving your hands and saying that we can't look at the data that unequivocally disproves your claim, because hairbrained theory X,Y,Z. And the "evidence" for those theories? Data. We're deep in the rabbit hole of your fiction.

You're having a stupid argument because you made a stupid claim. No, "the left" does not hate jewish people--including the people of Israel-- (leave that to the alt right). 2/3 of American jews are democrats. No, "the left" does not hate the geography or designation of Israel. Yes, "the left" generally--and sometimes very strongly--disagrees with the Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinians, and particularly the prosecution of this brutal war and the mass slaughter of innocents. You could say that they hate that action, but that's would be a pretty bizarre criticism. "You guys hate the mass murder of innocent people!" Doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? -- So you settle for a very dumb shorthand, accusing a largely undefined population, "the left" of hating a similarly undefined "Israel." You can't say what it really means, because there's not one iota of thought behind the accusation.

Back peddle? As always, the vaccines are/were safe and effective. As always, the vaccines were an amazing success story, saving millions of lives. It's funny, I've showed you many, many charts from a broad sample of studies and regions--all of show consistently that the rates of hospitalization and death for the vaccinated are dramatically better--manifold better--than for the unvaccinated, and you're little pea brain just cannot grasp the difference between rates and raw numbers. It's really pitiful. I hope you've stumbled into some sustainable lifestyle that doesn't require any critical thinking.

Way to spout conspiracy nonsense. Again. Hospitals were not paid to list COVID as a cause of death. That's asinine. The data isn't wrong just because it destroys your bullshit claim that COVID didn't kill kids. 🙄 Hahahaha. If only someone had already pointed out this EXACT FACT when you conspiracy kooks were pretending that the COVID vaccines killed a bunch of kids. I gave you the ball, but you chose to kick it deep into your own net. And yes, a group of young people in general lockdown are not doing most of the young people things that are their #1 cause of death, so you should expect a reduction in deaths. That should be obvious. You can see yourself out.

🙄What does it mean to "hate Israel"? I know it's part of the MAGA initiation ritual to lobotomize away the part of the brain that once processed nuance, but try to think back. What do you actually mean when you say that? Do you mean that "the left" hates a designation on a political map? Do you mean that "the left" hates Jewish people? Do you mean that "the left" disagrees hates the way the Palestinians have been treated by Israel? What is it that you're actually trying to argue?

Poor effort. "The left" doesn't "hate Israel," because that doesn't mean anything. But a big chunk of them strenuously disagree with and denounce the policies and actions of the current administration--both long term relationship with the Palestinians and more acutely, the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents. And on the other, that's not a value. And also a very small circle relative to the violence from the right. Again, you can try to identify some aligned values, but you won't have much luck. The two groups simply don't believe in the same things.

Well, I guess if you ignore all the kids it killed, then sure. But back in reality, at the height of the pandemic (2021–2022), COVID-19 was the eighth leading cause of death overall for children and the first among infectious diseases.

Dude, that's an Op-Ed reprint from a pro-Israel advocacy group posing as a think tank. Their mission is to advance Israeli objectives in the media. Thanks for sharing, I guess, but that does not constitute an argument. I read it. It's a whole lot of words leading up to a wet fart of a conclusion that modern leftism and modern Islam are both derived from Marxism. Big eye roll on that one. At I said, it's politically convenient to demonize two "enemies" with the same broad brush, but it's a specious argument that simply can't stand up to scrutiny. You can find plenty of things that liberalism and Islam both oppose, but almost no values that they share in common. Try it out. Make yourself a venn diagram of values. See how that goes.

So what? So did 19% of Republicans and 20% of independents--in the same poll. That's just a 6 point delta for those playing along at home. What do you think that actually means? Let me fill in the blanks for you. The question was not "Do you support terrorism?" It asked which side you support more in the current conflict. It means that I'm the context of a brutal genocide 2/5 of Americans across the political spectrum think the side wantonly killing tens of thousands of innocent women and children is the one more in the wrong. Israel had the moral high ground after the October attacks, and near universal sympathy. Then they bombed the high ground into oblivion.

"Leftists" do not love Islam. Full stop. They especially don't love radical or fundamentalist Islam. There is nothing aligned in those value groups. Leftists simply believe in tolerance and freedom of and from religion. You know, good old fashioned values the country was founded on. Conservatives, who are rapidly being devoured by the Christian right that they once used for votes, want to claim some kind of affinity so that they can demonize two rival ideologies in one broad, ludicrous brush stroke. Personally, I think all religions are crap, doing far more harm than good. But whatever deluded fairy tales people want to use to cope with life are fine by me, as long as they don't try to impose their personal rules for living on others. That last part is the trick. Most of them aren't content with pluralism, and the fundies of most sects are eager to seize power on behalf of their imaginary gods and exact vengeance on the non-compliant. American Christians don't really hate Islam because it's so different, but rather web because they're too similar. They are rivals. And there's a subset of both groups that are comfortable with violence to achieve their ends. When "leftists" don't join the radical Christians in demonizing and attacking ordinary Muslims, it has nothing to do with liking Islam, and everything to do with repudiating religious bigotry. Tolerance is NOT alliance or alignment. Your enemy is not your enemy's friend.

One for you too.

I repeat (because I literally said it in the post to which you responded): "That's just a super shoddy bit of marketing spin, like calling objections to Israel's actions in Palestine antisemitism. Paper thin, and very dumb."

Will do. Enjoy your batshit-crazy personalized conception of reality. 👍

Oh, you're not fooling anyone. We all know damn well that you don't subscribe to the Atlantic, and that you didn't read the article. There's no room for new information in your tiny info bubble. Just copy and past some more of your standard debunked grievances and move on.

No, there is no alliance whatsoever between the left and radical Islam. That's absurd. The same people who want to be free of Christian theocracy certainly want to be free of Islamic theocracy. The same people who repudiate nonsense like conversion therapy also disapprove of murdering (rather than "converting") gay people. Liberalism and fundamentalism (religious or otherwise) are diametrically opposed. Islamaphobia is very real, particularly among Christian conservatives, but acknowledging that has nothing whatsoever to do with support for or alliance with Islamic terrorism. That's just a super shoddy bit of marketing spin, like calling objections to Israel's actions in Palestine antisemitism. Paper thin, and very dumb.

A. That's an entirely different report B. Not surprising that, though it's measuring something different, it shows the same general conclusion. C. For the record, Islamic violence IS far right violence. For the sake of more granular measurement you can certainly break our religious right vs secular right violence, but they are both far right. Doesn't get more conservative that the Taliban types, and the Christian Nationalists are just the American Taliban.