This steps far outside policy criticism and enters into dangerous rhetoric territory especially given his relative reach and prolific presence on Twitter.
Delta is already dominant again and not everyone has a mild case with Omicron so yeah.
Is it normal for test results to not say which variant you may have? I was just curious for myself , I did a rapid test at a county building.Fuck this guy.
Delta is already dominant again and not everyone has a mild case with Omicron so yeah.
Actually reading his statements, it seems like his issue is more an accelerationist one where he thinks Vaccines gave governments an out to stopping more drastic measures like the lockdown. Which is still dumb because the lockdowns reduced spread but literally no expert ever claimed they'd eradicate the disease, and that was literally never the intent of them, and they were never really super viable long term solutions. He points to China's success with lockdowns, but while I do think they've done better than us by far, it's not an unreasonable assumption to believe the totalitarian state that has a history of lying to make itself look good is fudging the numbers to some extent. And of course the measures china has taken just simply wouldn't ever be possible in any even remotely democratic systemWhat a fucking idiot.
Fun fact: Antivaxer never considered themselves as anti vaccine, they just "asking question".
What a fucking idiot.
Fun fact: Antivaxer never considered themselves as anti vaccine, they just "asking question".
He seems to be saying if the virus killed more people governments would implement better policy and that the vaccine by preventing greater death tolls is preventing better policy.Am i reading this right but he pretty much saying governments should practice eugenics?
Also he seems to be ignoring that China did in fact develop and distribute vaccines in addition to lockdowns.I unfollowed this dude on Twitter awhile ago because of his singular onlineness. The underlying sentiment that we need to double down on protecting the more vulnerable among us I agree with, along with the frustration that people are taking the vaccine as a blank check for dropping all other precautions, but yeah. Frustration + myopia + tweeting 1,000 times a day makes for a helluva combination.
Am i reading this right but he pretty much saying governments should practice eugenics?
No. He's saying that we should have gone all in on stamping COVID out instead of just accepting that vulnerable people just die slightly more often post 2020 and that's how it's got to be.Am i reading this right but he pretty much saying governments should practice eugenics?
Also he seems to be ignoring that China did in fact develop and distribute vaccines in addition to lockdowns.
Yeah at best case scenario it feels like he's relitigating 2020 with 20/20 hindsight and spouting a lot of hot air in the process.I think I kinda get it. He's wishing that COVID zero was possible since the current vaccines don't do shit about protection of infection or transmission with omicron. But blaming the vaccines that have saved countless lives just doesn't seem to be the right way to go about things my dude.
His plan is stupid for a number of reasons, but (when possible*) eradication will always eventually save more lives than mitigation. That's just how time works.I think I kinda get it. He's wishing that COVID zero was possible since the current vaccines don't do shit about protection of infection or transmission with omicron. But blaming the vaccines that have saved countless lives just doesn't seem to be the right way to go about things my dude.
yeah. It ignores that any real world decision making needs to take into account the fact that humans aren't rational creatures by nature and won't always follow the best possible solutions. Like yes, better lockdowns and contact tracing and social distancing and the like might've been able to stop the pandemic. But the fact is that those already failed before the vaccines were even a thing we had available because humans fundamentally don't operate like that.A lot of people in this thread are completely missing what he's arguing, which is basically that the vaccines are ineffective for immunocompromised people so by "allowing" the virus to become endemic and simply vaccinating as many people as possible, rather than forcing lockdowns to eradicate the virus entirely, we've condemned the immunocompromised to eventual death by covid.
Which is a load of bullshit of course. Eradication was never a feasible outcome and pretending it is ignores basic human nature.
He's coming at the vaccine from a pov that honestly is even more insidious than pure anti vax, because at least those assholes think it doesn't work.
He knows the vaccine works to reduce harm significantly but he believes that the vaccine is why the US isn't covid zero (lol) so he wishes he could wipe it from ever existing to force more "hardline" anti protocols... it's literally the anti-welfare conservative argument but for the vaccine... essentially the vaccine has made people too soft in his mind....it's vile
No it is not. At all. Per the CDC Delta is about 1% of all new cases.
Also he seems to be ignoring that China did in fact develop and distribute vaccines in addition to lockdowns.
Even in the fantasy world where you somehow get the entire country on board, it also literally requires the entire fucking world to participate with no exceptions, unless he wants permanently closed borders, all the way up to 0 international trade/business. And even then, exceptions have to be possible to allow for essential work.A lot of people in this thread are completely missing what he's arguing, which is basically that the vaccines are ineffective for immunocompromised people so by "allowing" the virus to become endemic and simply vaccinating as many people as possible, rather than forcing lockdowns to eradicate the virus entirely, we've condemned the immunocompromised to eventual death by covid.
Which is a load of bullshit of course. Eradication was never a feasible outcome and pretending it is ignores basic human nature.
There's also the fact that at the end of the day, with or without Covid, the immunocompromised will ALWAYS be at a higher risk of death than the average person because of the nature of their condition. Like obviously we should do what we can to ease their burden, but just as the Flu hasn't killed every immunocompromised person an endemic Covid won't either. And even if we concede that the direct effects of the vaccine aren't as helpful for the immunocompromised, the existence of the vaccine almost certainly has still increased their COVID survival rate because less hospitalized vaccinated people means more resources that can go towards treating people who are immunocompromised with the virus. A situation with no vaccine where out healthcare system is completely overwhelmed would almost certainly lead to many immunocompromised people not being given treatment and dying because from the perspective of triage they're less likely to survive the treatment and so it makes more sense to give it to someone for whom the treatment is more likely to have a positive effectA lot of people in this thread are completely missing what he's arguing, which is basically that the vaccines are ineffective for immunocompromised people so by "allowing" the virus to become endemic and simply vaccinating as many people as possible, rather than forcing lockdowns to eradicate the virus entirely, we've condemned the immunocompromised to eventual death by covid.
Which is a load of bullshit of course. Eradication was never a feasible outcome and pretending it is ignores basic human nature.
Not sure what apparatus might be capable of this in sufficient scale.