Re: Ove Interest?

On 2/15/2025 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 2/15/2025 9:49 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>
How about some low hanging fruit?  The Official Policy
Statement, which was enforced by censorship and
manipulation, was that the mRNA jab would prevent
contraction of the Wuhan virus and block contagion as well
(those constituting the definition of a vaccine).  Neither
is actually true.
>
The interested reader might peruse the record of 'fact
check' statements on that. Other examples abound.
>

>
Was that said officially in the US? Certainly even with Boris who well does
like an mis truth or two! They talked about flattening the curve ie keeping
folks out of hospital which the vaccines will reduce the probability, but
also with lockdowns to slow infection down as the vaccine will not stop
that, thats why lockdowns where needed to prevent intensive care being
overwhelmed.

 As I recall, in Ohio Dr. Amy Acton did talk about the vaccine and social distancing flattening the curve. I don't recall any statements that the vaccine would be 100% effective in preventing contagion, and I'd be very surprised if that was said, since AFAIK no vaccines are 100% effective.
 There's been far too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking about Covid. People on one side of politics seem to forget that when infections first spread, hospitals were absolutely overwhelmed, even formerly healthy people were dying, medical staff were working non-stop, triage tents were set up in hospital parking lots, etc. The virus was an unknown and was causing great damage.
 Certainly, some initial scientific findings were errors. But that's a normal part of science: People do research, publish findings, others try to replicate, and mistakes are corrected. Given the crisis at hand, health and government officials were not wrong to bet on safety, even if some of the steps (like washing down door handles) ultimately turned out to have low value.
 People on one side of the political spectrum seem to have a tendency toward absolutism. One scientific mistake tells them _all_ science is useless. One failed law tells them _all_ laws are useless. One bad politician tells them _all_ politicians are useless - except their own, of course.
 The world is a bit more complicated than that.
 

https://www.rev.com/transcripts/joe-biden-covid-vaccine-booster-shots-speech-briefing-transcript
Although there may be someone holding the beliefs you exaggerate above, none of them correspond here on RBT. Many people, I included, think any assertion, scientific or otherwise, ought to withstand inquiry, testing and corroboration.  Sadly, this is now a critical existential issue among the sciences as errors in published papers, forcing withdrawal, is skyrocketing, whether due to outright fraud or rank incompetence. There are hardly enough people replicating procedures to verify conclusions in scientific papers and if there were more that would likely expose yet more error.
And in the instant case, politicians should also not be exempt from inquiry, testing and verification of their assertions.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971