No meaningful signature check was ever allowed to be done in the disputed states by any judge.
So why should the other side trust the results. Let's put it this way, when a real person had to show up and vote in person, the Biden lead completely disappears.
That is also one county out of many disputed. Show me stats for Wayne/Detroit for example, where apparently more black people voted for Biden than Obama.
Also their audit stats are laughably high. 99.99% you couldn't get that ratio with 110+ IQ students signing their final exam that their life depends on. That's one bad or missing signature per 10,000 students. No way elderly can sign with this accuracy rate. I don't think they could tie their shoes anywhere near this accuracy rate.
For obvious reasons, legitimate forensic audits are not done by the same people that did the original count.
> Also their audit stats are laughably high. 99.99% you couldn't get that ratio with 110+ IQ students signing their final exam that their life depends on
You're confused. It's not that there was a 99.99% accuracy rating in signing. It's that there was a "a 99.99% accuracy rate in performing correct signature verification procedures." - which means something very different from what you're saying. That is: signatures that should have been thrown out were thrown out, and signatures that were kept were good.
The fact that you misunderstood this says to me that either means you arguing in bad faith, or you're not actually able to step back from your beliefs and evaluate the facts with any kind of impartiality.
> For obvious reasons, legitimate forensic audits are not done by the same people that did the original count.
Right yes, that makes sense to me as well:
> Raffensperger’s office teamed up with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to conduct the audit.
Unless I'm much mistaken, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the Republican secretary of state aren't usually the ones counting the ballots on election night.
You can move the goalpost to counties that haven't conducted audits like this all you want, but the point is how were the supposed fraudsters to know which counties were going to be key to the election AND not get audited, in order to get away with stealing an election? If every place you look you find no evidence, you can always keep saying let's look just one more place because THAT's where the fraud is! Each time you look is not just "no fraud found here" it's also "and the fraudsters knew not to do fraud here because they knew we'd look here". But I guess you can get around this by just saying that the audits were bad, and we need to conduct more audits that will somehow be good this time?
The worst part of all this is that the false claims of fraud are being used to purge voter rolls, and pass more voter id laws that make it harder for people to vote - because the people who are making these claims know that the harder it is to vote the better chance they have of winning. If that's not rigging an election, idk what is.
Ah I understand the problem, nuance is difficult in public.
Most of these weren't unanimous arguments by doctors. Masks for example: it's true they are ineffective at preventing most things, you can't put on a mask and be free of disease from others, it's mostly to spread it from you. At the same time, some masks are more effective than others, when most people were buying up cloth masks they didn't want to discourage this by redirecting to more effective masks especially at a time where hospitals were struggling to get those needs met and they were at much higher risk.
So you see how something like that, when edited through soundbites and malicious actors, suddenly becomes "they lied about masks"? Now reevaluate the rest of your beliefs about how they "lied" during that time.
It is, however, a lie when you demonize and censor those who did so much as mildly disagree about any of it. "You are wrong according to what we know now" can be factual. "You are wrong and deserve to be silenced" is a damnable lie.
Exactly. They censored a Stanford doctor on Twitter just because he had a different opinion, which is incredibly concerning. It's no longer (and never was, in my opinion) about filtering misinformation - it's about controlling the narrative.
You have a strange definition of censorship — excluding somebody from the trending list. You are also speculating about the reason why. He made factually incorrect statements about the vaccine, in addition to stating his poorly reasoned opinions. https://mobile.twitter.com/19joho/status/1463540124407451659
Despite your perceived censorship, we all know the Christian fundamentalist Indian-American you're talking about.
Shadowbanning is a type of censorship. Who defines what is factually incorrect? The lab leak theory was considered "debunked" until recently. Who has the monopoly over what is considered fact and what is considered fiction? I would rather have a platform where people can be wrong rather than one in which a select group of individuals decide what is "true" and what is "false".
Likewise, I'm not sure why the ethnicity of the filtered person matters to you?
His followers still saw his tweets. This wasn't shadow banning.
> Who defines what is factually incorrect?
I posted an example. Are you going to argue that it is factually correct? If you're going to change the subject to the lab leak, you better post an example of somebody who Twitter "censored" for it.
> I would rather have a platform where people can be wrong rather than one in which a select group of individuals decide what is "true" and what is "false".
And I would rather have a platform that doesn't increase deaths by amplifying known misinformation, which is something that can easily be gamed by your enemies. This is different from people being wrong about the earth being flat or being wrong about evolution by natural selection, which your hero could post wrongly about and still get promoted. Your reductionist idea of "freedom" causes you to make ridiculous policy choices. It's like somebody saying, "I would rather allow people to buy and sell whatever they want to whomever they want instead of having a select group decide what I can and can't buy and sell in what quantities to what people (including fertilizer and oxycodone)." There is a wide chasm between the extremes you're thinking about where reasonable people discuss actually workable policies.
> Likewise, I'm not sure why the ethnicity of the filtered person matters to you?
I gave it to identify him. The fact that he is Indian-American makes his Christian fundamentalism a larger criticism of his intelligence. He wasn't born into those beliefs. He arrived at those beliefs by way of poor reasoning.
Claiming that public health officials said there is no link to myocarditis is the lie. You've been duped. Try reading reputable news sources instead of conspiracy theory blogs.
NEW YORK, April 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has not found a link between heart inflammation and COVID-19 vaccines, the agency’s Director Rochelle Walensky said on Tuesday.
"We have not seen a signal and we've actually looked intentionally for the signal in the over 200 million doses we've given," Walensky said in a press briefing.
That same article says they were still investigating it, so anybody who isn't a conspiracy theorist trying to rewrite history would read that as "not seen a signal [yet]."
> "It is a different demographic than we normally see and we will be working with DOD to understand what is happening in those 14 cases," Walensky said.
So they didn't know that it caused myocarditis or not - but they deemed it safe for rollout. Shouldn't this have been caught beforehand? How is it ethical to mandate a product whose risks are not even fully known yet?
The big issue during the pandemic is that "no evidence that" was treated as "does not exist", especially by social media moderators. So I do agree with your point that the CDC did not explicitly state that such a link does not exist (thank you for pointing that out to me). However, there are times that the CDC was flat out wrong, such as when Walensky initially said that vaccinated individuals cannot spread COVID to others.
One day they say the science is settled. The next day they say that science changes according to new data. If that's the case, then I would rather sit back and wait until the science gets settled.
I will do my best and follow all recommended guidelines to keep others and myself healthy. However, I will not undergo an irreversible treatment without understanding the risks and accepting them by my free will (not coercion).
> So they didn't know that it caused myocarditis or not - but they deemed it safe for rollout
They knew it was far less likely than complications from COVID. That's how drug approval has worked from the beginning of time, but the conspiracy theory blogs you read won't tell you that.
> I will not undergo an irreversible treatment without understanding the risks and accepting them by my free will (not coercion).
SARS-CoV-2 doesn't give you a choice about whether you get treated with the virus. You could weigh the risks vs. benefits of being infected with or without the vaccine, but instead, you chose to believe conspiracy theories because of your reductionist idea of freedom.
> "They knew it was far less likely than complications from COVID"
COVID has numerous variants. Which variant are you discussing? Indeed, the first variant was serious. But what of the later variants like Omicron? Virtually all research I have read about vaccination risk includes cases from 2020 in their assessment, as opposed to separately comparing vaccination risk to each variant.
> "SARS-CoV-2 doesn't give you a choice about whether you get treated with the virus. You could weigh the risks vs. benefits of being infected with or without the vaccine"
I'm not sure what you mean here, for I already got COVID and it was extremely mild given that I am young and healthy. The risk-benefit ratio varies for each individual, and note that it also depends on the Covid variant. Why should I get vaccinated when I already have natural immunity, which is at least as good, if not superior, to protection from vaccination (from a peer-reviewed publication in the Lancet)?
I'd say the responsible thing to do is verify if the risk-benefit ratio actually warranted mandates or not for each new variant that became dominant. By the time Omicron became the dominant variant, I could not see any strong reason why mandates were still in place.
> I said you made a bad decision by getting infected prior to vaccination.
Do you know when I decided to leave lockdown? Do you know which variant I first became infected with? Indeed, I would say the people who left their homes for non-essential reasons during the first variants did not make a wise decision. However, given that Omicron is considered to be much milder than the first variants, and also since I have no prior health conditions and am young and very fit, I would say that I made a sound decision not to receive a product whose side effects are the worst for my demographic.
The whole push behind the vaccinations is not that it prevents you from getting COVID - it's that it lowers your risk of hospitalization (although this is not how it was advertised initially). Given that my risk of hospitalization is virtually nil without vaccination, then I see no reason to get vaccinated.
> I'd say the responsible thing to do is verify if the risk-benefit ratio actually warranted mandates or not for each new variant that became dominant. By the time Omicron became the dominant variant, I could not see any strong reason why mandates were still in place.
How is that any different from what happened? When Omicron's severity was understood, vaccines mandates went away.
> Do you know when I decided to leave lockdown?
Why don't you tell me? I was able to leave by summer 2021 because I wasn't swayed by conspiracy theory blogs.
14? I do recall seeing numbers around 1 per 3000-6000 from several studies (I recall one was from Israel, see: "Israel reports link between rare cases of heart inflammation and COVID-19 vaccination in young men"). This means that for young men, it is around 166-333 per million.
Although anecdotal, I personally know of someone who developed a serious heart condition after vaccination, and their issue was not linked to vaccination by their doctor as they claimed that it just a "coincidence". Not sure how severe symptoms within 24 hours are a coincidence...
Regardless, you have the freedom to assess the risk-benefit ratio and make the decision that you deem best for your health. I respect that. However, coercing others to accept the risks or lose their job - that I find highly unethical.
> However, coercing others to accept the risks or lose their job - that I find highly unethical.
Your employer isn't obligated to pay your higher healthcare costs because you were duped by antivax conspiracy theorists. In fact, your employer can use the fact that you were swayed by those blogs as a signal that your decision-making ability is poor.
The whole "there is no evidence, therefore the link doesn't exist" thing is an obvious grift. Simply never look for side effects (and attribute them to hysteria or anything else besides the shots when they do arise), and it's as though they never existed.
Is that what happened ? According to whatever it says there's only been about 1000 cases and most recover. You remind me of current conspiracy theorists who now attribute any death via a health condition to the vaccine. Show me evidence they ignored reasonable warnings or didn't move fast enough?
If you're comfortable with that, that is fine, I respect everyone's decisions for their own health. But what about those who do not recover? No one has the right to coerce another person to receive an irreversible medical treatment. Masks can be taken off - nothing against them personally. But can one "un"-vaccinate themselves? And why are people forced to vaccinate when natural immunity has been proven to be at least, if not more effective, than vaccination (from a peer-reviewed study published in the Lancet)?
The argument is not whether the vaccine is good or bad. It's about respecting people's right to a choice. Japan did not mandate the COVID vaccine and actively discouraged such an approach. Would you claim they are anti-science?
It's also important to consider what the former President of Australia's Medical Association has stated regarding the COVID jab: "the true rate of adverse events is far higher than acknowledged due to underreporting and “threats” from medical regulators"
I don't respect people's decisions if it may affect others. The countless money spent caring for people with Covid who might have required less care if they were vaccinated is one. Health care costs are amortized over the population through insurance
> The countless money spent caring for people with Covid who might have required less care if they were vaccinated is one. Health care costs are amortized over the population through insurance
This is a recipe for the worst, most intrusive kind of tyranny in the name of "biosecurity," but that's probably a feature and not a bug to the sort of person who is still advocating for COVID vaccine mandates at this late date.
There are vast demographics of healthy young people at infinitesimal risk from COVID and much higher risk from the shots, for whom taking them actually raised their risk of being hospitalized. But the difference between you and me is, if I found out people required more medical care because of their unwise and ill-considered health choices, the last thing on earth that would occur to me would be to punish them with job losses, higher insurance premiums, and the like.
78% of individuals hospitalized for COVID were obese/overweight. In other words, people who eat too much were primarily responsible for overwhelming our health care system.
- Gaining weight takes time and is the result of a continuous large number of bad decisions over a long period of time. Not getting vaccinated is a single decision
- Losing weight requires a great deal of effort over a long period of time. Getting vaccinated is quick and easy
- Weight gain can have factors that are difficult to control like mental illness, self control issues, and other things related to your emotions. I'm sure you'll agree that the vast majority of people who are overweight don't want to be overweight. Those who didn't get vaccinated wanted to not be vaccinated
While you can argue anyone can lose weight, which I would agree with you, the amount of effort is extreme, otherwise I'm sure no one would be overweight. Therefore a person who is overweight has a heart attack deserves sympathy whereas a person who didn't get vaccinated* but ends up in the hospital because of Covid doesn't.
* Assuming they could have gotten vaccinated, meaning no health issues or real risks
> Therefore a person who is overweight has a heart attack deserves sympathy whereas a person who didn't get vaccinated* but ends up in the hospital because of Covid doesn't.
A person who is obese willingly chose to gorge on lots of food. (Of course, there are a minority of individuals who have conditions like thyroid issues). A person who declined vaccination was most likely afraid of the side effects, which are rare but possible.
> Weight gain can have factors that are difficult to control like mental illness, self control issues
Mental illness? So a schizophrenic person magically gets obese? Self-control issues? People who can't put the cookie down? And a young athlete has to undergo a procedure with risk because the obese person can't say no to Taco Bell? These people were responsible for 78% of hospitalizations. Yet the media had basically no campaign to encourage them to lose weight. Note that they have had a significant impact on our health care system before COVID even began.
By your logic:
"I can't stop overeating" => "It's not your fault"
"I'm concerned about myocarditis" => "You're selfish!"
Even though I find their decision to be extremely selfish, I still hold sympathy for them. Only a sadist would find joy in seeing others suffer. Imagine if doctors laughed at their patients for having a preventable illness.
Likewise, I know there are people who refused to get vaccination for poor reasons - reasons that appear to be due to mental illness (e.g. schizophrenics who actually believe there are microchips in the vaccines).
> the amount of effort is extreme
And the amount of effort to become obese is extreme. No one becomes obese after one cookie.
> Those who didn't get vaccinated wanted to not be vaccinated
Did the obese make the responsible decision (to lose weight) to stop overwhelming our healthcare system?
(Quick edit: when I say "I find their decision to be extremely selfish", I'm referring to the obese)
Also, I wanted to thank you for engaging with me in this discussion. While we have different opinions, I enjoy learning about other viewpoints and becoming more informed about them :)
"I can't stop overeating" => "It's not your fault"
"I'm concerned about myocarditis" => "You're selfish"
I didn't say this and you ignored my entire premise about the difficulty of the situation. Both an obsese person and a unvaccinated person are to blame(unless we want to talk about misinformation). The difference is the mitigating factors .
Getting vaccinated is easy but so is gaining weight. Losing weight is hard.
------------------
"Yet the media had basically no campaign to encourage them to lose weight. "
There are massive campaigns by the government encouraging people to become more fit. Remember the presidents physical fitness challange? ( I'm assuming you are US).
Encouraging a health lifestyle through physical activity happens all the time. Also the obesity issue in America is reported on all the time.
Also the "media" isn't an organization it reports the news and they reported that government official wanted people to get vaccinated. I don't understand how you look at them, like some sort of government.
------------------
- fear about side effects
The vast majority of experts said it's safe and the chances of side effects are extremely low. Lower than the probability of getting covid. It doesn't make sense to be afraid of side effects but not the disease.
----------------
"Mental illness? So a schizophrenic person magically gets obese? Self-control issues? People who can't put the cookie down? "
I saw your comment about how you are happy about this engagement which makes me think you are a reasonable person however the comment above is the opposite of that. The mental illnesses I'm thinking of is depression and anxiety disorders. People don't magically become obsese, as you said, and if it was as easy as "put the cookie down" almost no one would be fat. There's also been studies showing that sugar is similar to an addictive substance.
Finally have some empathy for people in a difficult situation that has a difficult solution. Getting vaccinated is easy that is unless you don't want to look stupid after you took a absolute stance.
My original comment was about the cost of all these people going threw the medicial system. I take it your arguement and annoyance with this is that I'm selective right? Something like "what if someone is skiing and breaks a leg. That was an optional activity so shouldn't I be angry?"
Not to argue with myself but skiing is entertainment which has value, people don't intend to break a leg, and i hope often take precautions. If there was a situation that a person put themselves in intentionally increasing the risk of an event that then requires huge amount of medical care I would say the same thing.
> "Getting vaccinated is easy but so is gaining weight. Losing weight is hard."
And accepting the risk of severe heart problems is harder for many people. Especially young athletic individuals who have no prior medical conditions. Similarly, gaining weight also takes substantial time. No one wakes up obese after one fast food meal.
>"There are massive campaigns by the government encouraging people to become more fit."
My point is in regards to media campaigns during COVID for people to become fit. COVID and vaccination have been constantly been reported for the past couple of years. Unvaccinated people have been ridiculed by the media. If they put the same level of pressure on the obese during this pandemic, then perhaps they may have been more incentivized to lose weight.
> "The vast majority of experts said it's safe and the chances of side effects are extremely low."
The majority of experts said AstraZeneca was perfectly fine... until its authorization for young people got revoked in several nations. J&J was considered to be safe by experts... until millions of doses were tossed out after it was discovered that the manufacturing facility was contaminated. Then it was revoked for young people, since:
"In December, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended prioritizing the Moderna and Pfizer shots over J&J’s because of its safety issues. Previously U.S. officials had treated all three vaccines similarly because they’d each been shown to offer strong protection.
But follow-up studies have consistently shown lower effectiveness for J&J’s vaccine. And while the blood clots seen with J&J’s shot are rare, officials say they’re still occurring."
And this is the issue. The "experts" did not catch this before - The follow-up studies did. Also note that there has been substantial pressure on doctors during the pandemic (several told me that their license could potentially be revoked if they say anything that contradicts the medical board). Check out what Dr. Kerryn Phelps (former Australian Medical Association president) said.
> "if it was as easy as "put the cookie down" almost no one would be fat"
But it is as easy as that. All it takes is a few seconds of mental reasoning - is obesity worth the sugar rush? If the media reported on obesity in the same light as it covered COVID, then perhaps people would take it more seriously. (Are there campaigns for obesity? Sure. But none are as serious and "spooky" as those they did to make people scared of COVID and encourage them to get vaccinated)
> "Finally have some empathy for people in a difficult situation that has a difficult solution."
If not overeating is considered "difficult", then I'm not surprised why this nation is failing.
> 'Something like "what if someone is skiing and breaks a leg. That was an optional activity so shouldn't I be angry?" Not to argue with myself but skiing is entertainment which has value'
And many young, fit individuals declined the COVID vaccine because of the value this refusal has - no side effects from the vaccine. You may argue that COVID has more serious side effects. However, the first variants were not as transmissive as Omicron, and provided that you took social distancing + masking (with a respirator) very seriously, then your chances of getting it would be much less. In other words, the cons of vaccination must also be compared with the probability of actually getting COVID (based on the variant) in addition to the probability of a serious side effect occurring.
Again, the risk varies for everybody. If an over 50 year old obese person with prior medical conditions denied the vaccine, then you could definitely argue that their decision may not be the best. But for young healthy adults?
I strongly believe that everyone should do whatever they can to keep themselves and others safe. However, when it gets to accepting a rare but serious risk, that is where individuals must have a choice. I don't find anything wrong with restricting public venues to the vaccinated only (watching football is not a fundamental human right). But mandating it for employees and disallowing testing? That is concerning.
