"hmmm... no, sweety. Mass formation psychosis does not exist, mmkaay 💅"
(I can't believe some news outlets still have those "iT's nOt rEaL" articles up. The incompetence is baffling)
Nah. It's just that the US govt. is not letting a great opportunity to extend its power go to waste. It's the US' hyper-narcissistic and sometimes outright sociopathic "highschool culture" that has been driving kids to the edge for decades. There are no school shooting in Finland, Switzerland, Uruguay, Falklands, etc.
That's right-wing conspiracist RussianBotDisinformationPropagandaFakeNews. Just 2 weeks ago, Trudeau (pbuh) publicly stated that he never made, nor ever intended to make the covid vaccines mandatory. He's very handsome, you know?
To be fair, she espouses the notion that the reason we are housing transgender women in female prisons is to cater to male comfort and that the tendency to do so is primarily driven by "internalized misogyny". That idea is absolutely asinine. And she's a molecular geneticist! Not exactly the dumbest person in the room. It just goes to show how effective and insidious the woke mind virus is.
Everything else she said is pretty much on point, and given the current collective lunacy we are living in, I think she can be forgiven for the "internalized misogyny" comment. Baby steps, I guess.
There are a few instances where vaccine-induced immunity is better than natural immunity.
For example:
-
The HPV vaccine: the vax protein is easier for the body to recognize than that of the virus itself.
-
Tetanus vaccine: the toxin produced by the bacteria is so potent that the "natural infection" amount is not enough to trigger long-term immunization.
But they were claiming the COVID vaccine provided better immunization BEFORE they had the data needed to be able to reach that conclusion. And as we know today, it was bollocks.
You are absolutely correct.
If the vaccine really was 99.9999999% effective as they claimed in 2021, these numbers would be very different!
The thing is, THEY KNEW the vaccines were not that effective pretty early on. Here is a CDC leak from July 2021 stating in plain English (slide 12) the vaccine effectiveness (VE):
-
Against infection: 61%
-
Against mild illness: 75%
-
Against severe illness: 85%
(Edit: Oh. and btw, these numbers refer to the Alpha and Delta variants. The vaccine is almost worthless against the Omicron variant, dropping to a pathetic 8.8% effectiveness after 20 weeks)
When I first saw that leak, I realize that it was not only a small elite who suffered from a God complex and saw us as ignorant tax cattle who shouldn't be given the "luxury" of self-efficacy and self-determination. Nearly ALL institutions were engaging in these "noble lies" to "protect" us, dirty peasants, from ourselves. "So what if a few plebs die or are injured for life? The important thing is that we preserve the enterprise that guarantees us our wealth and power."
They also knew about the risk of severe adverse events like myocarditis and thrombosis from the vaccine even before they approved it for emergency use, btw. (I've read a leaked FDA inner memorandum where officials are urging the committee to restrict vaccination to at-risk populations only due to potential vaccine side effects, but the old link is dead and I cannot find it on my machine).
My best guess is that it's from here. See page 3 for the table on the screencap.
There are some caveats when interpreting that data, though. See my other comment for details
Here's the official report on OP's screencap (the table can be found on page 3).
A few things to keep in mind when interpreting those numbers:
-
According to San Diego's official site, around 79% of residents are fully vaccinated. Because the ratio of fully-vaccinated to unvaccinated is not 1:1 (actually 4:1), it is natural that the proportion of people who caught COVID will be skewed towards the fully-vaccinated merely because they outnumber the unvaccinated by 4:1.
Imagine the following scenario: out of 1'000 people exposed to COVID, 800 are vaccinated and 200 are unvaccinated. Let's say the vaccine reduces your chances to get COVID by 60%. Let's say that the base chance of you getting COVID if exposed is 50%. Thus:
50% of the unvaccinated get COVID, that is 100 people.
50% of the unvaccinated get COVID, that is 400 people. BUT, the vaccine prevents the disease from developing in 60% of the cases, thus the actual number of people who test positive is: 0.5 * 0.6 * 800 = 240 people.
So in the end, we have 240 + 100 = 340 people with COVID. Out of those 340, 240 or 70.5% are fully vaccinated. So, even though the vaccine did reduce the chances of developing the disease, the number of vaccinated people with COVID still far outweighs the number of unvaccinated in the total statistics. -
The same effect as explained above is bound to influence the percentage of deaths too.
-
In addition to the proportions effect, there is another bias when it comes to the percentage of deaths. Namely, that people who are at risk are far more likely to be fully vaccinated than people who arent. If you look at the statistics on that same page (page 3), you'll see that 41% of deaths are people who are double vaxed and fully boosed (67% if you count the non-boostet vaxed)!
BUT, 99.9% of people in the age group at risk are fully vaxed. And they are basically the only ones dying of covid (see page 8). -
The inverse bias is to be expected for the unvaxed. Those tend to be younger, stronger and healthier people living predominantly in rural areas (sun, vitamin D, exercise, early exposure to pathogens [playing outside, dealing with animals], etc.)
There are ways of correcting this behavior amicably.
The problem with most "educated" people nowadays is that they are rote-learners and rote-thinkers. That is, they memorize a collection of factoids and simple "If A then B" syllogistic rules, instead of being able to derive and reason about concepts. The tragic fact is that for the most part, they are completely unaware of the fact that they don't actually understand a subject.
It's like only knowing that if you push down the gas pedal, it will make the car go faster. And from that singular knowledge deluding yourself that you understand how engines work. A better and more encompassing analogy is Searl's Chinese Room, which involves a man getting messages in Chinese, following a complex set of rules depending on the characters received so that he himself can respond with an appropriate set of characters. All the while, the man doesn't actually understand a single word of Chinese and has no idea what the original message or his response to it actually mean.
So how can you remediate your daughter's behavior? Use the Socratic method. Have a genuine interest in her position and explore it with her, while asking her to explain or justify that position from an epistemological standpoint. That is, try to find out how is it that she knows what she knows. If she is stumped, can't answer, or gets angry (a common reaction when someone is put in that position), don't pressure her. Just let it go and be nice about it.
It should suffice that she gets confronted with the fact that she doesn't truly understand what she's talking about on a semi-regular basis. With time, the difference between rote-thinking (doxa) and actual understanding (episteme) should start to dawn on her.
I highly recommend Bourgeois Overproduction and the Problem of the Fake Elite by James Lindsay
Not what it looks like on my end
A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols).[1][2] Definitions can be classified into two large categories, intensional definitions (which try to give the sense of a term) and extensional definitions (which try to list the objects that a term describes).[3] Another important category of definitions is the class of ostensive definitions, which convey the meaning of a term by pointing out examples. A term may have many different senses and multiple meanings, and thus require multiple definitions.[4][a]
The only change to this paragraph since 2015 is the addition of "ostensive definition" as a definition class.
I also cannot find a recent edit in the history page. The last edit was in February 2022.
All the versions available in Archive.org also don't match op's screenshot.
2045? It's happening now. The Plebbit automatons are already claiming they were against lockdowns and "knew" that the vaccines were not entirely safe or effective. They are walking memes.