Covid-19 Discussion (moderated)

So what are the ones currently.

By independant I meant independant of the authorities. 

In fact, @MarieAnne-Liz mentioned the fact that the credibility when vaccines are debated in France is a joke right now. It is true because they're being hostile to knowledgeable people like him.

In #3604

No spamming, please.

I’m talking about numbers….

We're allowed ?
Experienced and 'independent' are 'reasons to believe' ?
The real vaccines (not the other one that had 'no reason to believe')
have saved many millions of lives.
A fully vaccinated person who gets Covid is apparently 97 times as likely to survive as an unvaccinated person ...
but ...  'experienced and independent' survives that statistic?

'Independent' is a reason to 'believe' somebody ?
And - its 'all about believing' ?
(I can almost anticipate) ... "so you're suggesting only the mainstream is to be believed?"  - as if the question deserved an answer?  Someday - whoever will discover what something 'doesn't mean' as opposed to what something does.
He might discover that the negation of something - doesn't mean that the converse or opposite is the only thing that can follow.   Or - stop pretending that it is.)

Its unfortunate that Raoult became an 'authority'.
But fortunate it seems - that he will be retired from his job.  
As for the lawsuits pertaining to him - their status or results weren't so easy to find on the web.
Regarding 'pingpong' that happens when persons such as Mercola and Raoult are exposed and their doctrines are debunked ...
I imagine that'll continue.
And that we'll see many tactics - like arguing that 'independent' is a 'reason for believing'.  
Are forums like this made so that such pushing can be interfered with?
I think so - among other reasons.   

But there's a flip side.  Such forums can be used to promote that which should be interfered with.  And push it hard.
All the Disinfo people have to do - is just keep pingponging ...
and then will other people have the time?
Suggestion:  people who do care about interfering with the spreading of Covid disinformation and prefer to interfere with the promotion and lionization of Covid disinformation gurus and politicians ...
don't have to conduct their postings on the terms of the disinfo people.  
We might see quite a bit of 'you ignored -' or invalid 'so you mean -' (that wasn't said) - or 'you didn't answer my question' or ...
the immortal " 'We' are talking about ... "  
and 'lets put it behind ...' while whoever continues with Exactly what he is authoritating as to 'put behind'.

Issue: interfering with - and how to interfere with Covid disinformation and how to interfere with promotion of Covid disinformation leaders.
Perhaps the disinformationers will want to suggest 'how'  ??
Remark:  the worst thing - could be to accomodate any suggestion they make.

Why do they have the unofficial name "Deltacron?" I thought all variants were named after Latin words.

"Its unfortunate that Raoult became an 'authority'."

How did he become an authority literally barely anyone listens to him

Plus the stuff I quoted him for isn't only what he says:

Here about post-vaccination cases:

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-epi-confirmed-cases-post-vaccination.pdf?sc_lang=en

Here about ADE: https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/antibody-dependent-enhancement-and-vaccines

This isn't his creation nor is this new/fake

And btw how exactly is this "97 times more"?

0.01 per 100 000 people for people between 12-17 years old, so 1^-7% chance of dying from COVID

0.02 per 100 000 people for people between 18-29 years old, so 2^-7% chance of dying from COVID

Apparently, risks of dangerous side effects mentioned by the advisor of the COVID cabinet in the ministry of health in France are 0.025% https://lecourrierdesstrateges.fr/2022/02/08/olivier-veran-reconnait-enfin-lexistence-deffets-secondaires-graves-lies-a-la-vaccination/

30 000 officially counted by ANSM out of 136M doses at the time.

Being dependent alone isn't a reason for believing, but trying to study an alternate drug isn't a reason to stop believing one of the most important virologists in France either when he talks about infectious diseases. I talked to the OP about the subject and promoting hydroxychloroquine is not allowed (which I'm not doing) but quoting a virologist when he talks about science/logic isn't forbidden so please stop coming back to it and accusing me of using tactics and I don't know what.

@btickler please solve this I'm starting to feel hostility towards me in here.

About the experience:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/magazine/didier-raoult-hydroxychloroquine.html

Outside of the COVID-19 drug controversies, he's always been an extremely eminent scientist. Plus, his overall career is immense, his publications, the experience gathered to deal with infectious diseases in his military service that he talks about etc... 

And alternate drugs for COVID were never promoted without sanction here.

@playerafar has been pointing out the Trump praise. The former US president has been one of the main anti-vax influencers in 2020 https://www.psypost.org/2021/06/study-indicates-donald-trump-was-the-main-anti-vaccination-influencer-on-twitter-in-2020-61032

So it is normal that someone like him would support alternate drugs, but there is no evidence of any sort of relationship between Raoult and the latter.

And Raoult is far from being an anti-vax:

True definition of an anti-vax:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer

Proof he's not an anti-vaxxer:

https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2021/07/12/covid-19-non-didier-raoult-ne-fait-pas-volte-face-en-encourageant-les-soignants-a-se-faire-vacciner_6088052_4355770.html

But of course, as soon as there are controversies related to him, he just gets called an anti-vaxxer who spreads misinformation about the virus.

EDIT: Forgot to talk about the dependence:

https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board_of_directors/james_smith#:~:text=President%2C%20Chief%20Executive%20Officer%20and,until%20his%20retirement%20in%202020.

Just an example. Not necessarily accusing him of corruption but I personally wouldn't trust because he's the  President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Thomson Reuters Corporation who do fact-checks about the vaccine and at the same time a member of the pfizer team.

I don't see any problem with Chamo2074 talking about Raoult as long as there's no willful promotion of misinformation.  I don't currently see him as being on the level of a Mercola, or say...Alex Jones, who sold bogus cures fraudulently.  I do think he's past his prime and somewhat misguided...but he has credentials and a reputation, and dissenting scientific opinions are how we reach a consensus.

Note that I said "currently" .  

Thanks.

And I promise to avoid promoting him unless what he's saying is based on a study he's referencing or is something that is well-known in medicine/biology and in those cases I would link the study/article explaining the medical fact.

"@playerafar has been pointing out the Trump praise."
I never said 'Trump praise'.  

"And I promise to avoid promoting him unless  ..."
"unless"
apparently means - 'to Keep promoting Raoult'
//////////////////////////////
Mercola is definitely higher in the Covid Disinformation hierarchy than Raoult.
But Raoult is no 'little fish'.
There are so many people in the Disinfo campaign.
Its 'easier' to talk about Mercola and Raoult - and expose them -
that it is to talk here about politicians like Trump and Marjorie Greene and Rand Paul.
Politics is extra-sensitive.  And there's a tremendous number of Trump supporters on this website. 

Disagreement - criticism of postings - exposure of gross illogic in the forum ...
somebody only has to say 'hostility' in order to mischaracterize such disagreement ?
Looks like yet another 'method'.    Its called 'play victim'.
Well known.  

Somebody - anybody wants to promote Mercola or Raoult here - misrepresent who they are ...  misrepresent and downplay the effectiveness and importance of vaccination ...
perhaps will 'have feelings' that they're not supposed to be disagreed with.
Suggestion:  deal with your feelings that aren't based in reality.  

In politics - 'feelings' can run so strong ...  that there's a big leap.
Which is to turn illogic - unreality - falsehood and the like into Reality by electing or promoting the leaders of same.  Or other power plays.
Whether its electing politicians - promoting Mercola (money and indoctrination) or violent insurrection.
One of the prominent leaders of the January 6th 2021 Capitol insurrection - was/is a person who had a policy of harassing people getting vaccinated.

Raoult became a danger and 'authority' via an academic route.
As did Mercola.  

Use of the word 'authority'  constitutes 'hostility' ?
I've said this next before ...
Every now and then - maybe its good to repeat it ...  with some timing.
'We here weren't all born yesterday'.  

It wasn't the mention of hostility...as borne out by my prior post about keeping things civil. 

This forum is well run by you.  @btickler
And running a forum like this - isn't easy.

I could now 'make the mistake' - of trying to assert or insist or argue or spam as to 'rightness of my stance'.
'I am right/righteous' mistakes.  
Is there a 'grey area' between that and 'speaking up for oneself'?
In this case - 'speaking up for' - myself.  
Idea: maybe or probably opening posters have a lot of discretion as to what that grey area is.  Or if there is one.  Or if it matters.  Or not.  

So I'll just say for now - I was quoted and then got a response inside the same post beginning with an inference that was/is a diametric opposite of what I said.

It might help to display that entire post.
Not with the idea of arguing.  Just to highlight something.
I'll wait a bit though.

And also - to promote 'relevant and central'
I repeat - Australia has tried much much harder than USA to fight Covid.

Noting:  this Johns Hopkins site ... https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/united-states
has total US Covid deaths at 971,000 - well behind the coronavirus worldometer site apparently having US Covid deaths at over 997,000.

The US now closing in on over 3000 Covid deaths per million population compared with Australia and South Korea (both countries have tried much harder to fight) both far under 300 deaths per million of their populations.

Again - statistic:  The unvaccinated over 97 times as likely to die after 'getting Covid' - as fully vaccinated are to die after 'getting Covid'.

Ok, so an unvaccinated person is 97 times more likely to die, that sounds like a them choice

The statistic defines 'the choice' ?

By that logic, a clocktower gunman is also just making a "them" choice.  Not sure what your point is.  If you don't care, the words "I don't care" would suffice .

I’m pretty sure the target number is 60% of the population of a specified state being vaccinated right? If I’m wrong correct me, I’m still not entirely sure about it all. But my point is, as long we have reached the target percentage of people to get vaccinated, haven’t we “won”. Putting that in quotes since Covid will still be around. I think New Jersey is at 80% vaccinated. So as long as there isn’t enough anti-Vaxers to softblock the percentage ratio of vaxers to anti-vaxers. We’re good.

About the "97 times" and the "them choice"

The thing is that that study from the Ontario public health https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-epi-confirmed-cases-post-vaccination.pdf?sc_lang=en

It shows that there's an extremely low risk of death from COVID for the lower age groups, so how exactly is it 97 times less likely to die, when the risks of dying are so small in the first place?

How can the 97 times be generalized? The case is so different for each age group!