"First, public schools implemented race essentialist curriculums and started getting kids as young as five thinking of themselves as white perma-oppressors or black perma-victims. Parents, seeing their children in Zoom classes doing all this, were shocked."
The lack of link to support this assertion is notable. This smells a lot like manufactured outrage, which is not something I expect from Bari Weiss.
The definition of “see” can mean to look with one’s eyes at something, and so is associated with vision. It can also be used on a website or in a story posted online to mean “refer to,” “visit,” “know” or “understand.”
Why it’s problematic:
Though these uses of the word “see” aren’t inherently incorrect or necessarily offensive, content providers should avoid using the word “see” in situations in which a more accurate, non-ableist word would be better.
Potentially offensive/ non-inclusive example: “See the notes at the end of the article.”
Correction: “Refer to the notes at the end of the article."
On Bari's comment that she is done with Covid. I'm tired of it too, but to say that it was all a mistake and I'm not going to deal with it anymore is not what I call a mature reaction and a considerate reaction to so many peoiple that were affected by the disease and how we reacted.
Many people are saying "I'm tired of it" or saying I told you so with tonnes of hindsight, and forgetting how many people died. Remember the images of stacked bodies in cold storage trailers? 890,000 dead to date in the US (estimated flu deaths 2018-2019 were approx 34,000). Families were devastated when both parents died. I don't remember this being an episode of Logan's Run where everyone over 30 was supposed to die.
As an expert in complete messups, ignorance, and the blame-game there is an progression when new things happen and people develop responses.
1. Situation happens - people have very limited information
2. Immediate response based on current knowledge.
3. Research and develop solution 1.
4. Implement solution 1 based on updated knowledge.
5. repeat steps 3 and 4.
Two challenges happen in this situation:
1. Blame for lack of updated knowledge. People insert an extra step at 4.5: Blame people for their lack of knowledge before updated information was available. Finger pointing doesn't help anyone, but this is used as a power play to invalidate (cancel) others.
2. Lagging of change to response based on new information. Thus some people are implementing the updated response while other people are just starting to implement the outdated response.
The lack of recognizing this progression and the challenges is a constant problem (a meta-problem) as well. I'm pointing this out. So, what is your solution?
It’s time for all responsible citizens, especially Common Sense subscribers to flood Twitter and Facebook with support for Spotify backing Joe Rohan v. The mob.
Joni Mitchell has joined Neil Young in "solidarity" in asking that her songs also be removed from Spotify. The rabid anti-establishment folks from the late 60's/70's are now firmly ensconced in the Establishment. How times they are a changin. P.S. Over half of Spotify's user base is under 35 - pretty sure most of them have never heard of Joni Mitchell
Housekeeping: “It carries a fraught history and connotation of women’s traditional domestic role as housekeepers.” Replace with: Maintenance. Cleanup.
Blind spot: “This phrase is ableist, connoting that ‘blind’ is equivalent to ignorant.” Replace with: Unaware.
Jerry-rigged: “‘Jerry’ is a derogatory term used by soldiers and civilians of the Allied nations for Germans in WW2.” Replace with: Poorly designed.
Also on the verboten list: Grandfathered; blackbox; brown bag lunch. It goes on. Some poor kid who didn’t learn about the evil of “blind spots” at Brearley will be sent to HR for the phrase.
_________________________
A few years ago I attended a local union meeting at a very liberal public university. Another member used the term "foreign students" (He was very PRO "foreign students"). A bossy and politically correct female union officer tore into him for using the "racist" term "foreign students" instead of the university's new politically correct term, "international students." The poor guy was browbeaten into tears at this revelation of his "racism." Actually, there was no way for him to learn about the quiet switch from "foreign" to "international" since he had a blue collar job instead of a clerical or administrative position.
Ironically, I had earlier attended a state union convention and sat at a table with the bossy union officer described above and a field representative for the state employees' union. The two women were complaining about a Native American field rep who, in their opinion, took too much time off to visit sick relatives and attend funerals on the reservation. "I'm part-Indian too," whined the field rep at our table. "But I'm not Indian." (She DID look dark enough to be Indian. I was shocked when she once described herself as a "Norwegian woman."). Then out of the blue she continued, "But if I were part-black, then I'd be black." The bossy racist-hunting local union officer agreed, "Yeah, then you'd be black." Shocked, I said, "Do you realize that you are endorsing the very RACIST doctrines of white racial purity and the "one drop rule"? Also, how do you explain the obvious African ancestry in many Latinos and Arabs who never call themselves "black"? Response? They just stared at me in silence. So, it's "racist" to use the word "foreign" instead of "international" but it's perfectly okay to endorse racist "blood purity" doctrines. Sick.
I think Common Sense is a great publication, and I really value the role played by Bari and her co-contributors. That said, I am quite disappointed at the “summary” of the results of the Tennessee early childhood education “study”. Even though Tennessee has one of the lowest levels of spending on public education in the country, at just over $11,000, I believe the spending per child in the preschool experiment was approximately $4500, so a small fraction even of their already very much undersized investment in education. If this study “proves” anything, it proves, yet again, that low quality preschool does not produce high quality results. Please keep writing, but also stay alert to bad information. Thank you. Michael E., Boston
Neil Young should have gleaned by now (75) what speech, the free kind, means. He's old enough to know better. "I'm not for cancelling, but shut this down or you will be denied--- the incredible me." What cheek. He got what he deserved. Speech means countering speech he doesn't agree with, or that may be contradicted elsewhere, with more speech, however nasal. He has been the beneficiary of said openness for his entire career, saying what he pleases. Get on a few shows, podcasts. There's a lot of speech out there right now countering what Malone said. Establishing a subjective, "harmful" standard for blocking any speech one doesn't like, even in the name of Covid, sets a dangerous precedent. If someone disagrees with a trans swimmer competing with biological women, for example, and says it is unfair --an opinion shared by probably 95% of the American public, the cult/faction that has captured the levers of control, the one now decimating our cities, deems that speech "harmful" and tries to stamp it out. That's how the rock rolls down the hill.
Miss weiss, if one changes the definition of "unvaxxed" and included everyone in the first two weeks after the first dose, the protective effect of the vaxxes disappears. In the first two weeks after the first shot there is a reduction in the strength of the immune system such that MORE people get covid and die, this is side effect of the vaccine itself. Also the vaccine itself has a rate of injury and death. If one makes it past the two week window then it does seem to be the case that the vaxxes provide a time limited protective effect which wanes quickly. but if you include everyone in the first two weeks that protective effect goes away and you are left with a WASH. in the end , in the fullness of time , these vaxxes will have been shown to have killed and hurt more people than they have helped. If we start mandating and mass vaxxing kids, the injuries and deaths will be particularly pronounced. Children are not a risk for covid. No health kid needs to get this vax. No healthy adult under 40 or even up to 55 needs this vax. The risk of hostpialzation or death in a healthy non-obese non diabetic adult under 55 is the SAME as that for influenza.
Berenson is correct.
You singling out of Rep M greene is particularly bizzarre and silly. greene has publicaly repudiated her "belief " in Q anon. She was never a member. all she said about this was that she read about it and was transiently sympathetic or understanding of the claims.
Meanwhile the left is filled with absolutely insane lunatics psychotic figures who think men can have babies, that "whiteness" is a problem. That its OK for men to compete against women in women's sports. The left and progressive agenda is all about power and control.
Lunatic fringe dems and progressives think they can create money and credit out of thin air and spend this money and it will somehow make the world a better place.
Fear-mongering, power crazed, mentally ill leftists think its OK for undocumented immigrants to vote, for minor children to consent to sex change surgery without parental consent, for legitimate scientific debate to be censured, for accomplished scientists to be cancelled .
The entire leftist , progressive agenda and worldview is a lie. Its only all about power and control.
Rep Greene is one of the most sensible and sane lawmakers we have.
Without a doubt my favorite news story this past week was when Spotify stood up to that well-known epidemiologist, Neil Young. Why won't American companies (Spotify is Swedish) stand up to similar nonsense? Now, if "Dr" Young cares to opine on something like marijuana, that falls more within his core competency, we'd have to be all ears, man.
And now, Joni Mitchell joins Dr. Young... How ironic that former leaders of the counterculture come out in favor of corporate vaccines and government control of the population.
Both Young and Mitchell have rights to their music. If they both wanted, they could deny all radio/streaming transmission of their work (in Joni's case, maybe not such a bad idea..). Spotify did the right thing, in weighing the merits of both Rogan and Young. But so did Young, in weighing the merits of the money received from Spotify versus his dislike of Rogan. He's powerful, like Spotify, and he's just exercising that power - as is Spotify. He doesn't have to be right, but he does have to know what he's worth - and it's high enough to give Spotify his ultimatum.
I was a big fan. I thought “Blue” was a great album for its uniqueness and authenticity. Makes it all the more painful for me, but politics (and certainly not public health) is not her long suit. Open tunings, maybe.
20 times more likely to die? That is only a small part of the story and probably inaccurate as the study has been pulled down), and using that line is what is now called "misinformation" and/or "irresponsible journalism". (Both of those are stupid concepts, but I'm just playing the game before me.)
First, it is a fact that if you have no comorbidities, your chance of dying from COVID-19 is very, very small. If you are young and healthy, the risk is almost non-existent.
Second, the COVID-19 vaccine is, by definition, experimental. When a drug is authorized under EUA it is categorized as experimental. Forcing people to take experimental drugs is illegal under US and international law. (I've been asking why this violation of law has not been investigated but have not rec'd an answer.)
Third, when treated early with cheap and available drugs, COVID-19 is curable. Yes, Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine work, and are part of a well established protocol developed and published on the FLCCC web site. By suppressing this fact in early 2020, I believe Fauci and Gates are guilty of crimes against humanity. Many hundreds of thousands did not have to die.
Fourth, there is something suspicious/negligent about granting a government contract to Moderna, a company that had never before produced a vaccine.
Fifth, there is something suspicious/negligent about the Fauci naming Remdesiviir as the standard of care when, at best, it has no effect and, at worst, increasing the chance of dying slightly.
Sixth, it is highly suspicious when an individual who is directing global health policy through a foundation is heavily invested in a vaccine company, the company that produces the standard of care, and a testing company.
Seventh, your chance of an adverse effect from the vaccine is enormously high compared to all other vaccines. A DoD whistleblower just provided information that the US Military is showing huge increases in many medical conditions - miscarriage, myocarditis, neurological disorders, etc... I don't know if that information has been vetted, but it is in line with analysis that has been done on the VAERS data over the last year.
Eighth, mRNA is a brand new approach to vaccination. It has never been use and tested over a long enough period of time. This should demand caution from responsible leaders.
Ninth, Trump screwed up the federal government response by putting three politicians in charge of the response: Pence, Fauci, and Birx. All three were utter failures in their roles for COVID-19. Had Trump put true medical experts in charge of the task force, perhaps this would have been under control by mid-2020 and vaccines would not have been needed.
There is so much more to this story, in addition to the points listed above, and Berenson is probably more right than wrong.
Tell you what - I'll break my posts into many smaller ones so you can increase your commission by responding to many smaller ones instead of just one long one, as long as you give me half. Deal?
Nellie, regarding covid article, are you sure that the risk of serious illness remains vanishingly low for only the vaccinated? Are you aware that it's much lower for the unvaccinated naturally immune by infection? My guess is, no, and if you are an investigative journalist like Alex, you get failing grade on this article. To continue to lump all intelligent Americans who've made a choice not to risk being vaccinated by an unproven, untested, and unapproved injection as simply "unvaccinated" is juvenile and definitely unscientific given all the available data out there now. If you were sincerely interested in science, you'd study a little harder and insult those scientific minds who have a different perspective than yours, less. Referring to Tucker's audience as older and vulnerable is a clever way of calling them stupid but only if the reader's IQ is adequately low. That's not this audience. I'm old enough (and healthy enough not to worry about a flu-like corona virus) to remember when liberals were actually liberal and "progressives" weren't allergic to progress. Come back towards the center. You're more interesting when you don't take cheap shots against people you might disagree with...like JD or Marjorie. Mean girl does not seem to be your thing. :)
Nellie needs to look at Alex's data before she shoots him and Tucker down. Then, she can show her data that proves the jabs aren't causing problems. I'm sure Alex would love to debate her fairly and honestly.
I have looked at Alex's data, particularly that related to Israel, where I live and closely follow the data. Here is what I found:
The c hartshe is using from Israel is completely dishonest; he chose to isolate the graphs that shows only that COVID cases, including serious cases are increasing (duh) rather than the graph that shows the relative differences between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. Those graphs show that, at least for adults, the vaccinated are still significantly less likely to contract COVID (plenty of vaccinated people are catching omicron, but at a rate of about 1/3 to 1/2 less than the unvaccinated), and MUCH less likely to have a severe case.
There is an argument to be made from the data as it relates to people under a certain age that the absolute risk is still low enough that it might not be worth vaccinating; for older age groups, the immediate risks of vaccination would have to be catastrophic for it not to be worthwhile.
At least one of the other charts I've seen from him--I think it was the one from Scotland, but I couldn't find it to check--was worthless in that it didn't separate the data by age. The great majority of the most vulnerable people are vaccinated. The great majority of the unvaccinated are children under 12, who are at exceedingly low risk. Given that, even a highly successful vaccine would still see more vaccinated people dying, since a vaccinated 80 year old is STILL going to be at much higher risk than an unvaccinated 10 year old. The relevant number--which we see in the Israeli data--is a comparison in each age group of the rate of disease and then serious disease among the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.
So now we have two sides to this story. The only thing missing is a discussion to figure out which side is correct, or what I like to say, the "third side of the story"...the real story!
"First, public schools implemented race essentialist curriculums and started getting kids as young as five thinking of themselves as white perma-oppressors or black perma-victims. Parents, seeing their children in Zoom classes doing all this, were shocked."
The lack of link to support this assertion is notable. This smells a lot like manufactured outrage, which is not something I expect from Bari Weiss.
Since when did it become anti-PC to "see!"
The definition of “see” can mean to look with one’s eyes at something, and so is associated with vision. It can also be used on a website or in a story posted online to mean “refer to,” “visit,” “know” or “understand.”
Why it’s problematic:
Though these uses of the word “see” aren’t inherently incorrect or necessarily offensive, content providers should avoid using the word “see” in situations in which a more accurate, non-ableist word would be better.
Potentially offensive/ non-inclusive example: “See the notes at the end of the article.”
Correction: “Refer to the notes at the end of the article."
On Bari's comment that she is done with Covid. I'm tired of it too, but to say that it was all a mistake and I'm not going to deal with it anymore is not what I call a mature reaction and a considerate reaction to so many peoiple that were affected by the disease and how we reacted.
Many people are saying "I'm tired of it" or saying I told you so with tonnes of hindsight, and forgetting how many people died. Remember the images of stacked bodies in cold storage trailers? 890,000 dead to date in the US (estimated flu deaths 2018-2019 were approx 34,000). Families were devastated when both parents died. I don't remember this being an episode of Logan's Run where everyone over 30 was supposed to die.
As an expert in complete messups, ignorance, and the blame-game there is an progression when new things happen and people develop responses.
1. Situation happens - people have very limited information
2. Immediate response based on current knowledge.
3. Research and develop solution 1.
4. Implement solution 1 based on updated knowledge.
5. repeat steps 3 and 4.
Two challenges happen in this situation:
1. Blame for lack of updated knowledge. People insert an extra step at 4.5: Blame people for their lack of knowledge before updated information was available. Finger pointing doesn't help anyone, but this is used as a power play to invalidate (cancel) others.
2. Lagging of change to response based on new information. Thus some people are implementing the updated response while other people are just starting to implement the outdated response.
The lack of recognizing this progression and the challenges is a constant problem (a meta-problem) as well. I'm pointing this out. So, what is your solution?
It’s time for all responsible citizens, especially Common Sense subscribers to flood Twitter and Facebook with support for Spotify backing Joe Rohan v. The mob.
When you say 20 times more likely to die, are you talking about increasing the chances from 0.01% to 0.2%. Not impressed
"Vance is a smart guy. He could have succeeded without embracing the lunatic fringe."
Exactly! I'm a huge fan of his book, but his politics have been more disappointing than I would have guessed.
He's a grifter
Joni Mitchell has joined Neil Young in "solidarity" in asking that her songs also be removed from Spotify. The rabid anti-establishment folks from the late 60's/70's are now firmly ensconced in the Establishment. How times they are a changin. P.S. Over half of Spotify's user base is under 35 - pretty sure most of them have never heard of Joni Mitchell
Housekeeping: “It carries a fraught history and connotation of women’s traditional domestic role as housekeepers.” Replace with: Maintenance. Cleanup.
Blind spot: “This phrase is ableist, connoting that ‘blind’ is equivalent to ignorant.” Replace with: Unaware.
Jerry-rigged: “‘Jerry’ is a derogatory term used by soldiers and civilians of the Allied nations for Germans in WW2.” Replace with: Poorly designed.
Also on the verboten list: Grandfathered; blackbox; brown bag lunch. It goes on. Some poor kid who didn’t learn about the evil of “blind spots” at Brearley will be sent to HR for the phrase.
_________________________
A few years ago I attended a local union meeting at a very liberal public university. Another member used the term "foreign students" (He was very PRO "foreign students"). A bossy and politically correct female union officer tore into him for using the "racist" term "foreign students" instead of the university's new politically correct term, "international students." The poor guy was browbeaten into tears at this revelation of his "racism." Actually, there was no way for him to learn about the quiet switch from "foreign" to "international" since he had a blue collar job instead of a clerical or administrative position.
Ironically, I had earlier attended a state union convention and sat at a table with the bossy union officer described above and a field representative for the state employees' union. The two women were complaining about a Native American field rep who, in their opinion, took too much time off to visit sick relatives and attend funerals on the reservation. "I'm part-Indian too," whined the field rep at our table. "But I'm not Indian." (She DID look dark enough to be Indian. I was shocked when she once described herself as a "Norwegian woman."). Then out of the blue she continued, "But if I were part-black, then I'd be black." The bossy racist-hunting local union officer agreed, "Yeah, then you'd be black." Shocked, I said, "Do you realize that you are endorsing the very RACIST doctrines of white racial purity and the "one drop rule"? Also, how do you explain the obvious African ancestry in many Latinos and Arabs who never call themselves "black"? Response? They just stared at me in silence. So, it's "racist" to use the word "foreign" instead of "international" but it's perfectly okay to endorse racist "blood purity" doctrines. Sick.
I think Common Sense is a great publication, and I really value the role played by Bari and her co-contributors. That said, I am quite disappointed at the “summary” of the results of the Tennessee early childhood education “study”. Even though Tennessee has one of the lowest levels of spending on public education in the country, at just over $11,000, I believe the spending per child in the preschool experiment was approximately $4500, so a small fraction even of their already very much undersized investment in education. If this study “proves” anything, it proves, yet again, that low quality preschool does not produce high quality results. Please keep writing, but also stay alert to bad information. Thank you. Michael E., Boston
Neil Young should have gleaned by now (75) what speech, the free kind, means. He's old enough to know better. "I'm not for cancelling, but shut this down or you will be denied--- the incredible me." What cheek. He got what he deserved. Speech means countering speech he doesn't agree with, or that may be contradicted elsewhere, with more speech, however nasal. He has been the beneficiary of said openness for his entire career, saying what he pleases. Get on a few shows, podcasts. There's a lot of speech out there right now countering what Malone said. Establishing a subjective, "harmful" standard for blocking any speech one doesn't like, even in the name of Covid, sets a dangerous precedent. If someone disagrees with a trans swimmer competing with biological women, for example, and says it is unfair --an opinion shared by probably 95% of the American public, the cult/faction that has captured the levers of control, the one now decimating our cities, deems that speech "harmful" and tries to stamp it out. That's how the rock rolls down the hill.
Neal Young is against free speech? Never ever thought I would see the day....wish Zappa was still here to warn him of his action.
Miss weiss, if one changes the definition of "unvaxxed" and included everyone in the first two weeks after the first dose, the protective effect of the vaxxes disappears. In the first two weeks after the first shot there is a reduction in the strength of the immune system such that MORE people get covid and die, this is side effect of the vaccine itself. Also the vaccine itself has a rate of injury and death. If one makes it past the two week window then it does seem to be the case that the vaxxes provide a time limited protective effect which wanes quickly. but if you include everyone in the first two weeks that protective effect goes away and you are left with a WASH. in the end , in the fullness of time , these vaxxes will have been shown to have killed and hurt more people than they have helped. If we start mandating and mass vaxxing kids, the injuries and deaths will be particularly pronounced. Children are not a risk for covid. No health kid needs to get this vax. No healthy adult under 40 or even up to 55 needs this vax. The risk of hostpialzation or death in a healthy non-obese non diabetic adult under 55 is the SAME as that for influenza.
Berenson is correct.
You singling out of Rep M greene is particularly bizzarre and silly. greene has publicaly repudiated her "belief " in Q anon. She was never a member. all she said about this was that she read about it and was transiently sympathetic or understanding of the claims.
Meanwhile the left is filled with absolutely insane lunatics psychotic figures who think men can have babies, that "whiteness" is a problem. That its OK for men to compete against women in women's sports. The left and progressive agenda is all about power and control.
Lunatic fringe dems and progressives think they can create money and credit out of thin air and spend this money and it will somehow make the world a better place.
Fear-mongering, power crazed, mentally ill leftists think its OK for undocumented immigrants to vote, for minor children to consent to sex change surgery without parental consent, for legitimate scientific debate to be censured, for accomplished scientists to be cancelled .
The entire leftist , progressive agenda and worldview is a lie. Its only all about power and control.
Rep Greene is one of the most sensible and sane lawmakers we have.
Dont throw stones from your glass house.
Without a doubt my favorite news story this past week was when Spotify stood up to that well-known epidemiologist, Neil Young. Why won't American companies (Spotify is Swedish) stand up to similar nonsense? Now, if "Dr" Young cares to opine on something like marijuana, that falls more within his core competency, we'd have to be all ears, man.
And now, Joni Mitchell joins Dr. Young... How ironic that former leaders of the counterculture come out in favor of corporate vaccines and government control of the population.
Both Young and Mitchell have rights to their music. If they both wanted, they could deny all radio/streaming transmission of their work (in Joni's case, maybe not such a bad idea..). Spotify did the right thing, in weighing the merits of both Rogan and Young. But so did Young, in weighing the merits of the money received from Spotify versus his dislike of Rogan. He's powerful, like Spotify, and he's just exercising that power - as is Spotify. He doesn't have to be right, but he does have to know what he's worth - and it's high enough to give Spotify his ultimatum.
Not sure how powerful he actually is. But it’s great to see him sticking up for the man.
Her music was always awful.
I was a big fan. I thought “Blue” was a great album for its uniqueness and authenticity. Makes it all the more painful for me, but politics (and certainly not public health) is not her long suit. Open tunings, maybe.
I never could get into her either.
20 times more likely to die? That is only a small part of the story and probably inaccurate as the study has been pulled down), and using that line is what is now called "misinformation" and/or "irresponsible journalism". (Both of those are stupid concepts, but I'm just playing the game before me.)
First, it is a fact that if you have no comorbidities, your chance of dying from COVID-19 is very, very small. If you are young and healthy, the risk is almost non-existent.
Second, the COVID-19 vaccine is, by definition, experimental. When a drug is authorized under EUA it is categorized as experimental. Forcing people to take experimental drugs is illegal under US and international law. (I've been asking why this violation of law has not been investigated but have not rec'd an answer.)
Third, when treated early with cheap and available drugs, COVID-19 is curable. Yes, Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine work, and are part of a well established protocol developed and published on the FLCCC web site. By suppressing this fact in early 2020, I believe Fauci and Gates are guilty of crimes against humanity. Many hundreds of thousands did not have to die.
Fourth, there is something suspicious/negligent about granting a government contract to Moderna, a company that had never before produced a vaccine.
Fifth, there is something suspicious/negligent about the Fauci naming Remdesiviir as the standard of care when, at best, it has no effect and, at worst, increasing the chance of dying slightly.
Sixth, it is highly suspicious when an individual who is directing global health policy through a foundation is heavily invested in a vaccine company, the company that produces the standard of care, and a testing company.
Seventh, your chance of an adverse effect from the vaccine is enormously high compared to all other vaccines. A DoD whistleblower just provided information that the US Military is showing huge increases in many medical conditions - miscarriage, myocarditis, neurological disorders, etc... I don't know if that information has been vetted, but it is in line with analysis that has been done on the VAERS data over the last year.
Eighth, mRNA is a brand new approach to vaccination. It has never been use and tested over a long enough period of time. This should demand caution from responsible leaders.
Ninth, Trump screwed up the federal government response by putting three politicians in charge of the response: Pence, Fauci, and Birx. All three were utter failures in their roles for COVID-19. Had Trump put true medical experts in charge of the task force, perhaps this would have been under control by mid-2020 and vaccines would not have been needed.
There is so much more to this story, in addition to the points listed above, and Berenson is probably more right than wrong.
So much garbage, and as usual, no proof, your contribution to the dialogue is negative when it comes to truthful information!
just curious - how close to the Wuhan lab, where the virus originated, do you live? Did any of your relatives get welded into their apartments?
Right, when you stop beating your wife?
Oh, so your wife was one of those welded into their apartment? So sorry to hear that.
Given that you have questioned my nine points, does that mean you get 50 cents or 4 dollars and 50 cents?
Just stating reality!
Tell you what - I'll break my posts into many smaller ones so you can increase your commission by responding to many smaller ones instead of just one long one, as long as you give me half. Deal?
Let’s see, half of nothing is nothing, so you get nothing.
Nellie, regarding covid article, are you sure that the risk of serious illness remains vanishingly low for only the vaccinated? Are you aware that it's much lower for the unvaccinated naturally immune by infection? My guess is, no, and if you are an investigative journalist like Alex, you get failing grade on this article. To continue to lump all intelligent Americans who've made a choice not to risk being vaccinated by an unproven, untested, and unapproved injection as simply "unvaccinated" is juvenile and definitely unscientific given all the available data out there now. If you were sincerely interested in science, you'd study a little harder and insult those scientific minds who have a different perspective than yours, less. Referring to Tucker's audience as older and vulnerable is a clever way of calling them stupid but only if the reader's IQ is adequately low. That's not this audience. I'm old enough (and healthy enough not to worry about a flu-like corona virus) to remember when liberals were actually liberal and "progressives" weren't allergic to progress. Come back towards the center. You're more interesting when you don't take cheap shots against people you might disagree with...like JD or Marjorie. Mean girl does not seem to be your thing. :)
Nellie needs to look at Alex's data before she shoots him and Tucker down. Then, she can show her data that proves the jabs aren't causing problems. I'm sure Alex would love to debate her fairly and honestly.
I have looked at Alex's data, particularly that related to Israel, where I live and closely follow the data. Here is what I found:
The c hartshe is using from Israel is completely dishonest; he chose to isolate the graphs that shows only that COVID cases, including serious cases are increasing (duh) rather than the graph that shows the relative differences between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. Those graphs show that, at least for adults, the vaccinated are still significantly less likely to contract COVID (plenty of vaccinated people are catching omicron, but at a rate of about 1/3 to 1/2 less than the unvaccinated), and MUCH less likely to have a severe case.
There is an argument to be made from the data as it relates to people under a certain age that the absolute risk is still low enough that it might not be worth vaccinating; for older age groups, the immediate risks of vaccination would have to be catastrophic for it not to be worthwhile.
At least one of the other charts I've seen from him--I think it was the one from Scotland, but I couldn't find it to check--was worthless in that it didn't separate the data by age. The great majority of the most vulnerable people are vaccinated. The great majority of the unvaccinated are children under 12, who are at exceedingly low risk. Given that, even a highly successful vaccine would still see more vaccinated people dying, since a vaccinated 80 year old is STILL going to be at much higher risk than an unvaccinated 10 year old. The relevant number--which we see in the Israeli data--is a comparison in each age group of the rate of disease and then serious disease among the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.
So now we have two sides to this story. The only thing missing is a discussion to figure out which side is correct, or what I like to say, the "third side of the story"...the real story!