Suppression of Free Speech on Covid

[Unfettered]

That was in response to, "Vetted experts are a much more reliable source of facts than "ordinary people." People pay them for their expertise."

I'm trying to get a sense of just what it is you learned.

Understood. During the the COVID panic what I learned is that an expert is someone who can do a thing or produce a solution or formulate a judgment at a level far exceeding that of others, even others in the same field. They know what they're doing—and you know they know what they're doing because they produce results as they claim.

How did the experts perform?

On the macro level, I observed that the experts vetted by government (primarily, not exclusively) could not, and did not, outperform ordinary people in their judgments, solutions, or recommendations. The former's performance was, frankly, a disaster. They produced a disaster. I understand, that is a sweeping statement, seemingly not qualified with documentation or substantiation. But the damage done by their judgments and recommendations was, itself, sweeping. We all watched it happen. The world was witness to it. SARS-Cov2 was on its own trajectory and was going to do a finite amount of damage. Expert involvement did not mitigate any damage, but compounded damage. The aggregate was far greater than the baseline because of the experts. That's what I witnessed.

On the micro level, the experts' workings certainly did not help my family. They did not help us. On the contrary, they caused us harm. On many levels. They harmed us socially, financially, and in health. In particular, we have a son whose experience with the Moderna COVID shot is now part of the VAERS system. His experience was a horror. The expert advice and recommendations and prescriptions, etc., both led to his suffering and proved incapable of addressing it.

In the end, we were able to address and arrest the injuries from the shot. But we did not get the solution from the experts. They simply gave up. Seriously. They exhausted all their tools and knowledge and expertise. They exposed that they were not practicing the science of medicine, but the politics of medicine. After the 11 surreal weeks of suffering we did what the experts said we shouldn't do. We used a proscribed treatment that I knew of because of the incessant individual study I had engaged in from day one of the panic (our son's injury occurred between May and September of 2021, so I'd been hard at it in research and study daily for 14-17 months). Three days into the proscribed treatment, our son experienced the first relief in 11 weeks. On the fourth day all symptoms were gone. As in gone.

So yeah, I learned. I was shown that experts have to earn their title, just like the rest of us. And they don't earn it in the day-to-day lab time, but when the spam hits the fan. That's what they're paid for. That's why they're vetted. Who cares what you can do in practice and warm-ups; if you don't deliver at game time, you're not the expert. Don't produce the results of an expert? You're not an expert. It's just that simple. And I learned that the judgment of the ordinary person should not be prejudiced for lack of a title, or popular support. I helped my son, not the experts. The independent study and thinking I did placed me in a position to help when the experts had no answers. Clearly, I stood on the work of others who had the knowledge and expertise to provide me with the study material. But had I not put in the time, and had I not followed the evidence and my judgment where they clearly led, I'd not have been able to help my son. The ordinary man saved the day, not the experts.

Yes, the COVID panic was a great "revealer" of many things. It laid bare many wool-over-the-eyes machinations and assumptions—in people, communities, governments, elected representatives, industries, everything. It laid bare motives and ignorance—fully exposed them. I did not enjoy it, but I can't say that it served no purpose.

All that said, if someone has anything substantive to support the claim that the experts produced what they were vetted to produce, that person is free to lay it on the table where the world can look at it. We can start right here. I will provide ALL the detail in my son's experience if it is wanted. We can look objectively at just exactly what kind of "science" was being done and imposed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Understood. During the the COVID panic what I learned is that an expert is someone who can do a thing or produce a solution or formulate a judgment at a level far exceeding that of others, even others in the same field. They know what they're doing—and you know they know what they're doing because they produce results as they claim.

How did the experts perform?

On the macro level, I observed that the experts vetted by government (primarily, not exclusively) could not, and did not, outperform ordinary people in their judgments, solutions, or recommendations.

That's entirely wrong. Ordinary people are ignorant
fools. (I should know, I'm their leader.)
It appears you're mistaking expert opinion for what
government minions say. They might claim their views
are based upon expert opinion, but it's not always so.
And some of their policies are based upon politics, not
sound epidemiological reasoning.

For example, MI's Governor Whitmer (a Dem) forbid
visiting 2nd homes, but allowed visiting state parks.
She forbid buying paint, but allowed buying booze.
What's the pattern?
She banned things she didn't care about, but allowed
things that made the state money.

Initially, government lied about the efficacy of masks,
admitting later that they didn't want the general public
scooping them up. They were reserved for health care
providers.

I distrust government. But I do trust epidemiologists &
virologists As we learned more & more about the
Covid novovirus (new virus), they offered the only
cromulent info. I recommend Johns Hopkins & the
Mayo Clinic.

The former's performance was, frankly, a disaster. They produced a disaster. I understand, that is a sweeping statement, seemingly not qualified with documentation or substantiation. But the damage done by their judgments and recommendations was, itself, sweeping. We all watched it happen. The world was witness to it. SARS-Cov2 was on its own trajectory and was going to do a finite amount of damage. Expert involvement compounded that damage. That's what I witnessed.

Remember that politicians were the ones who decided
to shut down education & the economy. They handled
expert advice badly.

On the micro level, the experts' workings certainly did not help my family. They did not help us. On the contrary, they caused us harm. On many levels. They harmed us socially, financially, and in health. In particular, we have a son whose experience with the Moderna COVID shot is now part of the VAERS system. His experience was a horror. The expert advice and recommendations and prescriptions, etc., both led to his suffering and proved incapable of addressing it.

In my wide family & circle of friends, I observed 2 things....
Several unvaccinated of them died of Covid. And many
were near deaths door with it.
Of the vaccinated, not one was hospitalized. Some got
sick, but the severity was far less.

 

[Unfettered]

That's entirely wrong. Ordinary people are ignorant fools.
(I should know, I'm one of them.)

I appreciate that you speak for yourself. It is fair to say that it depends on the person. So no, not entirely wrong. People are only ignorant when they are uneducated on a thing. They are only fools when they don't follow what their educated judgment asserts should be done.

It appears that you're mistaking that what government's
minions say.

Those are the experts pretty much everyone refers to in these discussions. Like Dr. Fauci. Government minion? Yes. Credentialed expert? Yes. Expert? Maybe at some things, but certainly not what he was vetted for during the COVID response.

For example, MI's Governor Whitmer (a Dem) forbid visiting
2nd homes, but allowed visiting state parks. She forbid
buying paint, but allowed buying booze. What's the pattern?
She banned things she didn't care about, but allowed things
that made the state money.

Initially, government lied about the efficacy of masks,
admitting later that they didn't want the general public
scooping them up. They were reserved for health care
providers.

I distrust government. But I do trust epidemiologists &
virologists As we learned more & more about the
Covid novovirus (new virus), they offered the only
cromulent info. I recommend Johns Hopkins & the
Mayo Clinic.

I appreciate this nuance. I witnessed experienced health-care experts being silenced and fired and sued by their own organizations for bucking "expert" medical rulings on all kinds of issues. So I have cause to stand firm here.

Remember that politicians were the ones who decided
to shut down education & the economy. They handled
expert advice badly.

I'm talking about the expert advice, itself. Not what politicians did with it.

In my wide family & circle of friends, I observed 2 things....
Several unvaccinated of them died of Covid. And many
were near deaths door with it.
Of the vaccinated, not one was hospitalized. Some got
sick, but the severity was far less.

Every conceivable combination of status and outcome has been, and is being observed. I'm speaking only to the question of the effect of expert judgment and recommendations on outcomes. They are imperceptible in terms of the effect on epidemiological considerations, and demonstrably harmful on pretty much every other related level.

 

[Revoltingest]

Those are the experts pretty much everyone refers to in these discussions. Like Dr. Fauci. Government minion? Yes. Credentialed expert? Yes. Expert? Maybe at some things, but certainly not what he was vetted for during the COVID response.

Fauci did a fine job, given the lack of knowledge about
how this novovirus (ie, new virus) would behave. Errors
were inevitable. The learning curve meant that protocols
& predictions had to change. (This sent many of my
conspiracy minded friends into paroxysms of paranoia.)

I appreciate this nuance. I witnessed experienced health-care experts being silenced and fired and sued by their own organizations for bucking "expert" medical rulings on all kinds of issues. So I have cause to stand firm here.
I'm talking about the expert advice, itself. Not what politicians did with it.

People who give bad advice did need to be silenced.
Those who recommend bleach, urine, Ivermectin, etc
did great harm to public health.

Every conceivable combination of status and outcome has been, and is being observed.
I'm speaking only to the question of the effect of expert judgment and recommendations on outcomes. They are imperceptible in terms of the effect on epidemiological considerations, and demonstrably harmful on pretty much every other related level.

What does this mean?

 

[Unfettered]

Fauci did a fine job, given the lack of knowledge about
how this novovirus (ie, new virus) would behave. Errors
were inevitable. The learning curve meant that protocols
& predictions had to change. (This sent many of my
conspiracy minded friends into paroxysms of paranoia.)

We've each said our piece. It's OK that we have arrived at different conclusions as to Dr. Fauci's performance.

People who give bad advice did need to be silenced.
Those who recommend bleach, urine, Ivermectin, etc
did great harm to public health.

I don't agree that people who give bad advice should be silenced. I believe people who give bad advice should be ignored.

What does this mean?

It means that people who are vaccinated have been infected and have died, people who are not vaccinated have been infected and have died, people who are vaccinated have been infected and not died, etc. etc. etc.

And I have not been able to observe, nor have I seen any quantification of, any perceptible effect on any metric related to the virus stemming from expert recommendations, such as mask-wearing. If the assertion is "maskwearing results in X," if that assertion (and recommendations related to it) were established via a scientific process, the scientist would be able to produce how much X resulted from the implementation of maskwearing and that result would be replicable by other scientists. Etc. That's what the last bit was about. I've seen no such results. Just a lot of claims, and some studies that suggest possible outcomes through implementation (and some, actually, bogus studies).

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't agree that people who give bad advice should be silenced. I believe people who give bad advice should be ignored.

Many lack the judgement to know whom to ignore.
Speech regulation does apply to licensed professionals
& companies selling products. Can't do much about
gadflies though.

It means that people who are vaccinated have been infected and have died, people who are not vaccinated have been infected and have died, people who are vaccinated have been infected and not died, etc. etc. etc.

Let's apply your style of facts to driving.
People who drive sober have died in car accidents.
People who drive drunk have avoided car accidents.
Would you say that driving drunk is as safe or safer
than driving sober?
What matters is the risk of being unvaccinated vs
being vaccinated. The latter is far safer.

And I have not been able to observe, nor have I seen any quantification of, any perceptible effect on any metric related to the virus stemming from expert recommendations, such as mask-wearing.

Have you looked?

Largest study on masks and Covid-19 demonstrates their effectiveness in the real world

Testing the NORM program for reducing Covid-19 infections Photo courtesy Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA). While guidance and official policy on masking has evolved over the course of the pandemic

egc.yale.edu

If the assertion is "maskwearing results in X," if that assertion (and recommendations related to it) were established via a scientific process, the scientist would be able to produce how much X resulted from the implementation of maskwearing and that result would be replicable by other scientists. Etc. That's what the last bit was about. I've seen no such results. Just a lot of claims, and some studies that suggest possible outcomes through implementation (and some, actually, bogus studies).

If you haven't seen something, does that mean
that Johns Hopkins, The Mayo Clinic, & the CDC
are wrong about their efficacy?

 

[Unfettered]

Many lack the judgement to know whom to ignore.

I do not agree that this is just cause for censoring speech.

Speech regulation does apply to licensed professionals
& companies selling products.

I'm generally aware of this, but don't know much about such regulation. It's possible that some of it is justified. The default—free speech—should pose a high bar to clear, though.

Can't do much about
gadflies though.

LOL, true!

Let's apply your style of facts to driving.
People who drive sober have died in car accidents.
People who drive drunk have avoided car accidents.
Would you say that driving drunk is as safe or safer
than driving sober?

I would say that driving drunk is neither generally safe nor safer than driving sober. I don't believe the comparison is a good one though.

What matters is the risk of being unvaccinated vs
being vaccinated. The latter is far safer.

I would offer that what matters is allowing people to work out private medical decisions privately with their health-care provider.

Have you looked?

If you haven't seen something, does that mean
that Johns Hopkins, The Mayo Clinic, & the CDC
are wrong about their efficacy?

No, I already said that studies do not provide the answers I'm talking about. If a claim is made that doing X will save lives and X is implemented or imposed among the population, I'm looking for the data that show how many lives were saved by doing X. Do the studies you linked provide such answers?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would offer that what matters is allowing people to work out private medical decisions privately with their health-care provider.

There are jobs where that is not good enough Do you realize that? There are jobs where the employer can require vaccinations. There are also jobs where the state can require vaccinations. Do you know why? I do.

 

[Sargonski]

Oh, so now you believe that the vaccine was effective?

Nope. Read more carefully.

Can the condescension dude, you haven't earned it.

These comments belie a lack of understanding as to how vaccines work. Can you explain to me how you think vaccines work?

It means something in light of your comment that everyone got it. Do you not read your own posts?

COVID is more contagious than the flu. What's your point?

I don't know what you're going on about but I didn't say any of this.

So you think that masking, social distancing and lockdowns helped reduce the burden on overwhelmed hospitals, how exactly? If not by reducing transmission rates. Do tell.

The Effect of Strict Lockdown on Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Variant Transmission in Shanghai - PMC

Omicron, the current SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, is much more contagious than other previous variants. Whether strict lockdown could effectively curb the transmission of Omicron is largely unknown. In this retrospective study, we compared the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Frontiers | Evaluating the effectiveness of lockdowns and restrictions during SARS-CoV-2 variant waves in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia

IntroductionAfter the initial onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the government of Canada and provincial health authorities imposed restrictive policies to li...

www.frontiersin.org

What a bunch of retrobate made up nonsence .. denying your previous claims .. you were the one saying you didn't get covid .. unable to figure out the phrase "Near everyone has had Covid" ... pretending that phrase means "everyone"

You claimed the Vax and Lockdown/masks amd prevented transmission .. You claimed the Vax was effective at reducing hospitalization ... now you change your tune and claim I was talking such nonsense .. Glad you finally figured out your error.

 

[Sargonski]

BS.

I'm not. Another poster already explained this to you.

Not doing any such thing.



Read through my posts with more care in the future. Thanks.

Are you changing your position again ? ... and now agree that the "Vax or Lose Job " is Forced Vaccination ... Good .. glad you finally reached the correct conclusion that Blue are Authoritarian Nazi's

 

[Sargonski]

You are being lied to. You need to get off whatever YouTube algorithm you're stuck on. I have no desire to force anyone to do anything.

Herd immunity. It works.

The Vax does not convey herd immunity ... getting Covid does "Natural Immunity" ..

Glad that you no longer support the Vax Mandate .. no longer support Forced Medical Treatment ..

 

[Sargonski]

Have any link to cromulent evidence that
1 in 2,000 vaccinations result in severe reactions?

Here is one posted previously .. Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults - PubMed

Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated

 

[Sargonski]

This is another straw man. Last time, it was insisting on oral sex in the workplace being called equivalent to insisting on vaccination status. What are you discussing - workplace fellatio, criminalizing abortion, or workplace vaccine status?

That part, and why you think workplace standards, illegal coercion, and the use of physical force are equivalent. Also, why you ignored both of these questions: "Would you deny me that and do you still equate that with sexual predation in the workplace?" I'll assume that you would force me to keep your unvaccinated son if he worked for me even if I required all staff and myself to be vaccinated, and that you do equate vaccine mandates in the workplace with sexual predation. Feel free to chime in if that's not your position.

If you mean physical force, then it is correct to say that nobody but minor children and perhaps some others not able to consent were vaccinated forcibly such as those in a coma or the severely demented. If you mean the word metaphorically, as in economic incentives to take an unwanted vaccine, then that is a different topic. And if you mean laws that compel a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, that's altogether different.

I already addressed that. Yes, the government is using coercion and the threat of physical force including forced incarceration when it criminalizes what used to be lawful abortion, and yes a pregnant woman can go to another state for abortion if she has the means and opportunity. Same with employees who don't like their bosses' terms of employment, the difference being that acknowledge the right of a woman to get an abortion she wants, but not that of an employee imposing himself and his values, nor that of a secular government imposing religious values on the unwilling.

I don't mean only physical force .. develop some reading comprehension.

What part of "Jab or lose Job" = Forced medical Treatment .. are you having trouble understanding ?

If " Vax or lose Job" becomes a workplace regulation while you are already working there .. this is forced medical treatment. Such is a violation of "My body my Choice" just like anything else that violates bodily integrity. "violate bodily integrity or lose Job" is force-coercion.

"Do this or lose job " is coercion - regardless of what Job is .. crying out "They could just quit" does not change the fact that it is coercion .. and is idiotic to think everyone can easily quit job and find another of equivalent compensation (so no they can't just quit .. without terrible consequences such as not being able to afford medical care for children. This is similar to the moronic "She can just leave the state for an abortion" - as not everyone has the means to Just leave the State - or the Country of the whole nation adopts an abortion ban.

The question here is not whether or not "Jab or lose Job" is "Forced Vaccination" .. there is no question whether or not this is a violation of bodily integrity. The question is whether or not the Forced medical treatment measures introduced by the Blue Nazi's was legitimate -- and it was not.

 

[Kenny]

There's an old saying that "You are like the company you keep", and with this I'm bailing out of this "discussion".

I don't keep company with those who are elected. I had to vote for one of the two worst options just like you and millions of others. In the primaries, I didn't vote for him... if it is "company" - it would be the company of the one I voted for in the primary.

 

[Sargonski]

Is it just me, or do the people that accuse others of being "triggered" appear to be in that state to you too?

Its just you -- the Triggered ones are those who post only personal invective .. "Shooting the messenger" rather than addressing the message. This is a funtion of not being able to handle the message which is what triggers the nonsense response of deflection and denial -- similar to how you responded when you were shown that your own link proved the Gov't was lying to you .. that the Vax is not Safe. This is in addition to not being effective .. which is another lie.

That the Gov't is lying to you pricked your necessary illusion bubble .. which triggered a "thought stopping" response .. unable to deal with the "bad thought"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't mean only physical force .. develop some reading comprehension.

What part of "Jab or lose Job" = Forced medical Treatment .. are you having trouble understanding ?

If " Vax or lose Job" becomes a workplace regulation while you are already working there .. this is forced medical treatment. Such is a violation of "My body my Choice" just like anything else that violates bodily integrity. "violate bodily integrity or lose Job" is force-coercion.

"Do this or lose job " is coercion - regardless of what Job is .. crying out "They could just quit" does not change the fact that it is coercion .. and is idiotic to think everyone can easily quit job and find another of equivalent compensation (so no they can't just quit .. without terrible consequences such as not being able to afford medical care for children. This is similar to the moronic "She can just leave the state for an abortion" - as not everyone has the means to Just leave the State - or the Country of the whole nation adopts an abortion ban.

The question here is not whether or not "Jab or lose Job" is "Forced Vaccination" .. there is no question whether or not this is a violation of bodily integrity. The question is whether or not the Forced medical treatment measures introduced by the Blue Nazi's was legitimate -- and it was not.

There's nothing that you have posted that isn't easily understood. I simply reject your argument. Your values are not mine.

Nobody had a duty to hire your son unvaccinated. Hopefully, you agree with that. Yet you seem to think that once he was hired, he couldn't be let go for refusing vaccination. I disagree. So did the law.

And no, the question was not "whether or not the forced medical treatment measures introduced by the Blue Nazi's was legitimate" - nothing was forced and no Nazis were involved - but whether employers should have the right to establish criteria for who they will pay to work for them.

Your son wasn't forced to do anything except decide what he valued more - his job or not being vaccinated. He would have no value in my office whatever his skills, and if he worked there when the vaccines were rolled out, his choices would be to help protect me, the rest of my staff, and my patients by taking a vaccine or making room for somebody else that was vaccinated, which would have nothing to do with "Blue Nazis." Those are MY values. Even if the law forced me to continue paying him, he would still be unwelcome in that workplace and would be sent home.

 

[Sargonski]

There's nothing that you have posted that isn't easily understood. I simply reject your argument. Your values are not mine.

Nobody had a duty to hire your son unvaccinated. Hopefully, you agree with that. Yet you seem to think that once he was hired, he couldn't be let go for refusing vaccination. I disagree. So did the law.

And no, the question was not "whether or not the forced medical treatment measures introduced by the Blue Nazi's was legitimate" - nothing was forced and no Nazis were involved - but whether employers should have the right to establish criteria for who they will pay to work for them.

Your son wasn't forced to do anything except decide what he valued more - his job or not being vaccinated. He would have no value in my office whatever his skills, and if he worked there when the vaccines were rolled out, his choices would be to help protect me, the rest of my staff, and my patients by taking a vaccine or making room for somebody else that was vaccinated, which would have nothing to do with "Blue Nazis." Those are MY values. Even if the law forced me to continue paying him, he would still be unwelcome in that workplace and would be sent home.

Clearly you have not figured out what my argument is .. such that your rejection matters.

"Nobody had a duty to hire your son unvaxxed" has ZERO to do with "Jab or lose Job" the question here is whether or not a business can violate essential liberty "Sex or there is the door" on threat of losing that Job.

You cry out " Your values or not mine" -- clearly not if you think an employer can violate essential liberty on a whim .. via threat of Job loss. What is a bigger mental lapse is thinking that you get to pick and choose which liberties the employer gets to violate once precedence is set.

Your claim that "sex or lose job" is not Force-Coercion .. or any "Violation of liberty or lose Job" is woefull self deception and ignorance. Your argument - whether you realize it or not "Your daughter wasn't forced to do anything exept decide what she valued more -- her virginity - Sex with the boss - or her job " is that of some rather twisted values .. that you are welcome to keep to yourself.

I get that you disagree with essential liberty so I guess you are right that the question is not what is legitimate justification for violation of Essential Liberty .. as for you any justification will do.. Which .. sorry to say .. is just like the Nazi Treatment of the Jew .. which included forced medical treatment and numerous other violations of liberty

So I get your values are not mine .. cause you ain't got none .. beliving that Gov't or an employer can violate essential liberty for any old reason .. no legit rational required .. this is Sheeple values -- standing for nothing .. just beg to do what Gov't and Authorities tell you ..

"Sex with Boss or lose Job" is not coercion" - what a joke of an argument .. one you yourself do not even believe .. but what you do believe is that the founding principle is worthless .. "respect for individual liberty" as you have none of that.

Such is my rational for not letting Islamists into the nation ... no respect for essential liberty .. no problem forcing religious beliefs on others through physical violence .. force .. or coercion = (Law) - but I suppose once folks are here already it is tough to throw them out for such hatred of the founding principle and constitutional Republic.

Ya mon .. your values are not mine .. the one thing you got right

 

[Revoltingest]

I do not agree that this is just cause for censoring speech.

It all depends upon whom is censored.
Licensed professionals, eg, doctors, are already subject to this, ie, malpractice laws.
Companies selling products are prohibited from false & unevidenced claims.

I'm generally aware of this, but don't know much about such regulation. It's possible that some of it is justified. The default—free speech—should pose a high bar to clear, though.

I was once a licensed real estate broker.
I once had a secret clearance in aerospace.
I post on privately owned discussion forums that have rules.
My speech is/was limited in useful ways.

LOL, true!

Gadflies can be dangerous when they frighten
people away from vaccination with bogus info.
They'll injure & kill the ignorant, but this is what
we endure as a cost of free speech.

I would say that driving drunk is neither generally safe nor safer than driving sober. I don't believe the comparison is a good one though.

I used your pattern of factual claims,
but applied to a different scenario.
It's an excellent analogy because it illustrates the
fallacy of claiming that because some practice
isn't perfect, then it's useless....which is a common
ruse used by anti-vaxers.

I would offer that what matters is allowing people to work out private medical decisions privately with their health-care provider.

People will do what they want. But they might
run into obstacles out there in the world, eg,
businesses that require masks, employers who
require vaccination.
We in business have rights too. If someone
poses a risk to my customers & workers, I've
the right to deny them service & employment.

No, I already said that studies do not provide the answers I'm talking about. If a claim is made that doing X will save lives and X is implemented or imposed among the population, I'm looking for the data that show how many lives were saved by doing X. Do the studies you linked provide such answers?

Perhaps you want answers so specific that the
research is hard to find. What matters is that
there's research that shows the efficacy of
various mitigation measures, eg, vaccination,
masking, social separation, hand washing.

Instead of seeking out reasons to eschew
protection against disease, tis better to seek
understanding, & then make an informed
decision about what to do.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here is one posted previously .. Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults - PubMed

How is "serious side effect" defined?
Did you compare the deleterious effects of
vaccine side effects with the hideous
primary effects of Covid 19?

Again, back to personal experience of all I know,
the unvaccinated have been hospitalized & died.
Not one vaccinated person I know endured side
effects remotely near that severe.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Remember that politicians were the ones who decided
to shut down education & the economy. They handled
expert advice badly.

Lockdowns were what medical experts recommended for considerable periods at the peaks of surges in infections during the pandemic. What would you have had them do instead? The execution was flawed at some points and in some places, but were you against the lockdowns themselves?