What countries accept a recovered infection on par with a vaccine? That will tell you where the discourse was shut down.
The story of the last 2 years is 10% disease mitigation, 20% intellectual error, 30% media fear-mongering and 40% politics & tribalism.
The entire basis of this is that T-cell immunity is ignored, and only sky high antibodies caused by the vaccine offer any protection for future infection.
PS: The fact it is hard to talk find sources is because it was all shut down.
Ultimately all of what these "experts" say is distilled by people in the media and shared through twitter, HN, reddit, FB and more.
During this madness, all the biggest doomsday people in my circle of "real" humans would feed me reams of NYT and Atlantic articles as their "sources". If I fed them some academic article that goes against the media narrative they'd dismiss it as "not peer reviewed" or "publishers were doing a flawed study". Ironic considering almost all of their sources had all the same major flaws as whatever I provided.
But more importantly they "assert" natural immunity is being ignored by scientific journals, but provide no evidence. Even worse, they then go on to cite studies from prestigious scientific journals that discuss natural immunity! What is it, are they ignoring it or are they publishing well cited papers on it?
Lastly, they conflate science with policy. As they even note, the scientific community has long known that there is some immunity with surviving infection. But policy has to take more than that into account.
Familiar with the term lie of omission?
But the simplest Google search and you can find Nature articles talking about T-cell response with respect to Covid:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24377-1
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00436-4
If you aren't aware of these discussions it's not because of lies of omission, gas lighting, or a vast conspiracy theory. It's because you buried your own head and then said someone is holding your head down.
Perhaps your aren't seeing a thing because you aren't looking for it?
If Joe Rogan was a smaller fish, it would have been easier.
I don't watch Joe Rogan. I've seen one clip where he talks about myocarditis in children and he seems like he is just making things up. And when the data is presented to him, in real time on the show -- its like he doesn't want to believe it. He doesn't seem like a good faith actor. You can probably find the clip.
I haven't seen CNN make any call to have him removed. Although they do call out that he says things that are factually incorrect -- that seems in-scope for a new organization. They did the same thing to Sotomayor when she made false statements about Covid and kids too. Are they trying to cancel her?
No one would care about them being shut down, or no one would care what they said? Small people get de-platformed quite often from both political tribes, including shadow bans.
>I don't watch Joe Rogan.
Most people who are criticizing him, calling him racist and all that business don't watch him either I don't think. They just watch curated clips. I watch some of his episodes, some are certainly thought provoking. The general rule of thumb is if a clip cuts off mid-sentence or abruptly, it's probably intentionally misleading.
>I've seen one clip where he talks about myocarditis in children and he seems like he is just making things up.
Is it the one where he was with the Australian journalists where Rogan was saying there is a higher chance of kids getting myocarditis from the vaccine than from Covid? Did you watch the whole thing where the journalist disagreed, then they looked it up and Rogan corrected himself? If not, you watched a specifically curated clip probably designed to push a misinformation narrative.
>They did the same thing to Sotomayor when she made false statements about Covid and kids too. Are they trying to cancel her?
Did they do it for going on a week now? How many anchors covered it? Sotomayor isn't competition for CNN.
If you are interested, I suggest you watch some counter arguments to this whole facade to get a better picture. Right now I think you are just listening to the prosecutor and not the defendant, so to speak. Some interesting things I noticed is when the news would do a segment on a Trump speech and how outlandish it was, then I watched the actual speech, it was pretty obvious the news was being disingenuous. Seems like this happens on all corporate news, not just CNN, MSNBC, etc. It seems like CNN is getting gutted right now, so hopefully it will improve.
No one would care what they said. There are a lot of smaller fish saying things much worse, and they largely do so with no consequence.
> Is it the one where he was with the Australian journalists where Rogan was saying...
Yes, that one. Rogan never really corrects himself. He starts pushing back on the data source and then they just transition on to something else. I did see that later on Twitter he did seemingly admit to being fact checked. And blames it on it being a long form show where the topics aren't disclosed up front. In those cases why do you submit a thesis, rather than simply stating, "I don't really know the facts here"? That's what reasonable people do all the time. Rather he is counting on you to not know the facts or be able to fact check him in real time. He just steam rolls you.
> Some interesting things I noticed is when the news would do a segment on a Trump speech and how outlandish it was, then I watched the actual speech, it was pretty obvious the news was being disingenuous.
With Trump in particular I felt that the "mainstream" media largely gave him a pass on most of his speeches unless they were nationally televised. Some of his worst comments were stump speeches that never were aired nationally, but could be found on YouTube and other sites. I think he was much worse than most America believes.
Ya that's fair. He does seem surprised when they fact-checked the data during the conversation.
>In those cases why do you submit a thesis, rather than simply stating, "I don't really know the facts here"? That's what reasonable people do all the time. Rather he is counting on you to not know the facts or be able to fact check him in real time. He just steam rolls you.
I don't think that's fair. They fact check real-time constantly. There is a guy in the room who's job it is to fact check real time. They would start a conversation then discuss aspects of it, and the person would look up what they are discussing and show the results. This fact checker was the person who brought up refuting evidence to the myocarditis claim.
His show reminds me of the old Dick Cavett or Phil Donahue type long form shows, except it's 3 hours long. A conversational show like that is different from a show where you have a set agenda with strict talking points you don't deviate from, like a newscast would have.
Also to be fair, he has a lot of people on who are professionals in their relevant fields. One of the guys the media is currently lambasting as a covid "misinformationalist" is an MD that helped create the technology used by the covid vaccine.
>With Trump in particular I felt that the "mainstream" media largely gave him a pass on most of his speeches unless they were nationally televised. Some of his worst comments were stump speeches that never were aired nationally, but could be found on YouTube and other sites. I think he was much worse than most America believes.
It seems to me the news blew things he said out of proportion that they didn't need to. As someone who looked at some of the source material, what the news said he said and what he actually said didn't match up. It definitely hurt their credibility, IMO. Perhaps they ignored the more egregious things you are mentioning in stump speeches, which seems like an odd tactic.
Politics is the discussion of how we should behave. How could this possibly have not become politics?
When you're lost at sea, you're an idiot if you don't row with everyone else, in the direction that the navigator thinks is right.
And you said "they turned this into politics," and I think you meant to say, "they turned this partisan." Or "it became politically divisive."
Yes, it's unfortunate that the two parties here in the U.S. did not agree about how to handle the global pandemic.
People from both parties would tell you they were absolutely trying to care for the overall welfare of everyone. And they just disagreed about how to do it.
I'm just personally horrified that we don't even agree about how to measure reality. Really fundamental questions like, "Is Covid more contagious and more deadly than the flu?" "Is the vaccine safe?" "Is your risk of myocarditis greater if you get the vaccine, or if you are infected with Covid?" "Does the vaccine put a chip in your body?" "Does the vaccine turn you magnetic?" "Did 5G cause Covid?" "Is this medication effective at preventing or treating Covid?"
Like, the leaders of our political parties don't apparently agree about how to measure the answers to those questions. Or they're not effectively leading the people in their party to follow that decision.
Basically, we're totally hosed.
Wait. No, that doesn't make sense at all actually... Hm.
What's really really really bad is that the entire narrative has been built on "we are science, follow us, if you don't, you are an idiot, you are endangering others"
Except science is much more nuanced, and hey, it turns out t-cells do things too not just antibodies (of course this was known pre 2020).
Maybe if communication on this issue wasn't turned so black and white, and us vs them, by the media and politicians, we'd be in a better place now. But they didn't do that, they turned this into politics too.