A lot use the same terminology they do.
It could go up, it could go down. For example, some years the flu is more lethal than other years. It depends on how it mutates. Since covid is contagious before someone even shows symptoms and doesn't kill for at least several weeks after symptoms show in most cases, the whole "it kills the host so it doesn't spread as well if it kills its host!" doesn't really apply to covid.
Could it be possible that the proliferation of memes that originated from /pol/ into the normiespace also proliferated the jargon?
Can you provide me with a citation for that? Peer-reviewed journals would be appreciated. As far as I've read, most of the population infected with it experiences the same symptoms as with other common cold/flu viruses.
Have you? I must be overlooking it. Please allow me to rephrase it: how big of a pool of unvaccinated do we need for a mutation that trumps the vaccine is propagate? How do you propose removing those pools? If you cannot eliminate them fast enough, what's the point of the vaccine? How often do we need boosters?
The reason nobody trusts the status quo advocates is because they've been nothing but liars since this started. If the disease is so dangerous we need to shut down most jobs, why are we still allowed to buy cigarettes? Why are 100+ people protesting racism okay, but you can't visit grandma in the nursing home? Why close down all small businesses but leave large ones open? Why close down churches but not ban tinder/grindr/etc.?
I'm not obligated to take it, so your waste is not my problem.
How long was the polio vaccine tested for?
Science is inherently non-authoritarian. You win by having the data, not the title. There is also nothing unscientific about saying the covid vaccine has no long term effect studies. Hell, I wouldn't even say it has medium term studies yet, because it's less than a year old.
You can't insult me into taking an untested medicine for a disease that I can get over by staying in bed for a few days and drinking some orange juice.
Maybe, but let's be honest, here. Most of the tards that came here to infest it in the past 2 years share the same political beliefs as the retards on /pol/. It's not a coincidence
What? I am not even talking about what the symptoms are. However, symptoms don't show up until after you are contagious with covid. That's been pretty well documented for a while now. Since covid is contagious for a while before lethality shows up (if it does) and since it's contagious before symptoms even show, it being lethal isn't a detriment to its evolution like other viruses and bacteria.
So you say because scientists could be lying and corrupted you are going to believe basement dwelling white supremacists instead of people who have been studying a subject for their entire lives and subject it to peer-review?
Did you miss the part about being silenced? There's a lot of (admittedly, presently unsubstantiated) rumors about dissent being suppressed.
Then they should publish their research indicating as such in peer-review instead of putting up Youtube videos to appeal to a bunch of schizophrenics
If you believe basement-dwelling white supremacists on /pol/ instead of scientists then debating you is pointless because you refuse to listen to logic or reason
This would be getting off topic, but cross sex hormones have obvious, devastating effects on children and its still being pushed by the establishment. I have no doubt data critical of any narrative would be suppressed. Everything is corrupt, and we're rules by evil men and middle managed by dumb ones.
Do you understand that /pol/ and the memes produced there entered public consciousness more than 5 years ago? I don't think that there's a coincidence that people use the jargon popularized by certain events you still...ahem, voice your displeasure about. Some of the refugees are no doubt from /pol/ but to consider absolutely everyone you disagree with as a shkaaary notzee - is it logical?
How is lethality not a detriment in the spread? And why are you lumping viruses and bacteria together? Is it relevant that you're using two completely different organisms?
Dude, I really don't know what kind of problems in your life you have, but honestly, not everyone is out to get you. Not every single interaction of the people on this forum with you (people that you disagree with, to be specific) is an attempt to establish some kind of superiority over you. I told you, I'll try to engage you on a level with you, without assuming the worst about you.
I literally explained this to you in a post you replied to yesterday. The same would go for viruses and bacteria in this case.
Considering you are asking a question I already answered in the previous post, it's pretty obvious you're just doing it facetiously.
Do you mean this? How lethal is COVID exactly and what metrics are the best ones to determine its' actual potency?
When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Have you ever considered that not everyone you engage with may have sinister motives in making you mad? Again, I'm approaching you with a clear mind and my questions are an attempt to understand you and engage with you earnestly. Would you rather like me to be actually facetious and ignore crucial points for real?
Yes. It looks like Covid right now is 0.3% lethal. I would assume they do contact tracing for the potency (assuming you mean infection rate) but the r0 is between 1.5 and 6.5. It's not an easy thing to calculate im sure. The flu's r0 is 0.9-2.1 for example
Fine, I will take your word on it that you're actually trying to ask real questions about the virus/vaccine, but I have my doubts since you've been talking about how you won't take a vaccine before
I wasn't able to find a proper word for it, but what I wanted to ask was "how infectious it is and how much is it able to kill/cause long-term damage".
I may have to but is having doubts about it inherently bad? I do not pretend that I know a shred of things in medicine/infectious diseases/virology but I don't trust the government because it screwed me before and it screwed me big time. Is my fear an inherently bad reaction?
I see that now, I edited my post to reflect that. It seems that is a term sometimes used.
This isn't really just the government, though. Scientists are pushing it, too, and they know a lot more about this stuff than you, me and everyone in this thread combined by a huge margin
What is the reason for such a gap?
I agree people who dedicate their lives to a certain subject are inherently more knowledgeable, that is obvious. My worry is that scientists can and have been used by the government to provide justification for whatever the government is interested in. Scientists, despite apparent studies that linked lung cancer to smoking, have endorsed certain cigarette brands and took money from interested companies. When scientists are used for political purposes, is it logical to put unquestioning trust in them?
They're still learning about the virus. Calculating the infection rate is not an easy thing to do
If it's a scientist or two who has the opinion, I would agree with you. However, in the case of covid, the overwhelming majority of scientists say to get the vaccine and it's just a few rogue scientists who say not to. Who is to say that the rogue scientists aren't the ones who are taking money? Russia was funding anti-vax propaganda in America, for example... who is to say that the few scientists who say to not get vaccinated aren't being paid by Russia to weaken America?
Does it behave in any way different from the other viruses in the family?
Exactly! This is exactly my point! How can one trust specialists without at least asking questions? Of course, we're not going to get all the answers but to unquestioningly accept even an expert opinion without an attempt for a coherent, intelligence-level appropriate explanation, wouldn't that be very dangerous? Aren't you exposing yourself to be manipulated?
No idea
I think everyone could be manipulated. If you automatically disregard what 99% of scientists say to agree with the 1% just because they support your narrative, you could be manipulated, too. However, corrupting 99% of scientists would be a lot harder than corrupting 1% of them
