No, it's not simple. You are simple if you think that a no-brainer requires law enforcement. If it were a no-brainer, there would be no need for law enforcement. — James Riley

Then why are there laws against stealing and killing, for example, if those are no-brainers?

Something being a no-brainer doesn't mean it needn't be made into a law. If society wishes to enforce various types of discrimination against people, based on whether they are vaccinated or not, then there needs to be a legal basis for this.

In that case, for a particular person, the probabilities can only be calculated theoretically, not empirically. — baker

The probabilities are statistical based on empirical evidence.

Which makes for a lot less optimistic numbers. — baker

On the contrary. In places where vaccination numbers are high new cases, hospitalization, and death has dropped dramatically.

More importantly, people don't make decisions based on a risk/benefit analysis, but based on their values, ie. what they consider important. — baker

What they consider to be the risks and benefits is based, at least in part, on their values.

Always blame the person, eh? — baker

If you do not understand how the terms are being used then it is up to you to understand them before denying that the vaccines are safe and effective.

Medicine is ignoring the very people it is supposed to help. — baker

Medicine, used in the broad sense of medical research, development, and availability, is helping people.

Informed consent is not all or nothing.
— Fooloso4
What do you mean? — baker

I means that one does not have to be an expert in the field to be informed.

I'm talking about the discriminatory practices that are already taking place: such as being required to get vaccinated, or else get fired. — baker

It is a safety protocol. We will have o wait and see whether it is ruled discriminatory.

As long as it is possible that one ends up with a stroke and paralyzed and homeless after getting vaccinated, this is all that matters to one. — baker

What matters to one is not what matters to all.

hen why are there laws against stealing and killing, for example, if those are no-brainers? — baker

They are for people with no brains.

Something being a no-brainer doesn't mean it needn't be made into a law. — baker

True. There are many people with no brains, so they need laws.

If society wishes to enforce various types of discrimination against people, based on whether they are vaccinated or not, then there needs to be a legal basis for this. — baker

On the other hand, we could ostracize, consequence, cancel the dummies. But instead, we have dummies passing laws making it a $5k fine to ostracize, consequence or cancel dummies.

Making sure to keep the discourse ever so superficial, eh? — baker

You are correct. I apologize.

P.S. A Trumpette I know had a sig line on his web site years ago. It was an old John Wayne quote that said: "Life is hard. It's even harder when you're stupid." This guy never followed protocols and didn't vax. He just died of Covid. It was a long, hard, miserable death. Hard on his family too. Some of them followed protocols and vaxed. So, life is not only harder when you're stupid, but stupid people can make life hard for smart people too. Oh well, stupid is fixed now. Smart is still hurting. I don't know if laws would have helped, but a healthy dose of ostracization, consequence and cancel might have done the trick.

Finally, I hear most folks are asymptomatic and don't even know they had it when they did. They spread it and kill people. Fuck them. They also make for variants that could bypass the vaccine or be more contagious or be more deadly. Fuck them.

And governors who make it a crime to ostracize, consequence or cancel? Fuck them.

I'm leaving for a while to do some other shit and only came back because I received an email saying you replied. Adios.

As long as it is possible that one ends up with a stroke and paralyzed and homeless after getting vaccinated, this is all that matters to one.
— baker

What matters to one is not what matters to all. — Fooloso4

What is wrong with you??? Are you a robot???

If you get the serious negative side effects of the vaccine, how will you cope with them? How will that affect your trust in science? Do you really think you will be able to take solace in the fact that the vaccine has helped other people, but not you?

Who's advocating that? — baker

Read the thread

Actually, it must be great to feel so confident that luck is on one's side. Getting the vaccine, thinking, "Oh, surely I'm so great and so lucky that I will not get the side effects!" — baker

People pushing the dangers of vaccines often don't know how statistics work or how to interpret them. In comparison to the virus, what dangers are you talking about? Like, we have a virus that is not only high in mortality rate, it also possesses a high risk of damaging tissue (like the people who's got scar tissue on their lungs that may be permanent) while others still haven't gotten their taste and smell back a year after infection. The list is long of all the health problems that relate to covid-19, but some are stuck arguing about side effects of the vaccines... What exactly are the side effects that possess such a high risk that contracting covid is considered preferable?

Because as I see it, the risks of the vaccine are blown out of proportion by people who really don't know how to read publications properly.

as if this were 100% certain. But is it? Calculate the probability. Otherwise, all you have is ideology. — baker

So, you mean to say that all the data from hospitals around the world that are barely managing their limit of ICU patients and the places where it breaks the limit and covid cases start dying in the streets, like we have in India... is not a strain on communities compared to if most of the population was vaccinated.

What do the reports say you mean? Based on them, based on how things are going around the world, do you not think that it's a logical conclusion to say that if people take the vaccine, we will relieve the tension and strain that communities live under when they're not vaccinated and the spread is uncontrolled?

Please explain what you mean by being 100% certain. I'm 100% certain that my logic is sound here, right? You have a society that struggles to contain a virus, people are dying, others are getting seriously ill. Then a vaccine comes along and eases that strain and stress on society. What is not logical about this? Please elaborate.

I'm guessing that the probability of getting a bad case of covid is about the same as getting bad side effects from the covid vaccine, at least in some areas. — baker

What are you basing that conclusion on? You are guessing, based on... what exactly? You are free to read UN and WHOs daily reports, you can look up publications and check statistics about it. The health issues you can get from Covid are documented literally everywhere, and you could probably check with the local hospital about the different cases of long term covid problems. But side effects from the vaccine range in 1 in about 1-2 million for the worst offender of side effects (Astra Zenica had serious side effects for 19 people of 20 million doses in UK), while the other vaccines do not have any reports of such side effects.

So, before you counter-argue with a "guess" or "opinion". Please explain what side effects you are referring to and how you compare the vaccine to the health problems of covid-19.

When I refer to UN, WHO, hospital personnel, epidemiologists and researchers as the source for the premises for my conclusions I'm being called a fearmonger who buy into the "government propaganda". But the most common denominator when it comes to vaccine critics is that they "guess" a lot and have "opinions" that rarely have any logical foundation or sources. Numbers are thrown around, guesses about statistical risks, anecdotal "evidence" that covid isn't serious because "I didn't get it or had it serious" or that it's just "lies by the government" and into absurdum.

Where are your sources for your guesses? I beg for you to provide any kind of legitimate source that support your guess of the probability of side effects from the vaccine being equal to the dangers of Covid, because not only is that wrong, it's a hilarious lack of observational ability when you even take a basic look at the global situation and the effects of the vaccine.

If you get the serious negative side effects of the vaccine, how will you cope with them? How will that affect your trust in science? Do you really think you will be able to take solace in the fact that the vaccine has helped other people, but not you? — baker

That doesn't matter now, does it? If you get side effects because of that super unlucky lottery, then that is not any empirical evidence that the vaccine is worse than covid. Is this how you treat logic? That if something happens to you, then the statistics are wrong? Seriously?

What about the people who get seriously ill by Covid? People who die or get such damage to their lungs that they can't even walk 5 meters before getting out of breath? You think they take solace in stupid people advocating to not take the vaccine so that it gets harder to fight the spread? Do you think they like people who refuse the vaccine and go out and breaking restrictions without any thought in their tiny brains that they might infect someone else? You think these people don't want to beat anti-vaccers up for pushing back on something that might have been a help to prevent their health problems now?

You totally miss the suffering Covid is causing, thinking there's any statistical relevance to the dangers of the vaccine that in any way could be compared to the severity of Covid. A case of one person getting side effects of the vaccine is insignificant to the statistics here. It's like literally failure at understanding basic statistics and science.

True. There are many people with no brains, so they need laws. — James Riley

This pandemic has made it clear to me that idiots are far more common than I previously thought. And since idiots are actually posing a risk towards other people who might get seriously ill, I'd say there's nothing holding back protecting people at risk. If someone is beating someone up on the street, people stop it and help the victim. But if someone is acting recklessly and don't give a shit about restrictions and laws or the vaccine, goes out and cough in people's direction... I don't see any reason why shutting them down hard is a problem? It's clear that we need harsher laws for situations like a pandemic. Idiots roaming the streets in this way is like having blindfolded drivers driving around and there's no law against it.

If you get the serious negative side effects of the vaccine, how will you cope with them? How will that affect your trust in science? — baker

If you get coronavirus and get seriously ill, how will you cope with that? How will that affect your trust in antivirus fear?

If I got seriously negative side effects from the vaccine I would cope as best I could. I would still think I made the right decision.

On the contrary. In places where vaccination numbers are high new cases, hospitalization, and death has dropped dramatically. — Fooloso4

Please present comparative statistics.

Please present comparative statistics. — Janus

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/massachusetts-covid-cases.html

Please present comparative statistics. — Janus

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/massachusetts-covid-cases.html — Fooloso4

And WHO has extensive information that's constantly updated with new data and research.
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters

CDC also has a lot of global gathering of data as well as research publications.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/global-covid-19/index.html

PNAS also features up to date publications on numerous types of topics related to covid.
https://www.pnas.org/search/Covid-19%20content_type%3Ajournal


Maybe the anti-vaccer side could present their data now? Maybe anything other than "My experience is..." and "I don't believe that..." and "According to my own research..." and "How would you feel if..." etc.
It's remarkable that the low quality of such posts is ok on this forum. If the topic is scientific, which this clearly is, then the scientific and philosophical quality needs to be high. The anecdotal, emotional, biased and fallacious posts should not be allowed. That's what Reddit, Facebook, 4Chan etc. are for.

Thanks. I would think that anyone who challenged the numbers would first look to see what they are. It is not as if this information is not readily available.

Try searching on the WHO site for statistics comparing the drop in the number of cases Covid in countries mapped against the percentage of the populations vaccinated. That might give a more accurate picture if it was available. I wasn't able to find that kind of useful information.

Try searching on the WHO site for statistics showing the numbers of adverse reactions to the vaccines. Good luck with that!

Try searching on the WHO site for statistics showing the decline in cases of Covid where Ivermectin has been administered compared to neighbouring regions where it has not. I couldn't find any such.

So, what reason do I have for believing that the WHO is not a propaganda machine?

I wasn't able to access that without registering. Do have any open source information or data?

See Christoffer's post above.

Read my response to Christoffer.The WHO present no information for the types of useful comparisons I am seeking. If you think they do then send me a link to the precise thing I am asking for.

I don't know where you live but in the US look at the numbers in two states, Massachusetts and Florida, for example.

What the fuck do you think would happen if we didn't have any restrictions or countermeasures in place? — Christoffer

In about a year...actual herd immunity. And minor population control.

Now Ebola...That goes pandemic, I will likely get the vaccine. 70% mortality rate gets your attention.

In about a year...actual herd immunity. And minor population control. — Book273

Scale up the statistics and do a projected death toll and include all "long-covid" health problems that for some are permanent and you'll see that it's not a damn flu season. When people say that Covid-19 isn't that bad because we don't see any major problems in society, they seem to forget that the restrictions and actions taken have already suppressed a lot of what the virus would have caused if nothing were done. And there are further reports that herd immunity for this virus isn't as clear-cut as the uneducated critics might think. Lots of people who got the disease got it again in a short period of time and had even more severe problems the second time. And let's not forget that the Delta variant of the virus is around 70% more effective and can have even more severe effects on someone's health.

People who criticize restrictions, vaccines, and actions taken to battle this virus and its mutations don't know what the fuck they're talking about. If you aren't a researcher yourself, the only course of action is to listen to the scientists and experts in this field and gather enough data to understand the broader perspective and severity of it. You simply don't understand how to interpret data and the reports given.

So, what reason do I have for believing that the WHO is not a propaganda machine? — Janus

Maybe because there's no evidence other than conspiracy theories for it? The lack of something on their site is not "evidence" for them being a propaganda machine. You can get national data over what you are looking for if you do some digging.

Maybe you can provide evidence for why WHO is a propaganda machine instead of a global coordinator for health and medical science?

If you think they do then send me a link to the precise thing I am asking for. — Janus

Maybe the data set is too low to be able to conclude anything at this time? If you dig around in the data and reports you'll see that there's data supporting slowing the spread, even though it's not at the level of totally blocking. Then you have national reports from different CDC organizations around the world reporting on statistics of vaccine levels and change in spread rate. But since the data is still being collected, there's not finalized statement on it, just like how science should work.

Really hard to prove how bad things "would have been". Everything runs on modeling and assumptions. — Book273

No, they're not. You can easily compare nations who prepared badly or who didn't have effective actions in place. Like in India where they had to burn piles of bodies because they didn't have the right precautions in place.

You are also contradicting yourself with that conclusion. Because if it's hard to prove what "would have been", then how do you know the world "would have been fine" if we didn't have the restrictions and precautions that we have right now? You're not making any sense.

I had considered running magic shop back when I had finished high school, I noticed how stressed out the other students were at exam time and figured I could sell them an amulet to wear when they wrote their exams that would make them do 20% better on the exam than if they had not worn it. At the time I thought that the placebo effect and reduced anxiety based on wearing the amulet would result in at least a 20% increase in their grade. Turns out, had I sold those items, I could have been charged with fraud, as there is no way to prove that wearing the item would have had any positive effect. When I countered with the "but just think how bad they would have done with out it." I was told that businesses that practiced that way are operating illegally and in bad faith. I find it ironic that the governments are not held to the same standard as an 18 year old entrepreneur. Apparently it's illegal for the business man but just good messaging for public health? — Book273

That's a bullshit analogy. You do know there's data and facts behind the restrictions and actions taken? It's just that you are too lazy to actually read up on those things and you compare that to yourself having an idea for fraud.

Just think, without all this...you could have died. — Book273

Yes, I could have, relatives have died of it, or I could have had severe effects, like co-workers who can barely walk 5 meters without having to catch their breath because their lungs are permanently scarred and fucked up.

You cannot conclude like that with bullshit premises.

Of course, with all this...you could still die. — Book273

Yes, but the risk is much lower. What's your point?

Huge difference. — Book273

No, it's not, you are just superbly bad at understanding basic logic.

Actually, I do. Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand. Common mistake, surprising how common it is. — Book273

I don't care about what you think about yourself. You don't prove to us that you are educated on this matter, you don't prove you understand either the logic of what is being said or the facts that actually exist. The fact that you "don't care" already shows the level you're at.

Now, can any moderator please explain what a low-quality post is? Why are we tolerating conspiracy nuts on this forum?

When did I say there was a conspiracy? Be specific now.

You are clinging to the premise that public health is entirely correct and that they are completely trustworthy. Maybe they solidly believe what they are peddling. I completely understand that you believe them.

However, public health in the 20's and 30's also supported eugenics as a viable heath initiative. This is true for many countries at the time. The most infamous, and the one that resulted in the end of publicly supported eugenics, were the Nazis, master race and all that. It was wrong, but at the time was a supported theory.

Other initiatives also supported by public health include racially separated bathrooms (theory of the time being that non-white people spread disease), removing children from transient peoples (gypsies, etc) as transient people were clearly of lower breeding.

Yep there are some epic fails in the history of public health, mostly based on the politics and perspectives of the time, not based in science. We should question what is going on. IF the answers hold up, great. If not, following directions might not be the way to go.

Why are we tolerating conspiracy nuts on this forum?

I would say it is because what we find intolerable, but nevertheless have to tolerate, is our inability to persuade others about matters that are so obvious to us that no persuasion should be necessary. What we are being invited to suppose is that something obviously true in our view may be clearly false in somebody else's. Further, they may not be insincere, stupid or mad. It's a big challenge but worth taking on.

:up:

I would say it is because what we find intolerable, but nevertheless have to tolerate, — Cuthbert

Not in philosophy. I've been pointing this out in other threads as well. This forum is supposed to be a place that A) Tolerates almost all kinds of topics and at the same time B) Demands higher quality rhetoric and philosophical scrutiny to discuss those topics.

It's why this place doesn't have the name "Reddit" or "Facebook", "4Chan" etc. and instead is called "The Philosophy Forum". It's even in the rules of the forum that people need to have a higher level of discussion here than just normal "internet debate". It's the reason I gravitated to this place and not some other forum because I can expect better quality here. Now, sure, if it's an open forum there's always gonna end up being people joining that aren't up to this task and of course, there has to be some stretching, otherwise, it would be tediously boring... but constantly pushing unsupported conspiracy theories, extreme bias, and fallacy after fallacy should be shut down more than I experience on this forum. There are probably nutcases joining this forum every hour, but I wonder how someone gets to hundreds or thousands of posts before they get banned, get a warning, or similar.

But that's enough of that derail of this thread. Back to topic.

You are clinging to the premise that public health is entirely correct and that they are completely trustworthy. Maybe they solidly believe what they are peddling. I completely understand that you believe them. — Book273

Do you have any evidence to support this claim that you cannot trust public health? You have provided nothing of the sort. As long as there's no evidence of them lying and being a propaganda machine, you are just bullshitting because you believe it is so.

However, public health in the 20's and 30's also supported eugenics as a viable heath initiative. This is true for many countries at the time. The most infamous, and the one that resulted in the end of publicly supported eugenics, were the Nazis, master race and all that. It was wrong, but at the time was a supported theory. — Book273

How are the crimes of the Nazi regime or the practice of eugenics in any way or form related to modern public health that's constantly reviewed and is consistent of thousands of individual institutes that work independently but review each other and peer-reviewing publications of others?

This is conspiracy-level bullshit premises that is in no way any evidence for WHO being a propaganda machine or conducting any of the things you speak about around the Nazi regime. Seriously.

Other initiatives also supported by public health include racially separated bathrooms (theory of the time being that non-white people spread disease), removing children from transient peoples (gypsies, etc) as transient people were clearly of lower breeding. — Book273

The same answer applies to this.

Yep there are some epic fails in the history of public health, mostly based on the politics and perspectives of the time, not based in science. — Book273

Exactly, so what politics is there that govern ALL THE DIFFERENT CDC AND WHO EQUIVALENT INSTITUTES AROUND THE WORLD? Is it not that these institutes today actually are run by scientists in global collaboration? So that no single nation governs over scientific practices or has the power to initiate unethical practices without consequences.

Your knowledge of the scientific community and world is astonishingly low.

We should question what is going on. IF the answers hold up, great. If not, following directions might not be the way to go. — Book273

You don't do any of this! You question something without even a single strand of evidence to support that critique, you just mash together Nazi public health with WHO and think that means we need to question what is going on. This is fucking conspiracy rhetoric, it's basically a textbook answer of what that is. If you want to ask the question of if WHO has hidden agendas, then you can't state that as facts or take action based on that belief, you need to gather evidence that logically, as a sum of facts, show that it is indisputably true that WHO has other agendas. If not, then you cannot and should never continue as if that belief was true. It's like basic fucking philosophy here, how to arrive at a logical conclusion.

Why are you even on this forum if this is the level of arguments you put together? It's not even close to having any rational relevence.

You have yet to specify when I claimed any sort of conspiracy theory. Still waiting on that.

I have given examples of when public health has had less than scientific approaches; if you want solid examples of this, look them up. There were pamphlets written in the early 20's and 30's explaining the rationale behind segregation policy. The eugenics policies aren't exactly hard to find, look them up too.
They were wrong, but were supported at the time.

At no point have I suggested any conspiracy theory, that is all you. If you disagree with this claim then it should be easy to locate exactly where I claim a conspiracy is underway. Don't paraphrase: quote me.
It is unfortunate that to every example I have given to support my position you counter with some version of "irrelevant." or "prove it".

Also, I am not yelling at you, nor swearing, nor seeking the moderator to intervene on my behalf, nor am I questioning your place on this forum.

I suggest that people make up their own minds and determine their own course of action; as close to informed consent as they can achieve, and not blindly obey (unless they want to). That is all. Why this infuriates you is beyond me. People thinking for themselves should be a good thing, correct?

You have yet to specify when I claimed any sort of conspiracy theory. Still waiting on that. — Book273

That WHO or other public health has a hidden agenda of some sort:

You are clinging to the premise that public health is entirely correct and that they are completely trustworthy. — Book273

I don't buy into the sales pitch. A lot of us that work in healthcare don't, no matter how much that may shock you. At the end of the day I am very glad you don't make the rules I have to live by. — Book273

That you don't recognize what's a conspiracy theory or not is not surprising as it's exactly how those things go.

I have given examples of when public health has had less than scientific approaches; if you want solid examples of this, look them up. — Book273

And I answered you on that, they are irrelevant comparisons to modern public health, read what is written.

At no point have I suggested any conspiracy theory, that is all you. If you disagree with this claim then it should be easy to locate exactly where I claim a conspiracy is underway. Don't paraphrase: quote me. — Book273

I did and your examples I have also countered, you just ignore it, you ignore the simple logic I provided to counter it and you don't care. So stop spamming the same thing over and over.

It is unfortunate that to every example I have given to support my position you counter with some version of "irrelevant." or "prove it". — Book273

Because you need to fucking prove your point dumbass. And you cannot just dismiss the counterarguments you get and just spam the same thing over and over. The reason that they are irrelevant is that they have no internal logic to them, they are just loose connections between historical events and totally different practices of public health today, especially in nations that collaborate with other nations.

You just say things, you claim something and when asked to support it you draw loose connections that are irrelevant. Get educated.

Also, I am not yelling at you, nor swearing, nor seeking the moderator to intervene on my behalf, nor am I questioning your place on this forum. — Book273

Why would you? I've provided tons of logical arguments and links to facts etc. You just say things and you get posts removed by moderators on the basis of your posts being low quality. It's not like I argue about your place on this forum because I can't argue against you, it's that I argue against you and you just don't care to provide any logical follow up to those counterarguments, you spam the same thing again and the low quality of your posts (referring to the specifications in the rules of this forum) implies that you simply don't belong here. Either you step up and increase the quality of your arguments or you leave and join a forum without these kinds of guidelines. If you cannot understand this simple fact then, of course, you don't understand why I question your place here.

I suggest that people make up their own minds and determine their own course of action; as close to informed consent as they can achieve, and not blindly obey (unless they want to). That is all. Why this infuriates you is beyond me. People thinking for themselves should be a good thing, correct? — Book273

People are stupid, most of them have zero ability to logically conclude anything, review facts, or come to conclusions that are sound. I don't agree that people shall "make up their own minds", people should know their limits, they should know when they don't know all the facts to make a conclusion. The problem today is that people learn to value their own opinions in such narcissistic ways that they ignore every kind of method to actually arrive at any kind of truth. So no, they should not "just make up their own minds", especially during a health crisis. They should sit down and shut the fuck up and let the ones who are actual experts run the show. If they didn't care to educate themselves and take the necessary time and effort to become experts themselves, they are in no position to conclude anything if it's not logically reasonable beyond such knowledge. There are too many people thinking their opinions matter or are important, they aren't, most people don't know anything and their conclusions are laughably inaccurate. In a health crisis, that should not be a driving force, facts and science should, expertise and knowledge. "Thinking for themselves" is not equal to understanding the facts and arriving at conclusions that are sound.

People today learn that they are limitless, but the fact is most are so limited, by education or just mental capacity that they are unable to actually be of any help, and when they try to involve themselves they are mostly in the way of people far more suited for the tasks. Not because they offer help, but because their actions are actually in the fucking way of people who need to work with these things.

The amount of time and energy that people in these fields, people like scientists, researchers, medical staff, and so on, need to apply to stupid narcissists standing in their way to fix this pandemic is astonishing. Just as an example, the projected vaccination of the US is not meeting its goal because of anti-vaccine movements being strong in certain states. While all the regular, intelligent, and morally balanced people are getting vaccinated, helping each other, and push for an end to the pandemic, these fucktards and their "thinking for themselves" helps to keep this pandemic alive.

People need to understand their place. The blue-collar worker who isn't educated in medical sciences and acknowledges that they shouldn't conclude anything about that kind of science and instead listen to the consensus answer of experts is an epistemically responsible person that I look up to just as much as the highly educated scientists and researchers working in these fields. I don't like uneducated people who speak like they are the world's experts on things they don't understand even the basics of. And if they go further and acts upon that narcissistic delusion, they need to be shut down, like any other Karen on a plane. The anti-expert mentality of the last few years needs to stop.

I think this is one of those cases where if we all do what we want then the collective outcome is worse. Like, that beautiful mind movie. So, on the individual level for everyone hesitancy is rational. Personally, I see it through social contract theory; where if you choose to live in society you ought do what keeps the society alive. The last person to get vaccinated probably won't need it, but we don't know who that is so the only successful approach is over-vaccinating the required number of people. I think we have the right to make selfish decisions and be held accountable for them, so in some sense I agree.

You can get national data over what you are looking for if you do some digging. — Christoffer

If you know that you must have already done the digging in which case you should be able to provide the links.

As to the WHO being a propaganda machine: if you think they have no vested interests, the least of which not being support of the pharmaceutical industry, and that they don't suppress information that threatens those interests, then you are simply naive in my view.

People are stupid, most of them have zero ability to logically conclude anything, review facts, or come to conclusions that are sound. I don't agree that people shall "make up their own minds", people should know their limits, they should know when they don't know all the facts to make a conclusion. — Christoffer

People need to understand their place. — Christoffer

So...big brother knows best eh. Scary stuff.

There are too many people thinking their opinions matter or are important, they aren't, most people don't know anything and their conclusions are laughably inaccurate — Christoffer

Applicable to you my friend.

I don't like uneducated people who speak like they are the world's experts on things they don't understand even the basics of. — Christoffer

And yet...you are still posting. Most of your rant is fully applicable to you as well eh. Or is that another irrelevant detail that you will overlook in defense of your position?

It is refreshing to hear someone actually come out and just say that people should not make their own decisions and just follow the leader, because the leader knows best. Appallingly ignorant and short sighted, but refreshing none-the-less.

There would be no United States if people had listened to what you are pushing. No one can rebel in your philosophy of obedience. How dreary.