It has to do with my dislike of sweeping criminal accusations addressed at untold number of semi-mysterious folks. — Olivier5

I asked you what it had to do with the argument. You can chat about your personal likes and dislikes with someone who gives a shit.

Don't take my word for it. Ask any qualified medical doctor if your article claims that we will all become immune to covid eventually. I am confident they will agree with me that it makes a much weaker claim.

The argument is that you are borderline paranoid when you speak of untold numbers of semi-mysterious criminals like that, and that such talk is unhealthy and irresponsible during a pandemic.

Ask any qualified medical doctor if your article claims that we will all become immune to covid eventually. I am confident they will agree with me that it makes a much weaker claim. — Olivier5

I'm perfectly happy with the meaning and my understanding of the articles. It's your claim that they're substantially dissimilar, why would I go and ask someone to verify a claim you made?

You're dodging again. If we're not to use the expression 'becoming immune' to cover the action of either vaccination or naturally acquired 'immunity' then what term should we be using? Simply replace that corrected term in my statement and then explain how it alters the argument in any way whatsoever (wherein the expression 'while we all become naturally immune' plays a completely irrelevant role).

Still unanswered is the original claim, which you keep dodging. I've argued that the pharmaceutical companies have behaved reprehensibly and so solutions developed by them should be used sparingly and begrudgingly, not freely and with fanfare. You claimed this was "directly from Trump". I've asked three times for your supporting evidence for this claim and each time you've sidetracked into some unrelated triviality.

The argument is that you are borderline paranoid when you speak of untold numbers of semi-mysterious criminals like that — Olivier5

Quote me saying 'untold numbers' or 'semi-mysterious'. I won't defend your fantasy version of what I'm saying.

why would I go and ask someone to verify a claim you made? — Isaac

Because you don't want to take my word for it. What else could you possibly do to verify the claim? Ask me to write more and more stuff that you will quietly dismiss until i'm blue in the face? I don't see the point. It would not work in any case. There's none deafer than he who doesn't want to hear.

Better still...

Sanofi - charged with manslaughter https://www.business-humanrights.org/it/ultime-notizie/france-sanofi-charged-with-manslaughter-in-criminal-case-over-birth-defects-linked-to-epilepsy-medication/

Pfizer - fined for illegal marketing https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2009/september/pfizer_settlement_090209

Merck - fraudulent price reporting and kickbacks https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2008/February/08_civ_094.html.

Johnson & Johnson - Off-label Marketing and Kickbacks https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/johnson-johnson-pay-more-22-billion-resolve-criminal-and-civil-investigations

AstraZeneca - Illegal marketing https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/pharmaceutical-giant-astrazeneca-pay-520-million-label-drug-marketing

GlaxoSmithKline - Fraud https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/glaxosmithkline-plead-guilty-and-pay-3-billion-resolve-fraud-allegations-and-failure-report

Bristol-Myers Squibb - illegal marketing https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2007/September/07_civ_782.html

7

There. Named and enumerated, no longer mysterious and untold of number. So could we discuss the actual argument now?

What else could you possibly do to verify the claim? Ask me to write more and more stuff that you will quietly dismiss until i'm blue in the face? — Olivier5

No. Just a citation from the medical literature. It shouldn't be that hard, here...

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/immunity

Immunity to a disease is achieved through the presence of antibodies to that disease in a person’s system.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/immunity-types.htm

Here's an article using the exact term 'become immune'. https://patient.info/news-and-features/coronavirus-how-do-we-become-immune-to-diseases-like-covid-19

I just want you to do the same for your claim that memory in the immune system is not 'becoming immune'. If that's too much to ask you're on the wrong site, this isn't Twitter.

such talk is unhealthy and irresponsible during a pandemic. — Olivier5

And yet...

There's no taboo that i know of on criticizing big pharma. — Olivier5

...except the one you keep repeating.

I just want you to do the same for your claim that memory in the immune system is not 'becoming immune'. If that's too much to ask you're on the wrong site, this isn't Twitter. — Isaac

I've already explained it to you. Bis repetitas: 1) variants are a big factor. This thing keeps mutating and one may develop an immunity for one variant one has been exposed to but not to another; this is why we are not all immune to the flue as that bug too constantly mutates. 2) the article was based on blood samples taken from 50 individuals, 40 of whom had had covid. Results from blood analysis show that: " 95% of the people [38 people out of 40 if my math is correct] had at least 3 out of 5 immune-system components that could recognize SARS-CoV-2 up to 8 months after infection." It says nothing about their actual in vivo immune response, and extrapolating from 38 people to billions would be a bit iffy and so they don't do it either. 3) the finding is limited to this 8 month period and says nothing about what happens later.

These are verifiable facts. Just read the bloody article.

such talk is unhealthy and irresponsible during a pandemic.
— Olivier5

And yet...

There's no taboo that i know of on criticizing big pharma.
— Olivier5

...except the one you keep repeating. — Isaac

It's fine to quote articles but to call untold numbers of semi-mysterious people criminals is not.

I've already explained it — Olivier5

No you asserted it. What is it with you people and your egos? You're not my teacher, you've made no claim of expert knowledge. You just saying something you 'reckon' is not an explanation, it's a repeat of the matter at issue.

Besides which, none of what you've said addresses the appropriate term to use, which us the only thing you're questioning. I used the term 'become immune' you pointing out issues with immunity doesn't negate the use of the term.

Notwithstanding all that, you've not addressed the actual argument, within which the term in question was almost completely irrelevant.

It's fine to quote articles but to call untold numbers of semi-mysterious people criminals is not. — Olivier5

I've literally just named and enumerated them.

You are trying to bullshit yourself here. Read the article and quote the part where they say that "we're all going to get immune from covid eventually."

Read the article and quote the part where they say that "we're all going to get immune from covid eventually." — Olivier5

I already did.

The immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection. — literally the first sentence in the actual fucking article

You then claimed that it doesn't mean the same and I asked you to support that claim. Are we just going to do the whole thing again?

The article describes a physiological state, that most people will enter into on contact with COVID, the other articles I've cited describe this state as 'becoming immune'. Therefore it's correct to say that most people will become immune.

The details on the exact nature and duration of that state are irrelevant because I've made no claim about that.

So how many folks are we talking about?

So how many folks are we talking about? — Olivier5

We're not talking about folks, we're talking about corporations. Legal entities capable of criminal activities.

You're stonewalling now. I'll leave you to it...

What the ..., ?
We were just chatting about regular fellows becoming infected with virulent pseudo-information, and sure enough, a bunch of influential creeps are doing just that: polluting "the airways". (Did you check yet?)
I suppose that can happen when "mainstream media" is replaced with garbage, and the regular fella' doesn't read Nature journal papers — and really shouldn't have to.
Keep exposing creeps. Not a "psychological game", "hand-waiving", ... It's part of the pandemic story. You're free to comment on how to improve the situation. Or, is that impossible?

I'm the only voice — Isaac

By all means, keep it up. And do get vaccinated. ;)

What the ..., ↪Isaac
? — jorndoe

Have I become a new expletive?

We were just chatting about regular fellows becoming infected with virulent pseudo-information, and sure enough, a bunch of influential creeps are doing just that: polluting "the airways". (Did you check yet?) — jorndoe

Indeed, I don't even feel the need to check it sounds perfectly plausible.

Keep exposing creeps. Not a "psychological game", "hand-waiving", ... It's part of the pandemic story. — jorndoe

It is. So's disposing of used swabs but no one posts about it. I wasn't questioning the truth of what you're highlighting, I was questioning your reason for highlighting it. What point does it make here? That there are wackos on Facebook who have a huge following? I don't think anyone was in any doubt about that. At issue (at least as far as I see it), is which is the tail and which the dog. Do people believe internet nutjobs because they've lost faith in mainstream media, or have people lost faith in mainstream media because of internet nutjobs?

You're free to comment on how to improve the situation. Or, is that impossible? — jorndoe

Ban Facebook, ban Twitter, ban Instagram. That'd be a start. The damage they've done is beyond reckoning.

Do people believe internet nutjobs because they've lost faith in mainstream media, or have people lost faith in mainstream media because of internet nutjobs? — Isaac

Or neither, as seemed to have been the case with the example patient mentioned earlier?

Ban Facebook, ban Twitter, ban Instagram. That'd be a start. The damage they've done is beyond reckoning. — Isaac

:gasp:

...

Despite having one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, Singapore is seeing its highest surge of the pandemic, giving us a taste of what could happen with so-called “zero-COVID” countries, which is a euphemism for the authoritarian hellscapes found in China, Australia, and New Zealand. It will be interesting to see if it was all worth it.

In my corner of the Earth, though, the mostly-vaccinated populace still shuffles around with their masks and vaccination papers. Government subsidies are winding down, and all of those who required the handouts to remain afloat during forced lockdowns are doomed to find out what happens when their tax-payer dollars are redistributed elsewhere, and at the whims of careerist politicians. The money used to fund rent, wage, and income subsidies will now focus on programs that “incentivize work”, as if government incentives weren’t the problem to begin with.

In any case, the state regimentation of our lives and livelihoods has been extended.

giving us a taste of what could happen with so-called “zero-COVID” countries, which is a euphemism for the authoritarian hellscapes found in Australia — NOS4A2

Is this the one where Tina Turner was in charge? Don't spoil it, I haven't seen it.

Fourth wave hits Europe.

Well that's just great.

I live in a country that has record incidence. In the world.

I thought that was the US.

For the last week in Slovenia, the 7-day incidence in 100,000 people is 948,8.

But it's about 14K per 100K where I am, and that's low for the US. I think we're worse.

Hm. On the news, they said we currently hold the record.