He scored over 1300 on the SATs, which makes him a genius compared to other football players and the general public. He also got a Cal education. Why would you sh*t on his intellect? He does have strange opinions, but he's not dumb.

He did not graduate from Cal. He isn't dumb. I never said he was. I said he was a buffoon. A kook that passed himself off as an intellectual. The fact that he believes in so many outlandish ideas is actually quite disappointing.

philly1121 said:

---

He did not graduate from Cal. He isn't dumb. I never said he was. I said he was a buffoon. A kook that passed himself off as an intellectual. The fact that he believes in so many outlandish ideas is actually quite disappointing.

---

Extremely. The guy could be hosting jeopardy and one of the most influential athletes/ former athletes out there. Such a waste

bencgilmore said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

He did not graduate from Cal. He isn't dumb. I never said he was. I said he was a buffoon. A kook that passed himself off as an intellectual. The fact that he believes in so many outlandish ideas is actually quite disappointing.

---

Extremely. The guy could be hosting jeopardy and one of the most influential athletes/ former athletes out there. Such a waste

---

I still consider myself an AR fan but it keeps getting harder

bear2034 said:

---

The initial Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine rollout was never designed to stop transmission of the virus, and it was never tested to see whether it did.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla was called before the European Parliament's COVID-19 committee in 2022 but did not make himself available. He sent Janine Small, president of international markets for Pfizer, in his place.

Rob Roos, a member of parliament from the Netherlands, asked Small the following question:

---

Vaccines are used to reduce transmission of viruses. It is our primary defense against them for a century going back to smallpox and polio. Other measures to reduce transmission are masking, social distancing, testing and quarantining. The key is if the transmission rate is greater than 1 the outbreak will grow exponentially, but if the transmission rate is less than one, it will eventually die out.

oski003 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Quote:

---

Your take on J&J is closer to correct than what you have said in the past. However, the J&J Covid vaccine is 100% a DNA vaccine. It just enters through an adenovirus vector (the only other adenovirus vaccine ever approved was j$j's recent vaccine against ebola only administered in Africa). It is not a dead virus like a traditional vaccine, which you seem to be mixing it up with. I am familiar with the other DNA vaccines that are either delivered via electroporation or a jet. That doesn't make J&J a non DNA vaccine. J&J just controls the messaging and wants to be considered "traditional.". J&J's VP of Science lead the U.S. public/private partnership to fight covid. They had the power to promote their product how they saw fit, even if it never should have been approved.

---

I think you're really parsing the issue here. Everything I've read from John Hopkins, to Mayo, VCU, Kaiser, CDC, even Texas Children's Health/Hospital - they all say the same thing - the J&J vaccine utilizes the more traditional virus-based delivery system. J&J uses the adenovirus vector vaccine. From Mayo Clinic - this has been well clinically trialed and studied over many years. You are correct that it is a DNA vaccine. But the delivery method is absolutely traditional It has been used since the 1970s. Its in development for Ebola and also for HIV. That is the reason that it was approved so quickly - there is years and years of data behind it.

Your last sentence in the quote is pure politics and propoganda.

---

1) Still a DNA vaccine. Other than emergency use for Ebola in Africa, DNA adenovirus vector has never been approved. Calling it traditional is marketing.

2) the J&J vaccine was marketed as a traditional alternative to mRNA, even though it wasn't. It also was originally marketed as an alternative to those allergic to the plastic, or PEG, in mRNA vaccines. It has since been silently pulled from the market because, once you take the lipstick off the pig, it has no use. So, yes, it shouldn't have been approved, especially in light of it failing p3 but being pushed through anyway.

---

So you admit a DNA vaccine has never been approved (in the United States) and Googling on "DNA vaccines" which you suggested and I linked shows that the first COVID DNA vaccine was introduced in India, long after the J&J vaccine was introduced in the US. Moreover, you admit that the J&J vaccine was marketed as a "traditional" vaccine. And the FDA allowed it to be marketed as such despite having pretty strict rules about how pharmaceuticals are marketed.

Instead of starting there and admitting that everyone from J&J to the FDA was calling it a traditional vaccine then making your extraordinary claim that counter to what we were told it was secretly even more advanced than even the mRNA vaccines and then providing evidence to back your claim, you instead simply assert it is true and restort to ad hominem attacks. That is not a way to persuade people of scientific claims. Don't call them names, present your evidence. Otherwise you come off as a internet kook, no different than a flat earther, or member of a right wing political cult like Qanon, and not someone with scientific knowledge engaging in scientific discourse.

The anti vax crowd believes that UCSF, Harvard Medical School, the Mayo Clinic, Stanford Medical School, as well as all the top medical schools in Europe are all captives of Big Pharma and therefore corrupt.
The only medical professionals that can be trusted are physicians like Joseph Ladapo.

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Quote:

---

Your take on J&J is closer to correct than what you have said in the past. However, the J&J Covid vaccine is 100% a DNA vaccine. It just enters through an adenovirus vector (the only other adenovirus vaccine ever approved was j$j's recent vaccine against ebola only administered in Africa). It is not a dead virus like a traditional vaccine, which you seem to be mixing it up with. I am familiar with the other DNA vaccines that are either delivered via electroporation or a jet. That doesn't make J&J a non DNA vaccine. J&J just controls the messaging and wants to be considered "traditional.". J&J's VP of Science lead the U.S. public/private partnership to fight covid. They had the power to promote their product how they saw fit, even if it never should have been approved.

---

I think you're really parsing the issue here. Everything I've read from John Hopkins, to Mayo, VCU, Kaiser, CDC, even Texas Children's Health/Hospital - they all say the same thing - the J&J vaccine utilizes the more traditional virus-based delivery system. J&J uses the adenovirus vector vaccine. From Mayo Clinic - this has been well clinically trialed and studied over many years. You are correct that it is a DNA vaccine. But the delivery method is absolutely traditional It has been used since the 1970s. Its in development for Ebola and also for HIV. That is the reason that it was approved so quickly - there is years and years of data behind it.

Your last sentence in the quote is pure politics and propoganda.

---

1) Still a DNA vaccine. Other than emergency use for Ebola in Africa, DNA adenovirus vector has never been approved. Calling it traditional is marketing.

2) the J&J vaccine was marketed as a traditional alternative to mRNA, even though it wasn't. It also was originally marketed as an alternative to those allergic to the plastic, or PEG, in mRNA vaccines. It has since been silently pulled from the market because, once you take the lipstick off the pig, it has no use. So, yes, it shouldn't have been approved, especially in light of it failing p3 but being pushed through anyway.

---

So you admit a DNA vaccine has never been approved (in the United States) and Googling on "DNA vaccines" which you suggested and I linked shows that the first COVID DNA vaccine was introduced in India, long after the J&J vaccine was introduced in the US. Moreover, you admit that the J&J vaccine was marketed as a "traditional" vaccine. And the FDA allowed it to be marketed as such despite having pretty strict rules about how pharmaceuticals are marketed.

Instead of starting there and admitting that everyone from J&J to the FDA was calling it a traditional vaccine then making your extraordinary claim that counter to what we were told it was secretly even more advanced than even the mRNA vaccines and then providing evidence to back your claim, you instead simply assert it is true and restort to ad hominem attacks. That is not a way to persuade people of scientific claims. Don't call them names, present your evidence. Otherwise you come off as a internet kook, no different than a flat earther, or member of a right wing political cult like Qanon, and not someone with scientific knowledge engaging in scientific discourse.

---

Everything you said here is 100% wrong. What the hell are you talking about? Do you even read what people write? Insanity.

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Quote:

---

Your take on J&J is closer to correct than what you have said in the past. However, the J&J Covid vaccine is 100% a DNA vaccine. It just enters through an adenovirus vector (the only other adenovirus vaccine ever approved was j$j's recent vaccine against ebola only administered in Africa). It is not a dead virus like a traditional vaccine, which you seem to be mixing it up with. I am familiar with the other DNA vaccines that are either delivered via electroporation or a jet. That doesn't make J&J a non DNA vaccine. J&J just controls the messaging and wants to be considered "traditional.". J&J's VP of Science lead the U.S. public/private partnership to fight covid. They had the power to promote their product how they saw fit, even if it never should have been approved.

---

I think you're really parsing the issue here. Everything I've read from John Hopkins, to Mayo, VCU, Kaiser, CDC, even Texas Children's Health/Hospital - they all say the same thing - the J&J vaccine utilizes the more traditional virus-based delivery system. J&J uses the adenovirus vector vaccine. From Mayo Clinic - this has been well clinically trialed and studied over many years. You are correct that it is a DNA vaccine. But the delivery method is absolutely traditional It has been used since the 1970s. Its in development for Ebola and also for HIV. That is the reason that it was approved so quickly - there is years and years of data behind it.

Your last sentence in the quote is pure politics and propoganda.

---

1) Still a DNA vaccine. Other than emergency use for Ebola in Africa, DNA adenovirus vector has never been approved. Calling it traditional is marketing.

2) the J&J vaccine was marketed as a traditional alternative to mRNA, even though it wasn't. It also was originally marketed as an alternative to those allergic to the plastic, or PEG, in mRNA vaccines. It has since been silently pulled from the market because, once you take the lipstick off the pig, it has no use. So, yes, it shouldn't have been approved, especially in light of it failing p3 but being pushed through anyway.

---

So you admit a DNA vaccine has never been approved (in the United States) and Googling on "DNA vaccines" which you suggested and I linked shows that the first COVID DNA vaccine was introduced in India, long after the J&J vaccine was introduced in the US. Moreover, you admit that the J&J vaccine was marketed as a "traditional" vaccine. And the FDA allowed it to be marketed as such despite having pretty strict rules about how pharmaceuticals are marketed.

Instead of starting there and admitting that everyone from J&J to the FDA was calling it a traditional vaccine then making your extraordinary claim that counter to what we were told it was secretly even more advanced than even the mRNA vaccines and then providing evidence to back your claim, you instead simply assert it is true and restort to ad hominem attacks. That is not a way to persuade people of scientific claims. Don't call them names, present your evidence. Otherwise you come off as a internet kook, no different than a flat earther, or member of a right wing political cult like Qanon, and not someone with scientific knowledge engaging in scientific discourse.

---

I will try to discuss your ramblings one by one.

1) So you admit a DNA vaccine has never been approved (in the United States) and Googling on "DNA vaccines" which you suggested and I linked shows that the first COVID DNA vaccine was introduced in India, long after the J&J vaccine was introduced in the US.

** What the heck are you talking about here? What are you proving or disproving? How does this relate to anything I said. Are you that clueless that you think it does?

2) Moreover, you admit that the J&J vaccine was marketed as a "traditional" vaccine. And the FDA allowed it to be marketed as such despite having pretty strict rules about how pharmaceuticals are marketed.

** Why do you think the EUA expired? As stated above, J&J ran the public/private partnership combatting covid. They were chosen by OWS as the alternative to mRNA. The FDA bowed to public policy and the tail (BP) wagged the dog (government) because the government needed shots in arms to open up the economy.

3) Instead of starting there and admitting that everyone from J&J to the FDA was calling it a traditional vaccine then making your extraordinary claim that counter to what we were told it was secretly even more advanced than even the mRNA vaccines and then providing evidence to back your claim, you instead simply assert it is true and restort to ad hominem attacks. That is not a way to persuade people of scientific claims. Don't call them names, present your evidence. Otherwise you come off as a internet kook, no different than a flat earther, or member of a right wing political cult like Qanon, and not someone with scientific knowledge engaging in scientific discourse.

** The paragraph above is pure gibberish. It was marketed sometimes as more of a traditional vaccine because the government needed vaccine uptake. It clearly is not, and the CDC allowed this bending of the truth because they needed shots in arms. Again, the vaccine was silently pulled from the market. I have been presenting my evidence. You are just too dense and narrow-minded to accept it. The sky really is blue.

philly1121 said:

---

lol he doesn't get under my skin. I'm laughing at him. Buffon. Kook. Intellectual z-e-r-o

Oh - and Rodgers accepts his salary from Woody Johnson, the great grandson of one of the founders of J&J. The irony.

---

He apparently got under Kimmel's skin. His personal chef prepared meals for a peedo.

philly1121 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GMP said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

GMP said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

YuSeeBerkeley said:

---

Who gives a sh*t about Jimmy Kimmel? He's no Boy Scout. He's done some deplorable things throughout his career including blackface pretending to be Karl Malone and objectifying women on The Man Show. Rodgers probably got the reaction that he wanted out of Kimmel, and I just think Kimmel crying about the danger to his family was a bit much and pathetic for a supposed comedian. Again, I'm not excusing Rodgers. As I said at the outset, he probably shouldn't have said what he said. I just don't get why people here are so passionately defending Kimmel, who has no affiliation with Cal and has been a Rodgers hater for quite some time.

---

Vaccine Nazis are real.

---

You should probably read about what the Nazis did before you label anyone with that name.

---

Did you feel like the comment was directed to you or are you defending Jimmy Kimmel?

---

I think comparing just about anyone to the Nazis is fu-king stupid. Are you fu-king stupid or are you defending the Nazis?

---

Especially people who are trying to save lives, even if you disagree with their medical expertise.
As someone who lost family members in the Holocaust and lost family members to COVID, I can't help but find such comparisons vile and evil. I cannot believe people actually espouse them, even anonymously on the Internet. It truly saddens me.

---

I've seen your previous posts. You want everyone to get vaccinated and it really bugs you that there are people like Aaron Rodgers who don't.

---

Actually it isn't one thing that bugs me about Rodgers. His vaccine stance, yeah. But the rest - omg. I mean - do you agree with what he says? What he said to Deshaun Kizer about 9/11? What he thinks of sunscreen? Dolphins? <----lmao!! Ayahuasca? His vaccine stance is just the tip of the iceberg.

For those of you that missed this wonderful slideshow, I present it to you again:

https://deadspin.com/weirdest-things-aaron-rodgers-has-ever-done-nfl-packers-1850095117

When he opens his mouth on issues not related to football (and perhaps even some related to it), he becomes fair game. And if there's one thing to keep in mind here, its that you don't want to pick a fight with someone who has a nightly national audience. You become easy prey. And that's what Rodgers is to Kimmel. This is all on Rodgers.

---

How does this not apply to Kimmel or for that matter Colin K, Megan Rapinoe, or other athletes who like to share their (in many cases far out of the mainstream) political opinions. I don't recall you taking the same stance about "fair game" or for that matter criticizing any of these other people.

It is funny you keep posting that others are injecting politics. Your entire point of view - who you choose to criticize and who you do not, who is a victim, who is not, who is "unfairly" subject to internet vitriol, etc. - is based solely on politics. It is remarkable you don't see that.

bear2034 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

lol he doesn't get under my skin. I'm laughing at him. Buffon. Kook. Intellectual z-e-r-o

Oh - and Rodgers accepts his salary from Woody Johnson, the great grandson of one of the founders of J&J. The irony.

---

He apparently got under Kimmel's skin. His personal chef prepared meals for a peedo.

---

Or Kimmel got under Rodgers' skin.

---

But not enough to rage on Twitter and threaten to sue.

---

Bingo

bearister said:

---

The anti vax crowd believes that UCSF, Harvard Medical School, the Mayo Clinic, Stanford Medical School, as well as all the top medical schools in Europe are all captives of Big Pharma and therefore corrupt.
The only medical professionals that can be trusted are physicians like Joseph Ladapo.

---

Some of the so called "anti-vax" crowd don't believe that at all. They perhaps believe some combination of:

1. Health "experts" provided a tremendous amount of false information. In some cases, the claims were knowingly questionable or even knowingly false (e.g., Fauci admitting he fudged numbers to what he felt the public would accept). Why did these experts so completely oversell what they really knew?

2. Unquestionably, health "experts" misrepresented and mischaracterized the effectiveness and impact of the Covid vaccines (e.g., initially being told that vaccinated people could not infect others). It was an exigency, so that may not have been intentional - at least initially. But the health "experts" didn't present it that way. They presented their assertions as "unquestionable science" that could not be questioned.

3. Many "anti-vax" people thinks that "health experts" suck at making public policy which should include considerations beyond "health". Health "experts" supported/imposed a tremendous number of onerous (and some might say dictatorial) emergency measures that proved tremendously harmful (e.g., school closure) and often ineffective (masking in most circumstances). Again, we were told these mandates were "science' and therefore not subject to debate or dissent.

4. Some of these people chose not to use an experimental vaccine because they felt the benefits did not outweigh the risks - in large part because they were not at risk statistically speaking (e.g., healthy people under 30). Yet the health "experts" (and vaccine scolds like Kimmel and many on this board) insist these people were crazy/wrong for wanting to make a personal health decision.

All of the views above - which are nuanced and personal - are often characterized as anti-vax. In hindsight, many of the so-called anti-vax people were correct in many respects - as a matter of science.

I can provide a personal example. I personally chose to be vaccinated early on and had several boosters. I am in my 50s and have some health issues. After being vaxxed, I got covid and it was a mild case. I'm sure the vax helped. I also get flu vax, shingles vax, etc. I'm not anti-vax.

At the same time, the Covid policy, as it was applied to my kids (aged 18 and 21), was insane and wrong. Due to the "recommendations" of the "health experts", my son who had ALREADY had COVID, was forced to take many vaxes as a condition to attending school. No discussion of the health benefits to him - there were virtually none. Just a bunch of geriatric health "experts" demanding they comply and attempting to quash any dissent under the false mantra of "science."

The health "experts" did this to themselves. Had they been honest from the beginning - by acknowledging their recommendations were based on the best available information but might be wrong - there would not be such justifiable distrust. Instead, they compromised themselves in favor of what they felt were "good lies."

From the top shall we?

Some of the so called "anti-vax" crowd don't believe that at all. (No, they actually do. Whenever one or more individuals believes in "personal preference" over science, its denialism). They perhaps believe some combination of:

1. Health "experts" provided a tremendous amount of false information. In some cases, the claims were knowingly questionable or even knowingly false (e.g., Fauci admitting he fudged numbers to what he felt the public would accept). Why did these experts so completely oversell what they really knew?

This, and others, are conspiracy theories, some by Jerome Corsi, who falsly claimed that Fauci released false information about the vaccine, virus origin or that he had US patents for a glycoprotein that is in SARS-Cov2. All have been debunked by Wapo, NYTimes, Snopes or Politifact.

2. Unquestionably, health "experts" misrepresented and mischaracterized the effectiveness and impact of the Covid vaccines (e.g., initially being told that vaccinated people could not infect others). It was an exigency, so that may not have been intentional - at least initially. But the health "experts" didn't present it that way. They presented their assertions as "unquestionable science" that could not be questioned.

False. This one is always at the top of the list in terms of the "I told you so" crowd. Its too much to write but a good explanation of debunking this myth is here:

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/08/scicheck-widespread-claims-misrepresent-effectiveness-of-covid-19-vaccines/

3. Many "anti-vax" people thinks that "health experts" suck at making public policy which should include considerations beyond "health". Health "experts" supported/imposed a tremendous number of onerous (and some might say dictatorial) emergency measures that proved tremendously harmful (e.g., school closure) and often ineffective (masking in most circumstances). Again, we were told these mandates were "science' and therefore not subject to debate or dissent.

Who should then make public health policy? Politicians? Parents? How does a country or health jurisdiction offer a coherent strategy against an outbreak or other public health emergency? Let's say for example, the schools remained open. We didn't lock down. No one needed to wear a mask. What would have happened? Herd immunity? Unlikely. The virus mutated too quickly. And this is what I've heard countless times over and over. Had Trump (yes Trump) not ordered a lockdown, millions more would have died. And at the point of the lockdown, no one knew what we were up against. Its revisionist history and pure politics to theorize doing nothing would have worked. And these mandates were science. That is a fact.

4. Some of these people chose not to use an experimental vaccine because they felt the benefits did not outweigh the risks - in large part because they were not at risk statistically speaking (e.g., healthy people under 30). Yet the health "experts" (and vaccine scolds like Kimmel and many on this board) insist these people were crazy/wrong for wanting to make a personal health decision.

The all out pursuit of a vaccine was pushed in no small part to public demand! No one wanted to stay indoors. No one wanted to live as shut ins or not go to a restuarant or bar. Again, its revisionist history to suggest that this vaccine was "pushed" on the public when in face to face with a dire public health crisis - you look to a vaccine! A personal health decision with wide ranging consequences for themselves and people around them.

All of the views above - which are nuanced and personal - are often characterized as anti-vax. In hindsight, many of the so-called anti-vax people were correct in many respects - as a matter of science.

Nuanced and personal can often be drilled down to "I read somewhere (conservative media) that the vaccine is dangerous, that masks are taking away my liberty and that anything the government wants me to do is a threat to my freedom". The anti-vax people have not been proven right. Far from it.

I can provide a personal example. I personally chose to be vaccinated early on and had several boosters. I am in my 50s and have some health issues. After being vaxxed, I got covid and it was a mild case. I'm sure the vax helped. I also get flu vax, shingles vax, etc. I'm not anti-vax.

Congratulations on being responsible!

At the same time, the Covid policy, as it was applied to my kids (aged 18 and 21), was insane and wrong. Due to the "recommendations" of the "health experts", my son who had ALREADY had COVID, was forced to take many vaxes as a condition to attending school. No discussion of the health benefits to him - there were virtually none. Just a bunch of geriatric health "experts" demanding they comply and attempting to quash any dissent under the false mantra of "science."

How was it insane and wrong when on March 13th, at least in California, they stopped classes? Did we know enough at that point to have any idea what the virus was or how it was transmitted or how to treat it? And are you saying you're against vaccinations for polio, Tdap, MMR, Hep B, and Varicella? Seriously??

And does it matter whether these health experts are/were geriatric? Surely a pediatrician chimed in at some point. They certainly did in my school district.

The health "experts" did this to themselves. Had they been honest from the beginning - by acknowledging their recommendations were based on the best available information but might be wrong - there would not be such justifiable distrust. Instead, they compromised themselves in favor of what they felt were "good lies."

Its people that were somehow against government "intrusion" into their lives with a mask mandate or a private or public sector vax mandate, all pushed by conspiracy theorists - that built vaccine hesitancy. None of it is grounded in fact. Couple that with conspiracy theories around Fauci and the NHI about gain of function, its tragic. There was a website called sorryantivaxxer.com that listed all the people who were outspoken against the vaccine - to their deaths. From covid.

Poor Aaron Rodgers...He has to watch Jordan Love do what he and Brett Favre couldn't do lead the Packers to the playoffs in their first season as starter.

philly1121 said:

---

Again, Rodgers. A disappointment in my opinion. Its a shame he doesn't even rep us but, now, maybe that's a good thing. His views on a number of issues are far afield of what is normally considered mainstream thought. Perhaps someone should stick a fork in this thread.

---

Clearly I am not a fan of Rodgers' commentary on vaccines or Kimmel, but to be fair he does still rep Cal football from time to time. And he paid for the new locker room.

philly1121 said:

---

From the top shall we?

Some of the so called "anti-vax" crowd don't believe that at all. (No, they actually do. Whenever one or more individuals believes in "personal preference" over science, its denialism). They perhaps believe some combination of:

1. Health "experts" provided a tremendous amount of false information. In some cases, the claims were knowingly questionable or even knowingly false (e.g., Fauci admitting he fudged numbers to what he felt the public would accept). Why did these experts so completely oversell what they really knew?

This, and others, are conspiracy theories, some by Jerome Corsi, who falsly claimed that Fauci released false information about the vaccine, virus origin or that he had US patents for a glycoprotein that is in SARS-Cov2. All have been debunked by Wapo, NYTimes, Snopes or Politifact.

2. Unquestionably, health "experts" misrepresented and mischaracterized the effectiveness and impact of the Covid vaccines (e.g., initially being told that vaccinated people could not infect others). It was an exigency, so that may not have been intentional - at least initially. But the health "experts" didn't present it that way. They presented their assertions as "unquestionable science" that could not be questioned.

False. This one is always at the top of the list in terms of the "I told you so" crowd. Its too much to write but a good explanation of debunking this myth is here:

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/08/scicheck-widespread-claims-misrepresent-effectiveness-of-covid-19-vaccines/

3. Many "anti-vax" people thinks that "health experts" suck at making public policy which should include considerations beyond "health". Health "experts" supported/imposed a tremendous number of onerous (and some might say dictatorial) emergency measures that proved tremendously harmful (e.g., school closure) and often ineffective (masking in most circumstances). Again, we were told these mandates were "science' and therefore not subject to debate or dissent.

Who should then make public health policy? Politicians? Parents? How does a country or health jurisdiction offer a coherent strategy against an outbreak or other public health emergency? Let's say for example, the schools remained open. We didn't lock down. No one needed to wear a mask. What would have happened? Herd immunity? Unlikely. The virus mutated too quickly. And this is what I've heard countless times over and over. Had Trump (yes Trump) not ordered a lockdown, millions more would have died. And at the point of the lockdown, no one knew what we were up against. Its revisionist history and pure politics to theorize doing nothing would have worked. And these mandates were science. That is a fact.

4. Some of these people chose not to use an experimental vaccine because they felt the benefits did not outweigh the risks - in large part because they were not at risk statistically speaking (e.g., healthy people under 30). Yet the health "experts" (and vaccine scolds like Kimmel and many on this board) insist these people were crazy/wrong for wanting to make a personal health decision.

The all out pursuit of a vaccine was pushed in no small part to public demand! No one wanted to stay indoors. No one wanted to live as shut ins or not go to a restuarant or bar. Again, its revisionist history to suggest that this vaccine was "pushed" on the public when in face to face with a dire public health crisis - you look to a vaccine! A personal health decision with wide ranging consequences for themselves and people around them.

All of the views above - which are nuanced and personal - are often characterized as anti-vax. In hindsight, many of the so-called anti-vax people were correct in many respects - as a matter of science.

Nuanced and personal can often be drilled down to "I read somewhere (conservative media) that the vaccine is dangerous, that masks are taking away my liberty and that anything the government wants me to do is a threat to my freedom". The anti-vax people have not been proven right. Far from it.

I can provide a personal example. I personally chose to be vaccinated early on and had several boosters. I am in my 50s and have some health issues. After being vaxxed, I got covid and it was a mild case. I'm sure the vax helped. I also get flu vax, shingles vax, etc. I'm not anti-vax.

Congratulations on being responsible!

At the same time, the Covid policy, as it was applied to my kids (aged 18 and 21), was insane and wrong. Due to the "recommendations" of the "health experts", my son who had ALREADY had COVID, was forced to take many vaxes as a condition to attending school. No discussion of the health benefits to him - there were virtually none. Just a bunch of geriatric health "experts" demanding they comply and attempting to quash any dissent under the false mantra of "science."

How was it insane and wrong when on March 13th, at least in California, they stopped classes? Did we know enough at that point to have any idea what the virus was or how it was transmitted or how to treat it? And are you saying you're against vaccinations for polio, Tdap, MMR, Hep B, and Varicella? Seriously??

And does it matter whether these health experts are/were geriatric? Surely a pediatrician chimed in at some point. They certainly did in my school district.

The health "experts" did this to themselves. Had they been honest from the beginning - by acknowledging their recommendations were based on the best available information but might be wrong - there would not be such justifiable distrust. Instead, they compromised themselves in favor of what they felt were "good lies."

Its people that were somehow against government "intrusion" into their lives with a mask mandate or a private or public sector vax mandate, all pushed by conspiracy theorists - that built vaccine hesitancy. None of it is grounded in fact. Couple that with conspiracy theories around Fauci and the NHI about gain of function, its tragic. There was a website called sorryantivaxxer.com that listed all the people who were outspoken against the vaccine - to their deaths. From covid.

---

Thank you for so completely proving my about about your biased outlook and completely political approach.

In addition to constructing a few strawmen (e.g., I never said we should have done "nothing"), you completely disregard any nuance and refuse to acknowledge that the "experts" were wrong on so many fronts - often flat out dissembling.

And yes - politicians rather than health "experts" should make public policy. Health officials cared about only one thing - covid numbers - and minimized or ignored all of the other real considerations (like the devestating impact on student health and learning). Politicians are at least somewhat accountable to their constituents and are (at least in theory) supposed to way the greater costs and benefits.

Even Francis Collins (perhaps the foremost "expert") has acknowledged they were wrong in both their guidance and overall approach. Yet here you are doubling down.

Here are his recent words (https://www.dailybulletin.com/2024/01/04/better-late-than-never-former-nih-director-francis-collins-admits-covid-mistakes/):

"If you're a public health person," he said, "you have this very narrow view of what the right decision is, and that is something that will save a life. [It] doesn't matter what else happens."

That seemingly noble impulse, Collins noted, encouraged public health specialists to overlook the unintended but foreseeable costs of the policies they recommended. "You attach infinite value to stopping the disease and saving a life," he said. "You attach a zero value to whether this actually totally disrupts people's lives, ruins the economy, and has many kids kept out of school in a way that they never might quite recover from."

More quotes here (https://www.mediaite.com/news/former-national-institutes-of-health-director-admits-to-narrow-really-unfortunate-pandemic-mindset-we-werent-thinking-about-collateral-damage/)

"As a guy living inside the Beltway, feeling a sense of crisis, trying to decide what to do in some situation room in the White House with people who had data that was incomplete. We weren't really thinking about what that would mean to Wilk and his family in Minnesota, a thousand miles away from where the virus was hitting so hard. We weren't really considering the consequences in communities that were not New York City or some other big city," explained Collins.

So NOW, after actively attempting to shut down debate, he admits the data was incomplete?

More here:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/francis-collins-covid-lockdowns-braver-angels-anthony-fauci-great-barrington-declaration-f08a4fcf ("The lockdowns did tremendous harm that we are still living with. That and the effort by Drs. Collins and Fauci to shut off all debate is a major reason the public has lost trust in public-health experts.")

okaydo said:

---

Poor Aaron Rodgers...He has to watch Jordan Love do what he and Brett Favre couldn't do lead the Packers to the playoffs in their first season as starter.

---

Once again, the hatred for Rodgers is off-base. He texted his mentee before the game to pump him up.

He told him ,"Go beat the Bears."

https://www.si.com/nfl/2024/01/08/packers-bears-jordan-love-aaron-rodgers-text