svrb

In other words, the rules shouldn't apply to the elite because they're being safe unlike the dirty plebs?

The same people will vote for politicians who will allow them to win at the expense of others, just consider that.

We know that all reports of side-effects will be false because the emotional and political implications if any of them were to be true are just too much to bear.

You could make the exact same claim about a flat earth rally.

TL;DR: you're testing for likability and other emotional response.

The information you so generously "shared" was not helpful. You intentionally spread it in a misleading way, and at this point enough counter-evidence has been provided to you that you must know you were wrong, which means you are now arguing in bad faith. Nowhere on that page does the CDC claim that current COVID-19 vaccines prevent the spread of the virus (in fact they explicitly disclaim the vaccine's effect on herd immunity), but you selectively quoted to make it seem as though they might have said that.

To be fair, a large portion of the blame lies with whoever wrote the copy for that CDC marketing page, as they are intentionally obscuring the fact that these vaccines do not prevent the spread of the virus. It's easily understandable why they are obscuring that fact and I suppose we should just be thankful that they haven't spread any outright lies on that page, again by explicitly making no claims about herd immunity. Note that the page does explain to people that they need to keep social distancing after receiving the vaccine, which shows that the CDC does acknowledge privately that the vaccine does not prevent transmission of the virus.

What if you're required to take it to re-enter normal society, like going to restaurants and such?

Imagine spending this much effort to spread your own ignorance.

However the main purpose of a vaccine is herd immunity.

This is false when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines under development. They do not—and are not meant to—prevent people from contracting and spreading the virus. They only reduce the symptoms. This does not help herd immunity (other than perhaps allowing the virus to spread faster, I guess).

At this point, the autoimmune dangers of vaccines are well understood but the autoimmune dangers of COVID-19 aren't. Doesn't that mean it's safer to avoid the vaccine, until that situation changes? In fact it's exactly the opposite of what many people here are saying, considering only themselves and not others, but using their own logic!

And for COVID-19 the risks are very high.

Do you have an actual source for that? People keep repeating it over and over but I've seen no evidence that COVID-19 carries particularly high risk compared to other infectious diseases.

What about people in the risk group(s) for vaccine side-effects? E.g., people with autoimmune issues. Does their safety matter less than yours? (Assuming you're advocating for vaccinating others; if you're just advocating for vaccinating yourself and yourself only, then carry on.)

just take your responsibility and dont take it

Is that going to be allowed? Do we seriously believe at this point that governments aren't going to make these vaccines mandatory, if not for everyone explicitly then at least in practice by making them mandatory for access to public services and spaces?

The core thing to understand about Windows leadership over the past decade is that the mobile product went so well that when the project was clearly dying, all Windows leadership was fired so the mobile folks could take their place. No joke.

With that information decisions like this become significantly less murky, though still ridiculous.

So... There's no need to issue ccw permits for people to perform their job because people who need ccw permits for their job already have them? That is brilliant reasoning; you must work for the government.

Neat trick: Agents of the state demand quid pro quo for the performance of basic and necessary state functions, then the state prosecutes citizens for complying with these demands. Heads I win, tails you lose.

You claim to disagree with GP comment but nothing in your comment even comes close to addressing its main points, unless I'm much mistaken.

Indeed, the only points of contact between the comments I can find is where you agree with GP comment, namely that scientific literacy is necessary.

Go where cross compiling is trivial

If that's the criterion the author is using then I don't understand how Rust got a "no". Rust cross-compiling is also trivial and I can compile on one machine for a completely different one and send only the binary output.

Indeed, the real value of the hamburger method seems to be in making it difficult for the recipient to engage in productive conversation about the negative feedback, which the giver may find difficult.

I think we can pretty safely conclude that any data saying blue cities have it worse than bumfuck nowhere towns must be misleading or manipulated. It just doesn't line up with what we know about education levels and compliance levels.

Does COVID also inflict old age/Alzheimer's on its victims?

Yes, yes, but it's probably only those which are misattributed. There is no evidence that any of the other deaths are intentionally miscoded.

The biggest factor is almost certainly laws in many countries including the US which shield anyone and everyone involved in the making and distribution of a vaccine for COVID (or other pandemics) from any liability whatsoever for any and all consequences of the vaccine. Even if, to take it to the extreme, it kills people and they knew it would kill people and still sold it, they still can't be found liable in any way.

Other comments are correctly pointing out some corollaries of this, such as trials proceeding very quickly and trial phases being run almost in parallel; but the root cause all of this can happen is the legal immunity for the consequences.

Anyone who still believes this came from a wet market is a conspiracy theorist.

This was an accidental release of natural (but artificially-selected) virus from a lab studying SARS and related coronaviruses.

Some of us have been saying this for 10 months now.

The paradox of tolerance demonstrates a fatal flaw in the concept of "tolerance", not in the free exchange of ideas. I have become increasingly convinced that the concept of "tolerance" has been corrupted over time until it became susceptible to the paradox, and thus able to act as a strawman of (classical) liberal beliefs.

You will find absolutely nothing in "equality before the law" which falls victim to the paradox.

Or people who believe 'my side could never do it'.

Perhaps (and this is just a "perhaps" in search of where our beliefs diverge) I have the wrong idea not about the testing of the coronavirus vaccine - because I think I'm quite clear on the limitations of that - but rather the testing of all sorts of substances in the past which turned out to be deadly. Is this vaccine really undergoing strictly better testing than all drugs recalled in the past 50 years for serious side effects, for example? Unlike those drugs, this vaccine is being proposed for a huge proportion of the population and moreover it may be proposed for portions of the population who don't voluntarily agree to take the risks involved. It's quite one thing if a last-resort cancer drug kills 10% of people who take it and quite another thing entirely if this vaccine has long-term deleterious effects for even 0.1% of people who take it.

I applaud and thank those who are willing to take these risks on a personal basis for the good of others but that is an entirely different thing than being willing to take those risks myself and a different thing again from supporting force (or even "just" ostracism) on those who are not willing.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

I think there's a bit of history involved; there's also quite a bit of added complexity from the different science packs vs just launching rockets (though I've barely planed any unmodded since the current science pack recipes came out).

This makes it seem like modules are strictly inferior, if you can't assign names to common requirements.