> The consensus has been that this is an acceptable risk, particularly since COVID itself is associated with an increased risk of myocarditis.
This made more sense to me when people still believed that the shots meant getting covid was very unlikely. It's easy to find people who got lots of shots, it's hard to find people who didn't get covid.
It always seemed implied that p(shot cardio issues) < p(covid cardio issues), and nobody ever talks about p(shot cardio issues) + p(covid cardio issues).
Did anybody rigorously demonstrate that a vaccinated covid case doesn't have these risks?
The vaccine didn’t work as well as we thought it would.
It did work to some extent. It’s there in the numbers. But it was not the resounding success that, say, the smallpox or polio vaccines were. It attenuated the disease a little.
That might change some of the calculus. Or it might not. It’s hard to tell the difference between myocarditis caused by the vaccine or from COVID or from other factors.
Imagine it’s you who gets to make the call. Whatever call you make will be roundly criticized and you might be wrong. If you’re wrong more people will die.
The polio vaccine has been around for 70 years and smallpox vaccination has been around for over 200 years. If you were to assess the polio vaccine a few years after its introduction and compare it to mRNA vaccines a few years after their introduction, then the COVID-19 vaccine might actually come out better. There was a major safety problem with one company's process for manufacturing the initial polio vaccine. 11 children died. If you read contemporary reporting from 1957 - two years after the vaccine was released - you see quotes like this: "The failure of this vaccine to prevent disease and at times death in certain vaccinated individuals and its apparent inability to reduce the number of carriers clearly indicate that polio will not be "wiped out" by this vaccine."
> It strongly suggests against, e.g. the covid vaccine.
Is that why the analogy is bad? In other words, if a line of reasoning leads you away from the covid shot, then that line of reasoning must be flawed (horrifically, even)?
I'm glad you have that opportunity too, but purely on the financials it's probably not so much of a win when you consider the heightened cost of everything (housing in particular) in a city, right?
Cities are artificially expensive becuase we ban them in nearly every location in the US, and ban new housing in cities.
It would have been an easy fix 10+ years ago, but as the housing crisis got worse and the working class was priced out, building got a lot more expensive and we have a huge labor crisis in addition to the regulatory crisis.
All solvable, but the political establishment and the political power base (homeowners and landlords) are dead set against solving it.
Depends when you got into it. If you're an older gen, you got into that city early and are likely unburdened by high dwelling costs - instead, you've got a windfall of appreciation ahead of you.
Reality is, outside of housing, city life is generally cheaper because it's much more accessible and the tax base is better suited to covering those expenses. So, older generations get the best of all worlds, per usual.
Pull up the age demographics for any major city. The older demographics largely got into housing at more affordable times and are less sensitive to rent and mortgage prices increasing. Housing costs is a cost that OVERWHELMINGLY impacts younger demographics.
I live in Malmö which is across the bridge from Copenhagen.
It's not comparable to the US in terms of Salary, but if I compare to the same size City in the UK (Coventry), it's not more expensive to live here than there. Coventry has a decent amount of car dependency for its size.
If we're comparing to a US City, I guess Orlando is pretty close (Orlando has a lower population than Malmö), but home prices are higher. However, there are only larger houses available making the comparison a bit squiff.
You don’t have to be in a large or even a medium sized city for car dependency to be alleviated. There’s a not just bikes video about this exact thing.
Housing and transportation should be considered a single budget category. If you can get rid of a second car but pay $500/mo more in rent it could be a wash.
What about the people who just voted against a party infrastructure that 1) insisted that a vegetable was sharp as a tack, 2) that you can't have a primary no matter how much you want it, 3) that the guy who won in 2016 is definitely working for Russia, and 4) is probably just as involved in the Epstein situation as the red team?
You chose your lesser of 2 evils, and others chose theirs. There is no acceptable choice in American presidential politics.
You're trying to "both sides" here, but the problem is your talking points are fabricated and were never real. They're propaganda.
1. Biden was old and everyone knew it. He still got shit done. The idea that everyone thought he was great and fine is not true. That's what Republicans claimed people thought.
2. Primaries are not an official part of the election process. They are a party matter. The whole weird Republican meltdown over it is not based in fact or history.
3. Russia did interfere with the 2016 elections. There's a whole congressional report on it, by a majority Republican committee. [0]
4. I don't even know what this means. If someone did crimes, they should be held responsible. The idea that we don't want that is, frankly propaganda.
My point is that all you USA people should work against division.
You need to build bridges with people that you disagree with
Casting somebody out of "the big tent" because of how they voted works towards increasing division. Increasing division, especially between majorities and minorities, is a time worn and effective tactic to create the conditions for authoritarianism.
If you favour authoritarianism over liberty then I am not talking to you.
If you favour liberty, support it, do not work against it
1. I don't believe that he was steering the ship, which is kind of important. Maybe you're fine with his team making all the decisions. That's a betrayal of trust for me.
2. I'm not a Republican and I like the idea of the people getting to have a say in their leadership.
3. The claim I mentioned was that Trump was a Russian agent. Where's the evidence for that one?
4. This means the blue team had plenty of time to do something about the Epstein files and didn't. We'll never know what kamala would have done about it, but my money is on jack and squat.
Again, I'm not a republican. The red team sucks, and still the blue team wasn't good enough to beat them.
> I don't believe that he was steering the ship, which is kind of important. Maybe you're fine with his team making all the decisions. That's a betrayal of trust for me.
Hahaha so instead of voting for 60 year old you voted for the almost-octogenarian who thinks there were airports in the revolutionary war, representing the party that has absolutely never hidden the neurological decline of a sitting president. My guy.
I'm not a trump supporter. The point is that neither of the choices were acceptable. The blue team can't be rewarded for the shit they pulled, even if you have the boogie man on the other side.
Also, is anyone claiming that Trump isn't steering the ship? The people elected him and he seems to be the one at the wheel. The people elected Biden, who may have been steering the ship in his good hours of the day, but who knows who made the decisions the rest of the time.
1. You think that because of a whole lot of propaganda. I don't think you can look at Biden's behavior objectively and come to the same conclusion. Old? Yes. Slowing down? Sure. Is that good? No. Was he the loopy basket case people liked to claim? Also no.
2. It doesn't matter if you are or not, you're parroting the propaganda lines. Primaries have always worked like this. Anyone who passed high school civics should know that. I did and I do.
3. "Russia, if you're listening..." lol
Anyways, people don't think Trump is an "agent" like a spy. The issue is his campaign and office are compromised and Russia has leverage on him. That's the real issue.
4. I still don't know exactly what you're talking about.
Y'all do know the "Epstein files" are mostly imaginary, right? I mean, obviously he existed, he trafficked teenagers for sex, and he kept records and such. And yeah, we already knew famous people tagged along with him.
But the idea that they're this spooky secret special trove of famous pedophiles that everyone in power is desperate to hide is straight out of QAnon baby eating fantasies.
Nobody did anything about it because there was nothing to do. Basically everything was mostly released years ago. Trump flogged it because it got a reaction and now he has nothing to show. It's honestly hilarious to watch it bite him.
in what world is kamala harris as involved with epstein as epsteins best friend trump? she probably would have actually released the epstein files with only the victims names redacted. trump, as well, one of epsteins best friends in the whole world, who may have also had him assasinated, aint gonna be the guy to release all those files about himself. democrats have proved time and time again that they will turn on each other in an instant to prove morality while republicans all drop their morals the moment it affects their hierarchical power. wed still have some great democrat senators from the metoo era if that werent the case.
-----
i think people pick by name recognition rather than by lesser evil. if folks think trump is less evil than harris, theyre probably far beyond any conversation i could have. as south park puts it, not even satan wants to have sex with him.
I mean, exactly. If they live in a reality where Jan 6 is less evil than an incumbent president getting the automatic nomination, it's going to be hard to have a productive conversation.
If, in their minds, Harris and Trump are somehow equally implicated in the Epstein scandal, all I can say is "lol, have a good one".
How does it change your calculation if you realize the lack of a primary is probably why you have the evil villain behind January 6th in office?
I'm not talking about Harris specifically re Epstein, no idea what her involvement is. I'm saying the blue team in general. And is it really a good defense to say "my team was less involved with Epstein"? I'd humbly submit that it's not.
They're not my team. I am an independent who votes for people, not parties. And yes, while any involvement with sex trafficking is bad, distant association is far, far better than actually perpetrating the crimes. Or promising to expose the perpetrators and then failing to do so.
> while any involvement with sex trafficking is bad, (why doesn't this sentence end here?) distant association is far, far better than actually perpetrating the crimes. Or promising to expose the perpetrators and then failing to do so.
Different realities indeed. The dems didn't even do that first part of promising to release things before "failing" to. Nobody in charge wants this stuff out.
This is why our system is fucked. You just have to convince people you're not as bad as the other guy, and you get carte blanch to do pretty much whatever.
Once again, because being in a political party that has rapists is not the same as committing rape. Do I need to explain this further?
> The dems didn't even do that first part of promising to release things before "failing" to.
So then don't vote for them? Though if you are voting based on this issue and have a choice between a man who is in the files and has a documented history with Epstein or a woman who is a former state AG and didn't run in the east coast Trump/Epstein circles, please tell me you aren't as naive as Joe Rogan.
It's simple: it's just a multiplier, like power tools or heavy equipment. You can use a giant excavator to do a ton of work quickly. You can also knock the house over by accident.
People probably said the same things when the first steam shovels came around. I for one like things that make me have to shovel less shit. But you'd also have the same problems if you put every person in the company behind the controls of a steam shovel.
You get less of what you disincentivize. Putting artificial friction on every single transaction is not free, and it's fucking obnoxious.
Meanwhile, the government you fund takes that money and uses it to surveil you, and commits crimes across the world in your name. And this giant machine that's supposed to stop the bad guys tells you there's nothing to see here when some big scandal comes up right in front of your face.
Yes, I think money being taxed multiple times is too much.
So you think each dollar should be tagged when it's minted, so that the first time it gets taxed—whether that's in sales tax, income tax, capital gains, or what have you—it gets marked "this one's done!" and it can never be taxed again?
Probably not. What needs to happen is the government should be small enough that you can realistically fund it entirely via some minimally invasive tax scheme.
Government is essential, massive government is not. Yet the system we have now is probably the smallest it will ever be (before it collapses anyway).
> with most content posted after ~2018-2019 being extremely low quality, outside of some niche subreddits.
I've read plenty of garbage on Reddit, but what percentage of Reddit content since 2018 do you think you've seen? How many zeros after that decimal point?
This made more sense to me when people still believed that the shots meant getting covid was very unlikely. It's easy to find people who got lots of shots, it's hard to find people who didn't get covid.
It always seemed implied that p(shot cardio issues) < p(covid cardio issues), and nobody ever talks about p(shot cardio issues) + p(covid cardio issues).
Did anybody rigorously demonstrate that a vaccinated covid case doesn't have these risks?