Just to be clear, I posted an article with a link to a study using data from your preferred source (the CDC). You responded by attacking the source of the article and the study, saying you trust the CDC way more than the Daily Wire or Steve Forbes. I pointed out that the study used data from the CDC (your preferred source) so now your excuse for not making a substantive response is that I would dismiss it off-hand as virtue signaling? Twice you've failed to make a case against the study other than to attack the source and you're accusing me (pre-emptively) of dismissing the argument you won't make as "virtue signaling." That's good stuff.
Thumb agrees with you though, so there's that.
To be fair - or at least accurate - he never said the CDC was his "preferred source" just that he considered it better than the Daily Wire (which is admittedly a low bar). And just because the Daily Wire cited some Astroturfed pro-business PR group that "used the CDC data" doesn't mean the data supports the conclusions their "study" jumps to. Was their study published in an actual medical journal and has it been peer-reviewed and commented favorably on by actual doctors and public health professionals? If it was, by all means, include a link to that, and I'll read it.
if you take away the fact that you misquoted him, and re-framed his entire point to say what you want it to say, and cited a bullshit, pro-business "study" no reasonable person in 2022 would even bother to consider in the first place, I don't think you've actually provided anything of substance worth commenting on here, and you should be happy he even deigned to respond to your post in the first place. You should thank him for giving you attention.
I would like to respond to this but Mack would just call it 'virtue signaling'. It's a large part of why I've mostly stayed out of this thread the last few months. I regret dipping my toes back in and interrupting all the back patting. Carry on.
What gets me is the fact that you really have to bash your head against the wall a couple times in order to "think" any of this makes sense.
We
KNOW we're dealing with an airborne respiratory virus that spreads, almost entirely, through aerosols. And to a lesser extent, airborne droplets, and possibly also through infected surfaces, but that's very rare.
And yet people can somehow believe that nothing we do to limit the infected air people breathe - limiting indoor events, requiring masks, social distancing - helps limit the spread and therefore hospitalizations or death. And in fact, if you do
NOTHING, and encourage people not to wear masks and mingle indoors,
you'll actually somehow get better results than places that do.
For fucksakes how is that even possible?
And then all the bullshit goal-post moving arguments ...
"It's not that serious"
OVER A MILLION HAVE DIED
"Those numbers are fake"
OKAY BY HOW MUCH?
"Doesn't matter, they would die anyway"
And so on, and so on...
