You all have no idea the mental fortitude it required to slog through the last few pages of people talking past each other. I'd like to offer up a truce of some sorts. I see no reasonable objection to any of the following really obvious points.
May we never bring up again:
1) The vaccine is not 100% effective. Admittedly, some leaders made statements in 2020 that predicted more success than was prudent and now there is a backlash.
2) Older people and those with co-morbidities are as a whole more negatively affected by COVID and the majority of the hospitalized come from this contingent.
3) Of the older people dying from COVID, more of them were unvaccinated. But importantly, some of the older people dying were in fact vaccinated.
4) We don't need to repeatedly vaccinate younger, healthy people with the original 2020 vaccine when it has mutated significantly.
5) Regardless of how full of integrity you see yourself having, posting unverified and unlinked data and asking people who disagree with your point to trust you is not effective.
If we can agree here, we can return to arguing about our favorite topics:
A) Should we vaccinate children and other healthy, young people?
B) How many boosters can we give older people in a year?
C) Is the vaccine responsible for an increasing number of collapses by athletes, and further, are these collapses really happening more frequently or are we just being more effective at recording them?
D) Is the vaccine really just a Fauci-inspired worldwide conspiracy with other motives like controlling a population's behavior?
E) Does Ivermectin work?
F) What is a base rate fallacy?
G) How is it possible that a vaccine could inspire better outcomes in both younger and older people individually, but when you aggregate the data, it looks like the vaccine hurts the collective population in outcomes against COVID? Does Simpson's Paradox somehow address this?
