Dalewhatdale

Like with any other drug or medicinal product, and particularly newly approved ones, "data on how many jabbed people have suffered from serious side effects let alone died" MUST be collected by law by each country's pharmacovigilance authorities. This data is being collected and analysed on a ongoing basis, it's the law at least in all advanced countries.

Lol, of course. There are a LOT more vaccinated people. You have to look at death RATES in each group, and its immediately evident to anyone with half a brain that UNvaccinated people are dieing more. Vaccination doesn't give a 100% guarantee (very few medical interventions do, but most are better than the alternative), but it decreases your risk of dieing from/with covid by a lot. If anything is closer to giving some kind of guarantee (of dieing from/with covid), that's being UNvaccinated. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/why-do-vaccinated-people-represent-most-covid-19-deaths-right-now/

Holy sh*t, are people still going on with that "WITH covid, not FROM covid" bs? Ignorance is truly rampant these days. There is now data from hundreds, if not thousands of millions of people both vacinated and not, and from those who have died WHILE having covid. And the indisputable fact is that UNVACCINATED people have a far higher risk of dieing WHILE having covid than VACCINATED people. Irrespective of whether they died FROM or just WITH it: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-compare-covid-deaths-for-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people/ How do you armchair virologists, epidemiologists and know-it-alls explain this? Give us a break already with your moronic, half-baked "theories".

Lol, you're clearly not a trained scientist. As for those quotes, Ebban wasn't a scientist, and while Thatcher and Crichton both had scientific or medical degrees, they'd clearly forgotten a lot about it by the time the said/wrote such things. Particularly Thatcher, who was an extremely bigoted, right-wing politician and as such hated the word "consensus" based on its ideological charge alone. And Chrichton enjoyed being a contrarian on issues like climate change and others for the sake of it, or the additional fame it broguht him; not surprisingly as that's why the vast majority of contrarians do what they do. Of course Crichton despised consensus. He had no idea of its role in scientific research, and that ignorance served his purposes. But without consensus based on solid evidence (goes without saying), there's just no science. I'm not talking about lay people debating things and agreeing on stuff out of thin air or based on ideology or personal preference, but of experts in a field accepting a number of assumptions as valid and a body of evidence as well established, thus providing a solid foundation to build on (i.e. do further research).

Nope, dude. "Everyone" didn't get it anyway, and those who did didn't get to suffer life-threatening disease, or die thanks precisely to the jabs. And if transmission hadn't been greatly reduced by mask mandates and other measures, millions wouldn't have made it to the stage where the life-saving jabs were available. Unfortunately, the virus keeps mutating into new variants that escape our immunity, and too many people keep dying or suffering from long-COVID as a result. If you find that wearing a mask is too much of a personal effort for you to make in order to help reducing virus circulation, well, at least try not to be so smug about it. It's the very least one could ask for.

Wait, you wrote "That's science" a few times on a previous post trying to dispute the efficacy of masks, but now that you've been proven wrong, you change your tune to "but scientists don't even agree with each other". Which is it? I have news for you, there has never been, is or will be anything on which 100% of scientists agree. There are many reasons for that, but I won't go into them. What there is, and that's how science operates most of the time is a consensus of experts, meaning that the vast majority of scientists working on a field agree that there is enough evidence to support what is accepted as the prevailing view. We're talking a level of agreement of 85-90% or even higher among the experts working in that particular field. The people who know the issue inside out and far better than anybody else in the world. Something like what's been going on the issue of global warming, except that question is even more muddled due to the massive economic interests of companies and people who'd rather destroy our planet than make less profit. Why would anyone choose to believe the small minority of outliers who don't support the prevailing consensus without providing solid evidence to do so, I'll never understand. Particularly when this small minority is populated to a high degree (and this pandemic has been no exception) with researchers who are NOT experts in the specific field being discussed (being a great motorbike pilot doesn't make you an expert in F1 racing), as well as with second-rate academicians who haven't made a mark with their work and jump at the first chance of gaining notoriety by being a contrarian based on no solid evidence. If you choose to believe what those people say just because it's more convenient for your lifestyle or fits with your own, totally unbased and non-scientific beliefs, that's your choice. I regret it as a fellow member of society, but that's how it is. Just don't say "that's science" when it's not. Finally, think about it. I don't know what your line of work is/was, nor how complex it is or how much training and experience it takes to become competent in it. But if you'd been working in some capacity for decades, and you read complete aficionados flippantly dismiss your expert opinions on the very subject you know better than most, you'd most likely think they were uninformed fools. Well...

Nonsense. That's what you call science. As mentioned in this academic review written by actual scientists: "A simple mask cut from a t-shirt achieved a fit score of 67, offering substantial protection from the challenge aerosol and showing good fit with minimal leakage." https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118 There's more: https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0264389 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-022-01814-3 Masks DO work in the community setting by reducing transmission, and even a basic one is far better than no mask.

The 'entire world' is not. At all. There are still countries where masks are mandatory on public transportation, and for good reason. It's insane how many people are still diying from COVID or being left with serious long-term effects after recovering from infection. Pretending it isn't happening won't make things better. As always since this thing started (although you'd think some people would have learnt something), the thread is full of comments by armchair know-it-alls who believe they know better than trained doctor and scientists. Seriously, what a joke.

What on earth are those zig-zag lines for? I imagine they signal the proximity of a zebra crossing, but as a non-British driver (I supposed that's where they copied from) I find them ugly (not important) and distracting (important) as hell! They should've saved money on paint and kept it simple, for all the good this'll do.