If I'm being charitable, I think what he meant to say was that by not taking the vaccine, we were gambling on the virus's lethality and just happened to get it right, and if we hadn't, we'd be feeling pretty stupid. It's like saying "just because you won that game of roulette doesn't mean betting your life savings was a good idea". Which would be a fair argument if it wasn't based on a bad assumption.
My decision wasn't based on luck. I knew that COVID presented virtually no risk to me. I ran the numbers myself, over and over. It's not like calculating a percentage is difficult. Even with the massively inflated death tolls, it was still less of a concern to me than simply leaving my house and subjecting myself to the dangers of living on planet Earth, and as the pandemic progressed, the danger receded even further.
He, on the other hand, trusted an untested technology with a completely unknown side effect profile simply because the establishment told him to. He exercised blind faith. And he still thinks he's the rational one here. And that is what makes him a midwit.
I still don't know where he got the idea that the non-vaccine "vaccines" were ever supposed to work. If you muted Fauci and just read what Pfizer was saying from the outset (not their mouthpieces on CNN, but the stuff they literally put in writing themselves), you knew this shit didn't work. Pfizer said from day 1 that the "vaccine" wouldn't prevent infection but "may" reduce symptoms. All the other claims came from Biden, the CDC, Fauci, the media, etc.
It was 100% because they were called "vaccines". Society has built a myth around vaccines and people believe they are "miraculous" and are always "safe and effective". People like this guy are simply have no idea why they believe that they do about vaccines, so don't ever have an invalidation point at which they will start questioning them. They will forever fool themselves but at the same time think they are correct.
This is the irony of the information age that you can be totally convinced that you're rational and correct just by curating what information you look at. The information he saw was covid had R=10, 5% fatality, the vaccines reduced deaths by 50x and only problems were mild heart disease in 1 in a million. It's totally rational to take the vaccine with that information and crazy not to.
Of course the reality was about R=2, the % fatality was case fatality of those who went to the hospital when the vast majority of didn't need to, the vaccines only helped much in a brief window after injection, and side-effects were way higher.
He's right that we're facing a social emergency. That emergency is not covid or anti-vax, it's censorship and information bubbles. It's Sam Harris and his ilk that's the social emergency.
People like him were just picking "studies" off the internet that proved what they were saying and dismissing the rest.
I was basing my decisions off population-level data from public health. Even though it was flawed (over-counting cases, etc), so long as the methods were consistent, you can still see patterns over time and demographics.
I knew (as much as is possible) that Covid wasn't dangerous to kids or adults by about July 2020 based on population data. I knew that Covid deaths were not outpacing the flu deaths they replaced. I knew that Covid was seasonal, well before they were even discussing a "vaccine". I didn't need some pharma-backed study, or a degree in statistical analysis or virology; it was as plain as the nose on my face.
Maybe I was just "lucky" but there was absolutely a reason that I (and many others) came to the correct conclusion independently while mid-wits such as Harris and Scott Adams were completely wrong; they put faith in "The Science" while we looked at reality.
He, on the other hand, trusted an untested technology with a completely unknown side effect profile simply because the establishment told him to. He exercised blind faith. And he still thinks he's the rational one here. And that is what makes him a midwit.
Exactly. He is unable to work out how he got it wrong because he is unwilling to accept that he could have been wrong in the first place. He can't accept that his opponents might have figured things out better than he did, which is evident by the argument based that it simply came down to "luck". It wasn't luck. He was wrong. Those opposed the the jab were right.
The major issue with an attitude like this is that it prevents him ever being able to improve and get better. A well-adjusted person would take this as an opportunity to learn so they don't fuck up next time, but this idiot can't do that because he's boxed himself into a corner of his own making.
If I'm being charitable, I think what he meant to say was that by not taking the vaccine, we were gambling on the virus's lethality and just happened to get it right, and if we hadn't, we'd be feeling pretty stupid. It's like saying "just because you won that game of roulette doesn't mean betting your life savings was a good idea". Which would be a fair argument if it wasn't based on a bad assumption.
My decision wasn't based on luck. I knew that COVID presented virtually no risk to me. I ran the numbers myself, over and over. It's not like calculating a percentage is difficult. Even with the massively inflated death tolls, it was still less of a concern to me than simply leaving my house and subjecting myself to the dangers of living on planet Earth, and as the pandemic progressed, the danger receded even further.
He, on the other hand, trusted an untested technology with a completely unknown side effect profile simply because the establishment told him to. He exercised blind faith. And he still thinks he's the rational one here. And that is what makes him a midwit.
I still don't know where he got the idea that the non-vaccine "vaccines" were ever supposed to work. If you muted Fauci and just read what Pfizer was saying from the outset (not their mouthpieces on CNN, but the stuff they literally put in writing themselves), you knew this shit didn't work. Pfizer said from day 1 that the "vaccine" wouldn't prevent infection but "may" reduce symptoms. All the other claims came from Biden, the CDC, Fauci, the media, etc.
It was 100% because they were called "vaccines". Society has built a myth around vaccines and people believe they are "miraculous" and are always "safe and effective". People like this guy are simply have no idea why they believe that they do about vaccines, so don't ever have an invalidation point at which they will start questioning them. They will forever fool themselves but at the same time think they are correct.
This is the irony of the information age that you can be totally convinced that you're rational and correct just by curating what information you look at. The information he saw was covid had R=10, 5% fatality, the vaccines reduced deaths by 50x and only problems were mild heart disease in 1 in a million. It's totally rational to take the vaccine with that information and crazy not to.
Of course the reality was about R=2, the % fatality was case fatality of those who went to the hospital when the vast majority of didn't need to, the vaccines only helped much in a brief window after injection, and side-effects were way higher.
He's right that we're facing a social emergency. That emergency is not covid or anti-vax, it's censorship and information bubbles. It's Sam Harris and his ilk that's the social emergency.
And Scientism.
People like him were just picking "studies" off the internet that proved what they were saying and dismissing the rest.
I was basing my decisions off population-level data from public health. Even though it was flawed (over-counting cases, etc), so long as the methods were consistent, you can still see patterns over time and demographics.
I knew (as much as is possible) that Covid wasn't dangerous to kids or adults by about July 2020 based on population data. I knew that Covid deaths were not outpacing the flu deaths they replaced. I knew that Covid was seasonal, well before they were even discussing a "vaccine". I didn't need some pharma-backed study, or a degree in statistical analysis or virology; it was as plain as the nose on my face.
Maybe I was just "lucky" but there was absolutely a reason that I (and many others) came to the correct conclusion independently while mid-wits such as Harris and Scott Adams were completely wrong; they put faith in "The Science" while we looked at reality.
Exactly. He is unable to work out how he got it wrong because he is unwilling to accept that he could have been wrong in the first place. He can't accept that his opponents might have figured things out better than he did, which is evident by the argument based that it simply came down to "luck". It wasn't luck. He was wrong. Those opposed the the jab were right.
The major issue with an attitude like this is that it prevents him ever being able to improve and get better. A well-adjusted person would take this as an opportunity to learn so they don't fuck up next time, but this idiot can't do that because he's boxed himself into a corner of his own making.