[sbmassey]

The bias of this mathematician and the rest of the Royal Society working group regarding vaccination is irrelevant to the subject of these papers, which analyse how and why misinformation is spread, and how correct information can retain credibility.

Reflexively trying to discredit them while being too lazy to read beyond the headline is a great way of making your own position look highly dubious though.

[ozfive]

Dubious assumes that my agenda is based on laziness which is in itself lazy. I read the article and my opinion is in alignment with the question everything that you don't understand camp which is the majority of anti-vax arguments regardless of the efficacy of the thing you are arguing against. No one ever claimed that these "vaccines" where a permanent solution. Everyone intelligent and capable of following along knew that getting "vaccinated" was not going to be for more than 6 months due to the fact that this was a rushed operation. No one claims that this was a tried and true solution and most agree that it was and still is a stop gap until we reach a greater immunity. How you choose to reach that is truly up to you. You can catch the virus multiple times and take a higher chance of possible death or take the vaccine and still catch it with a lower chance. It should be your choice but it also has ramifications for your pocketbook and further chance of "getting ahead" within this western healthcare system that so obviously is a bane to the income potential of individuals. When I argue for "vaccination" I'm not just advocating for your health but for your future income and that you should not succumb to the powers that be that will happily take your money downstream but in larger sums. I find it hilarious that people argue for questioning something that potentially could up their odds for getting bamboozled down the line.

EDIT: it boggles my mind when people argue against censorship yet they hit the down-vote button ever.

[sharken]

As long as vaccination comes with no strings attached, i have no problem with recommending it.

Each individual should be allowed to make an informed decision about taking the vaccine and the booster shots.

Just the same way as we have done with seasonal influenza all these years.

[ozfive]

No and this is where I disagree. The people that disagreed with my opinion believed that I was trying to censor theirs with my own. I posted my opinion and a lot of people made assumptions about it without asking questions and made their own response. I have an extreme opinion according to some people. I'm also not the best authority on all of this but the people that pile on are assuming my opinion is an affront to their safety/security. Do I care that these people may have a chance of a high hospital bill if they catch this thing when they could just as easily get something for free to protect them against this disease that right now has high cost of care once that care is codified. Hell yeah! Keep arguing against one thing when it can ultimately keep you safe from catching a cold that is lucrative for the healthcare business at the moment due to political division. My opinion isn't based in propaganda and is based more in a concern for the long term financial ramifications for most. Watch how many people have to claim bankruptcy, furthering their descent into wage slavery after catching something that can be postponed until it becomes endemic.

[sharken]

I see your point, here in Europe it's different, since health care is usually free.

For me the infinite booster shots, is something that i want to skip, as an informed decision based on available data.

That might change further down the road, but i have an equally strong opinion that people should decide for themselves.

The financial viewpoint however, should convince some people that taking the vaccine is a sound choice.