Sorry, that’s not how this works. Burden of proof is not new, nor is it complicated. Thus:
> what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It’s trivial to find sweeping and unsubstantiated opinions. It’s trivial to find arguments on both[1] sides[2]. Why should I trust either? Either way, what evidence trivially and unquestionably supports “immense harm”?
This argument has been going in circles for 2+ years, it’s not like I haven’t seen more rigorously defended and less hyperbolic opinions before. That stuff, I’ll consider. What you and OP are doing is just noise.
You've at least stopped speaking for everyone else in the thread, but you've simply arrived at the same point these threads tend to reach, where you stop addressing arguments and fall back to simply impugning other's intelligence and motives.
> what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It’s trivial to find sweeping and unsubstantiated opinions. It’s trivial to find arguments on both[1] sides[2]. Why should I trust either? Either way, what evidence trivially and unquestionably supports “immense harm”?
This argument has been going in circles for 2+ years, it’s not like I haven’t seen more rigorously defended and less hyperbolic opinions before. That stuff, I’ll consider. What you and OP are doing is just noise.
[1] https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/the-failin...
[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccine-mandates-...