Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As long as the virus has animal hosts you can not eradicate it or prevent mutations from occurring. The virus, fyi, is more likely to mutate in animals and then be passed back to humans. The reason they are saying mutations can be kept down through vaccinations, which is true, is that there are less people to pass it around. The same phenomenon occurs with naturally acquired immunity as with vaccinated people. However, what the scientist are not saying, and even though they know it is true based on decades upon decades of studies of viral behavior, is that mutations are more likely to occur in the vaccinated or the previously infected than those experiencing their initial infection. This is because the vaccinated and previously infected quickly kill off the recognized virus and might miss a mutation, and because the prominent virus was killed it will have a greater chance of reproducing. The initially infected will have more of the prominent virus which they know will tend to retard the growth of mutated viruses, because interestingly viruses often kill off other viruses. This is well established science. It is also the same general mechanism by which we get antibiotic resistant bacteria.
All that aside, yes people should get the vaccine if they can for their own good because it does appear to lessen the severity of the disease.
But, that is not issue in this thread. The issue is someone has decided to designate “truth” and “misinformation” and they are doing it for a virus/disease in its infancy, which means we don’t even know what we don’t know about it. Science is supposed to be about asking questions and exploring possibilities, not declaring theories as fact.
That part of your response I bolded, is this related to the Sarah Caddy article of July 12, 21 in World Economic Forum? They acknowledge that, but go on to say animal to human transmission is difficult. As to the notion of higher rates of mutations passing in vaccinated and exposed populations, I've read some in 'Insider', "Virologists call variations of a virus that slip past vaccine- or illness-induced immune defenses "escape mutants."" . I do not know if we are allowed to post links, but since you are a moderator on the form, I'll leave these: https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/6...cines-debunked https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/co...n-transmission https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/...rs-cov-2-pets/
You can easily delete these if not allowed?
I do not pay much attention to information outside the formal journals, as they tend to sensationalize information for sensation copy and product sale with untestable assumptions and half back replicated studies.
Your idea of 'escaped mutants' may be a concern, and it makes sense, but I have not seen that as an outcome in a formal study.
You’re very confused. There’s nothing “free market” about YouTube or any of the tech monopolies. Nothing at all. They have and abuse the hell out of special legal immunity which you and I don’t get to enjoy.
It’s not “capitalisms[sic] and free markets”. It’s crony capitalism and corruption. Just look at what they did to Parler, if you really need a clear example, which at this point, you shouldn’t, but then you do believe that “it’s called capitalisms[sic] and free markets,” so…
This is where you are confused about the "special legal immunity". That immunity blocks lawsuits against the platform owner due to something that was posted by an end user. Example would be posting copyrighted movie on YouTube. The copyright holder can't sue YouTube they can only sue the person who posted it.
If the immunity was removed the platform would have to completely remove anything that could land them in court. They would be responsible for the content posted. Removing section 230 immunity would only cause most online platforms to completely remove politics. Censorship would increase 1000% this is why I laugh when I used to see Trump harping on section 230. This would ruin rightwing websites because it would open them up to massive lawsuits because sites like Parler and others are mostly politics they simple go out of business.
A scientific theory is the highest proof available. It is NOT speculation, which most amateur lay people think it is. A scientific hypothesis is presented for testing, and a theory develops once peer review, including replicating that testing, occurs.
Please learn the terminology, as so many people do not understand this.
One of us has a masters degree in one of the hard sciences, has taught science for decades, and has even taught hundreds of people how to teach science. I know terminology just fine.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Ever heard of Verizon? AT&T? T-Mobile? Cricket? etc, etc. There are multiple phone services out there-perhaps you've been living in a cave the last 3 decades? Perhaps each one should start censoring the calls discussing political positions they don't approve of.
You can't share your own information if all the phone companies are censoring you. Nice try with your fallacious argument. Not the same thing.
This is where you are confused about the "special legal immunity". That immunity blocks lawsuits against the platform owner due to something that was posted by an end user. Example would be posting copyrighted movie on YouTube. The copyright holder can't sue YouTube they can only sue the person who posted it.
If the immunity was removed the platform would have to completely remove anything that could land them in court. They would be responsible for the content posted. Removing section 230 immunity would only cause most online platforms to completely remove politics. Censorship would increase 1000% this is why I laugh when I used to see Trump harping on section 230. This would ruin rightwing websites because it would open them up to massive lawsuits because sites like Parler and others are mostly politics they simple go out of business.
I'm not confused. Not one bit. You're missing the ABUSE of that law. They are NOT acting as common carriers, which was the intent of the law. They're acting as content publishers, editorializing and selectively promoting certain channels or ideas, while demoting others.
Also, not once did I say that 230 should be repealed. Never even hinted at it, because it's not what I think. You assumed that. What we need is enforcement of the provision first, to let these companies know that they're required to follow the law as written. After they've come into compliance, and not a moment sooner, 230 should be reformed. I would never, ever support its complete removal, because I understand better than you and most other people what it would mean.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
