What we are up against
I mentioned previously that I joined Twitter/X after Elon Musk restored free speech on the platform. I am still a Twitter neophyte but there are times I find it fascinating. It gives me an idea about how people think (or don’t think for that matter) and what triggers them. The COVID vaccines are a big trigger. If you question the vax both sides will respond. The pro-vax contingents will invariable pile on to call you an idiot.
I had just such an exchange yesterday that I want to reproduce for you here. The final 51 word reply to me illustrates what an uphill battle we have trying to convince people they have been lied to. I triggered @nancykat444 by stating there is no evidence that the jabs saved anyone. Something I have detailed multiple times on this bog. This was the post that triggered Nancykat.
Even if they drop all mandates the conversation is not over. There is zero evidence that these things saved a single person from COVID while they harmed thousands. People behind the mandates must go to prison.
Nancykat immediately accused me of being a lying ignoramus who does not, or presumable cannot, read.
Not remotely true. The vax mitigated the illness for many who might have died if they had suffered a more severe infection. This vax was mitigating, not eradicating. Do a bit of reading.
I rarely respond back but in this case I did to explain that I do read and even think about what the numbers really mean.
The jabs did not prevent infection and did not change the infection fatality ratio. They did not improve your odds of surviving an infection they did not prevent. I did read; I even did math. Politicians and media lie, math doesn’t.
Nancykat was unimpressed and it is her (?) final response that I think perfectly encapsulate the convoluted thought process of the pro-vax side.
And why would they lie? Problem is numbers can be massaged or misused. But facts can’t. And lies need a motive. There is no motive. The vax saved my father in law. 91, frail. He survived because he was protected against a worse case. Your tin hat crap is just that.
Nancykat dismissed my infection fatality ratio argument by stating that the numbers can be faked and the government would not lie. Let’s stop and consider that for a minute. The infection fatality ratio I refer to comes from dividing the number of deaths by the number of infections. Both of those numbers come from government sources. So what Nancykat said was that the government lied about the number COVID deaths and the number of COVID infections. I tend to agree with her on that, but, to state that the government numbers are a lie and then go on to insist the government would not lie is more than a bit bizarre. What kind of mental gymnastics must you do to believe both sides of completely contradictory statements?
Nancykat then believes she has delivered the coup de grâce with the now obligatory statement that she knows someone who absolutely would have died if not for the Jab. How exactly do you prove a negative? How do you prove what would have happened if her father in law had not been jabbed? The only way you can possibly believe this is if every un-jabbed senior who got COVID died. Nancy apparently does not know that prior to the vaccines more than 90% of seniors survived COVID. But of course this ratio comes from government numbers which Nancykat believes are false because they come from a government that would not lie.
Merry Christmas everyone. Please enjoy the holiday and rest up because it looks like you will need your energy in the New Year. There are still a lot of Nancykats out there who still want the government to make your life miserable.
