re: 37% of placentas from jabbed mothers contain spike protein

quote:

---

Your side made the very confident claim that millions would drop dead within 3 years and crickets....

---

quote:

---

Your side made the very confident claim that millions would drop dead within 3 years and crickets....

---

Millions have died. The death rates have measurably gone up from what was expected.

If cv19 was nothing the trend would be flat. If cv19 was bad and killed millions. Then the trend should be less (in the negative). The trend has been higher.

The numbers are in black and white, your side ignores them.

quote:

---

Multiple studies have shown that there is a damaging spike protein that shows up in the placenta as a result of COVID infection. Plenty of women were vaxxed after being infected or even after. This is misinformation.

---

The study says it was conducted on women that had not been infected with cv19.

So sure plenty of women were vaxxed after being infected.... and the study says they were excluded.

quote:

---

The study says it was conducted on women that had not been infected with cv19.

So sure plenty of women were vaxxed after being infected.... and the study says they were excluded.

---

Absolutely the opposite. The study in the OP said it was testing the placenta of those vaccinated AND/OR infected.

quote:

---

The question is what kind of failure are we actually looking at?

---

We're repeating ourselves now. I believe we're looking at a failure that was a mix of deliberate, malicious power grabs, a grotesque financial incentive to force the vaccine on everybody, and some honest mistakes that we should always expect in a similar situation.

I'm not sure what you believe but nearly all your posts shade towards "honest mistakes". That's a tough sell.

I must not be making a clear case. I'll start simpler and we can go on with details from your last example if you want.

I think it’s reasonable to criticize the outcomes while still asking, what mechanism actually produced them? Because complex systems can generate outcomes that look intentional even when they aren’t. Note that is looking a range of failure modes, like aircraft crash investigators do (mechanical design error, environmental conditions, maintenance failures, pilot error, etc.). All of these are important failure modes to prevent and understand.

With covid there were numerous failure modes. They're all failures, but they imply different solutions. If you want to do your previous examples we can, but it might be more helpful to do a hypothetical or other complex societal failure to see the reasoning without the particulars which are charged.

quote:

---

I think it’s reasonable to criticize the outcomes while still asking, what mechanism actually produced them?

---

Asked and answered. The mechanisms that produced the worst offenses were greed and frickwit politicians who could not resist the power they suddenly found themselves with.

It's not that complicated.

ok, enjoyed this.

quote:

---

I think there’s a step missing there. Even if a disease did turn out to be extremely dangerous, the goal of early mitigation usually isn’t “stop it completely,” it’s to slow spread long enough to learn what you’re dealing with and keep systems from getting overwhelmed.

---

I didn't have a big problem with the two-week thing, but that was just the beginning of the nonsense.

quote:

---

Early 2020 had huge unknowns about fatality rates, age risk, transmission, etc, so decisions were being made under that uncertainty.

---

First quarter 2020, probably so. After that, which is when most of the politics was played and money spent, we knew that if you weren't very old/fragile or already very unwell, Covid was no more a threat than a nasty flu.

Moreover, why would it make sense that in the absence of hard data, we need to assume the worst? That's makes no more sense than completely ignoring the threat.

quote:

---

but jumping from “some responses were bad” to “the whole thing was designed from the start for political or financial reasons” is a pretty big leap.

---

I haven't argued it was all political/financial from the start. In fact in the beginning, Democrats were the ones downplaying the threat. It was a Republican (Tucker Carlson) that was the first prominent/public personality that went "Covidian". It became political when Dems realized it could reverse their November prospects.

I agree with you. like I said, mixed.

quote:

---

Early in a crisis you often act to avoid the mistake that would be hardest to undo, (back to our fire analogy) like evacuating a building when the fire alarm goes off before confirming there’s a fire. If the threat turns out smaller than feared, you can scale back. If you wait for certainty and the threat turns out larger, the damage may already be locked in.

---

But quarantining the entire USA is impractical AF, and that's the only thing that would have put a dent in the damage done by a virus that truly had a CFR of 5-10%, transmittability as worst feared and no natural immunity.

In reality, the biggest mistake we should have been trying to avoid was exactly what the "experts" crafted for us - dramatic overreaction that caused far more harm than good.

Also, we had quite a bit of information by late Feb/early March. The Diamond Princess was nothing short of a convenient/effective laboratory. But where was that learning considered in Covid response?

There's simply no rational support for Covid response, and that's not Monday morning quarterbacking.