Give this lady a Darwin award (posthumously, of course).
Originally Posted by : Unvaccinated Trump supporter who spread coronavirus conspiracy theories dies of COVID-19
On Tuesday, the Cape Cod Times reported that Linda Zuern, a former member of the Bourne, Massachusetts Board of Selectmen and a Trump-supporting figure in the local Republican Party, had died of COVID-19.
Zuern died at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston of severe complications caused by COVID-19, according to the report. She was 70 years old and had not been vaccinated.
"She was a strong woman who believed in speaking the truth and defending our freedoms in America," Republican State Committeewoman Deborah Dugan told the Cape Cod Times. Dugan was at Zuern's bedside when she died. "I would describe her to people as a little woman but a mighty warrior."
For months, Zuern, a member of the pro-Trump group the United Cape Patriots, had promoted conspiracy theories about the pandemic on Facebook. She has shared articles accusing the World Health Organization of a coverup of the "Wuhan Virus" and claiming COVID-19 is cover for "globalists" to usher in "U.N. Agenda 2030" — a sustainable development initiative right-wing conspiracy theorists assert is a plot to create a one world government.
Zuern also expressed support for the QAnon conspiracy theory, posting their creed of "WWG1WGA" (Where We Go One, We Go All).
Zuern promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment of COVID-19 during a Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates meeting in December and questioned whether officials "had looked into preventative measures that people could use besides a vaccine to help build up their immune system," the Cape Cod Times reported.
Peter Meier, chair of the Board of Selectmen, said Zuern cared deeply about others. "She definitely left her mark on the community," he added.
According to the report, Zuern and her mother contracted COVID-19 while returning home from a trip to South Dakota — a state where Republican-motivated policies have let the virus propagate with little control.
Originally Posted by Prison Bitch:
Probably several. We know Tucker refuses to say whether he’s been vaxxed (which is a sure tell that he has). He doesn’t want to alienate his antivaxxer audience members tho.
Ann Coulter is vaxxed And is a big proponent. Yet she hosts all types of doubters on her feed, the most notorious being Alex Berensen. Again, has to play footsie with that chunk of her audience
Hannity and Ben Shekelpiro are longtime Vax advocates.
Alex Berenson is a vax doubter? He just seems like a reasonable guy who talks about data, particularly Israel...............which got him banned from Twitter.
Originally Posted by Ninerfan11:
Alex Berenson is a vax doubter? He just seems like a reasonable guy who talks about data, particularly Israel...............which got him banned from Twitter.
Just a tad...
In a now-deleted tweet, Berenson compared the vaccine to a therapeutic "with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile." He also questioned vaccine mandates.
“It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t think of it as a vaccine,” Berenson said in his tweet.
“Think of it - at best - as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity”
In a now-deleted tweet, Berenson compared the vaccine to a therapeutic "with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile." He also questioned vaccine mandates.
“It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t think of it as a vaccine,” Berenson said in his tweet.
“Think of it - at best - as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity”
Not attacking, seriously asking. What in particular do you find egregious about this. It doesn't seem as you even so much disagree over the merit, so much as the portent of specific verbiage.
Terms like vaccine and therapeutic have lay meanings that are driving misapprehensions about the reality of what to expect.
Aside from the conclusion of 'insanity' what specifically are you critiquing in the statement.
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Not attacking, seriously asking. What in particular do you find egregious about this. It doesn't seem as you even so much disagree over the merit, so much as the portent of specific verbiage.
Terms like vaccine and therapeutic have lay meanings that are driving misapprehensions about the reality of what to expect.
Aside from the conclusion of 'insanity' what specifically are you critiquing in the statement.
How about the "terrible side effects profile" and "limited window of efficacy"?
Both are at the very best overstatements. Recent studies show people will have long term immunity via the COVID vaccines as B and M cells are created.
In a now-deleted tweet, Berenson compared the vaccine to a therapeutic "with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile." He also questioned vaccine mandates.
“It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t think of it as a vaccine,” Berenson said in his tweet.
“Think of it - at best - as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity”
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Not attacking, seriously asking. What in particular do you find egregious about this. It doesn't seem as you even so much disagree over the merit, so much as the portent of specific verbiage.
Terms like vaccine and therapeutic have lay meanings that are driving misapprehensions about the reality of what to expect.
Aside from the conclusion of 'insanity' what specifically are you critiquing in the statement.
Quite a bit.
The vaccines do stop infections. They do stop developing COVID-19. They do stop transmission. Just not 100%
They ARE vaccines:
a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases
The vaccines do stop infections. They do stop developing COVID-19. They do stop transmission. Just not 100%
They ARE vaccines:
a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases
That's precisely what they do.
I understand that the specific mechanics of the vaccination process is being met. I'm talking about the lay understanding of efficacy and comprehensiveness of protection that is leading to misapprehension.
Point being that you can have a substance that meets the mechanics of the scientific definition of vaccine, but if it's not providing the level of immunity presumed by the lay citizen and the argument shifts to the palliative effects, then the definition of therapeutic rises in applicability TOO.
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
I understand that the specific mechanics of the vaccination process is being met. I'm talking about the lay understanding of efficacy and comprehensiveness of protection that is leading to misapprehension.
Point being that you can have a substance that meets the mechanics of the scientific definition of vaccine, but if it's not providing the level of immunity presumed by the lay citizen and the argument shifts to the palliative effects, then the definition of therapeutic rises in applicability TOO.
If you're attempting to say that people are ignorant and don't know how vaccines are defined and what they do, yes, I agree. And this Alex person is one of them. Plenty here as well.
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
How about the "terrible side effects profile" and "limited window of efficacy"?
Both are at the very best overstatements. Recent studies show people will have long term immunity via the COVID vaccines as B and M cells are created.
'terrible' is indeed inherently subjective.
and certainly a case can be made that 'limited' is subjective as well.
But it's certainly evolving that the window of efficacy is appearing to be an outlier from the lay perspective of vaccination.
In just months it's evolved from 'vaccine coming' to 'vaccine here' to 'every get it and go back to normal' to 'maybe boosters in the future' to 'yearly boosters' to 'boosters every 5 months' to 'well at least you won't get AS SICK and perpetual periodic boosters, we hope'
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
I understand that the specific mechanics of the vaccination process is being met. I'm talking about the lay understanding of efficacy and comprehensiveness of protection that is leading to misapprehension.
Point being that you can have a substance that meets the mechanics of the scientific definition of vaccine, but if it's not providing the level of immunity presumed by the lay citizen and the argument shifts to the palliative effects, then the definition of therapeutic rises in applicability TOO.
Wtf are you even arguing? That becasue the Vax isn’t 100% at preventing *anything* the argument therefore must “shift”?
For what possible reason? If anyone “shifts” the debate from the Vax efficacy (which is truly incredible) to something else, then they’re a dipshit.
Originally Posted by Donger:
If you're attempting to say that people are ignorant and don't know how vaccines are defined and what they do, yes, I agree. And this Alex person is one of them. Plenty here as well.
Not exactly. I'm saying that people have a lay understanding of vaccines that this one isn't meeting. And people are acting on that lay understanding, and marginalizing the unvaccinated for any hiccups. And that the combination of this lay understanding and the failure of the vaccine to meet them are contributing to hiccups as much as anything else.
There's a big difference in the progression and evolution of the virus if people are saying 'I'm vaccinated, everything back to normal' and 'I'm vaccinated, so I the best we can hope is I won't get AS SICK as the virus continues to evolve and propagate.'
