Holy crap did this topic take a nosedive. My point wasn't even to "dismiss" COVID conspiracies, just point out that I didn't really want them on my LinkedIn wall.
But fine.
> Then there was the vaccine effectiveness, which was claimed as 100% but actually was well below that. Same for their preventing transmission, which was nonsensical.
I think there's literally no one that claimed the vaccine was 100% effective; certainly no one with any kind of medical credential. I don't think there's ever been any vaccine in history that's been 100% effective, the numbers I heard when I got my vaccine was between 80-90% effective, and due to Bayes theorem hijinks that means the actual likelihood of being immune is well below that. This was never a cover-up, the scientists were pretty up-front about this.
> Let's start with Wuhan being a likely origin point. This one gets bonus points, because it wasn't just a "conspiracy theory" but also "racist". All based on a Lancet paper that any smart reader could tell was bunk, and which turned out to be totally soaked with conflicts of interest.
I don't recall anyone saying it was racist for saying Wuhan was an origin point. What people called problematic was people trying to label it as "kung flu" or "Wuhan Flu".
> Then there was the "conspiracy theory" that natural immunity is superior to vaccine immunity; again, turned out to be true.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I don't think this was ever disputed. "Natural" immunity may indeed give you stronger immunity to COVID, but it has one major disadvantage: you have to catch COVID to get it, which is potentially lethal, and even if it wasn't "lethal", can have long-term side effects that we're still unsure about, not to mention that while you have COVID you're substantially more infectious than when you're not. Any reduction on infectiousness is a potential win.
> literally no one that claimed the vaccine was 100% effective
Well, apart from the President of the US [0], and Pfizer themselves [1], and many others.
> I don't recall anyone saying it was racist for saying Wuhan was an origin point
Many, many people claimed this; including a NYT reporter [2] and WaPo [3].
> I cannot speak for anyone else, but I don't think this was ever disputed.
Yes, this was heavily, heavily disputed. Even Nature claimed mRNA was superior [4].
I hope you reflect on the fact that it took me only about 5 minutes to dig up these links, and that what you called a "nosedive" can now be seen as an educational experience.
The "nosedive" was specifically because people like you cannot stick to a topic and instead make everything about COVID conspiracies, as I already stated.
That said, I'll give a look to your links, though I seriously suspect that they don't validate everything you're saying.
> people like you cannot stick to a topic and instead make everything about COVID conspiracies
I haven't talked about Covid here for a long, long time.
I responded to your claim with a long list of easily verifiable instances of "conspiracy theories" being proven correct - which was then immediately flagged despite containing no misinformation, rudeness, etc. The irony is lost on people, apparently.
I'm sure you can find something wrong with all those links, if you try real hard - but if you put as much effort into verifying them I bet you'll learn a lot more.
