apr

Nonsense. This debunking will be debunked in due time once the party line shifts and the narrative will need to be updated. I am old enough to have witnessed these wild gyrations in real time.

According to you no links that deviate from the narrative carry any weight, but they were very on point, providing a bit of historical perspective and suggesting that ignoring these sensational headlines and cries about imminent death would be quite prudent. Greta had to remove her twit recently warning that humanity would die by 2023, quietly memory holing the message that used to be plastered all over the media. Irrelevant? How dare you!

That's a broad and unsubstantiated statement about coffee. Personally I love bitter coffee.

The article that I linked shows why even 100% vaccinated population will not achieve herd immunity. This is the meat of the article really, read it.

There is a substitution of terms in the first statement that you quoted. To stop transmission you need 90-95% of the population being _immune_ to the disease, not vaccinated against it. Do you see the difference?

The second quote by Funk got it right. But again please read the article why this is unattainable even with the 100% vaccination rate.

Don't you see certain hypocrisy in this? Aren't we told that vaccines are safe?

The whole reason that the liability shield exists was a reaction to the DTP vaccine debacle. Which was eventually taken off the market in many countries including the US.

She is a trained immunologist, but besides, her article is well reasoned and provides references for every fact she cites. Compare that to the PBS article in the root comment.

Attaching a moniker "quack" at will is no way to have a discussion.

Say what? The global vaccine market was over 30 Billion dollars in 2018. This is the most lucrative pharma market because you are medicating the whole population including healthy people, no other medication can top that.

Not only that, but in the US the pharmaceuticals are shielded from liability for vaccines in stark contrast to any other medication type. How's that not a profit center?

Ah, but "personally" is the operative word here, other people obviously disagree.

> The "market participants" would only be those mining crypto, though.

Not only them. All people who would use bitcoin in some capacity and benefit from it, they all would be participants in that market. Miners could not exists without them, in the end of the day they get their pay from packing transactions into blocks, no transactions - no pay.

How would you value mining? What's the figure you'd assign to it? As the activity it is certainly valuable to ensure the validity of the blockchain. In my mind that's the function of the market to assign value. Of course with the technology being so new we can expect fluctuations, but I think eventually it'll settle down to some stable level that is acceptable to all market participants.