quoted for truth

Yeah, the problem is: "The Science" jumped to some bad conclusions, didn't it?

Wrong conclusions about something making you immune and unable to transmit a certain disease, when it was not the case. Then, based on these wrong too-quick "the science" conclusions, mandates were thrust down people's throats, coercing many who were not high-risk individuals to make decisions without informed consent and based on incorrect "scientific" conclusions. In fact, almost none of the people being threatened with their employment, being able to go out in public, being able to live their lives normally -- the vast majority of them were not high-risk individuals at all.

And, we will remind you, those 4,000 people dying: the average age was 78, almost half were over the age of 85, 80% were obese or grossly obese and on average they had 2.8 comorbidities, so they were all in very precarious situations to begin with when it came to their health. Healthy people, on the other hand, were not having significant problems with this disease.

So in hindsight, rushing a treatment in months, when it's been researched for decades without success and when it normally takes years and years to ensure anything is safe and effective, in hindsight "warp speeding" something to market that turns out to not have been nearly as effective as promised and then coercing people to take it: we now know that was not a good policy and was firmly anti-science.

On spread as usual

Come on, man.. You're better than straw man arguments. Leave that chit for NYFat and Doodhy. Covid wasn't "science" and everyone knows this at this point. It was a test to see how obedient the people will be when you feed them enough fear porn, and liberals bought that chit part and parcel.

As far as most anything regarding the scientific method, things aren't going to be right the first time most of the time. We learn more as technology advances and more research is done. Science is able to admit when it's wrong and become more accurate. Can't say that about the Bible. Does it matter how old the universe is? Not really, but it's fascinating to know and can help us understand more about the universe as a whole

I legit said high-risk individuals. Who did you think I meant when I said that if not for the people you listed?

As for the other stuff, it's a pretty retarded take to say, "See? They were wrong" when they've always said from the outset that any information that is given is based on the information they have at hand and will continue to evolve because novel viruses are new and unknown. You know, like every other novel virus ever known to man.

Also, don't conflate scientific community with social community.

doesn't this have pretty big implications for just about everything we think we know about the universe?

You made it clear that our policy needed to be a knee-jerk immediate reaction, due to the 4,000 people dying daily. I just wanted to clarify who they were. Personally, I think in an unknown situation with a potentially dangerous virus that spreads easily, rather than warp speed improperly tested vaccines, and use coercion from the media, Government and entertainment to over-sell them and force them on most of the population -- a better reaction might have been for those who felt they were at risk to take measures, wait and not rush anything and to certainly not use propaganda to promote it.

Take out all of those 4,000 who were at risk, let's say they self-quarantined, that number drops exponentially and the emotion of your argument fizzles.

And, I do not remember all the caution talking about "them" to the people you said were so quick to point out how they were only basing information on what they knew at the time and Whoops, looking back and they were completely wrong is fine because of it. *I* knew the information was shaky, I knew the vaccines were not properly tested and that we did not grasp much at the time -- and had I said as much, I'd been dealing with being censored, attacked or out of job in some cases for my trouble. It is what it was: A massive push to coerce people to take a vaccine. Disinformation was rampant and anyone who questioned it or caution, they were often punished for it. Sometimes severely.

Novel viruses are new and unknown. Running off a cliff in response to it still isn't the right answer. What is: taking your time, understanding it, letting people freely discuss it and not giving into hysteria or trying to make money off of it.

Someone proposing X means absolutely nothing. This whole paper is based on a century old disproven idea that redshifting of light can be caused by light "losing energy" as it travels. The guy who proposed it in the 1920s recognised that it conflicted with basic observation of distant galaxies immediately. Redshifts are only known to be either cosmological (expansion of the universe stretching the wavelength of light), relativistic/doppler (difference in motion between the source of light and observer) and gravitational (spacetime curvature/general relativistic). The "tired light" thing has been bogus since day one and this paper depends its whole conclusion on it among other unfounded assumptions

The bigger stuff would come if anything gets resolved/ discovered - regarding my second post

Don't hold your breath.

I don't know Patel, but I have met Butterworth several times and he's the kind of guy who is desperate to be remembered for a big discovery.

The LHC and CERN in general have a weird culture. Aside from the crazy amount of drugs at that place (and I do mean crazy), they want breakthroughs so bad that they put a bit too much faith in things.