I've upvoted this because it's a series of small misrepresentations, carefully and persuasively added up to a suggest a very large lie; a seductive political hit piece masquerading as science writing. Such things should be dragged into the light of day, where they can be sterilized by the sun.<p>(Of course if you want the subtext, the comment section possesses no such subtlety; it's populated by New World Order types blaming it all on a nebulous Them - discussion endorsed by the author)<p>I'm far too lazy to offer a blow-by-blow rebuttal - although I encourage everyone to view some of the discussions for the other submissions from this domain - but I can offer some points of dissonance:<p>* Vaccines dramatically reduce not just the likelihood but also the severity of infection<p>* "Long covid" is very much a thing - deaths are not the final metric for social impact<p>* In the event of a breakthrough infection, vaccines lower the risk of "long covid" to about half<p>* Lockdowns have an obvious and dramatic effect on transmission<p>* Infection rates have trended upwards yet death rates have trended downwards, inconsistent with the assertion that vaccines have "failed to do much about anything".<p>* The assertion "we don’t know the true rate of Corona-induced myocarditis in children, because most of infections go unnoticed" is unfalsifiable<p>* The nevertheless confident immediate subsequent description of said risk as "near-zero"<p>* The immediately preceding description of the rarity of vaccine side effects as "alleged", with no explanation offered for the skepticism