And showdead is a feature available to everyone who wants to decide for themselves. I leave it on, and I'd agree people should be made aware of it. But for me this was just another example that what gets downvoted to grey here often is speculative, conspiratorial, and/or hostile to the detriment of making a meaningful point.
As pointed out in its replies, the article linked in that comment includes some basic mistakes like attributing to death certificates that RSV kills 35 American adults every year, when NFID claims 14k. Launching a conspiratorial discussion from the platform of an article with such rudimentary errors is always going to result in downvotes on this community, so nothing seems unusual about this instance to me.
And it's not like they linked a review of the paper by any kind of medical doctor. Anyone who recognizes the name Alex Berenson would reasonably assume the article is bogus, especially in the context of infectious diseases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Berenson
No - why participate in a forum if you fundamentally disagree with the way it's run.
There's plenty of places online to do whatever you want, people like it here because we at least sort of try to follow some rules to encourage a fragile thing (informed debate).
Like I said, happy to look at data about this, but not random stray stories.
Thanks for using italics to drive home how much you value data. Unfortunately, this is is a discussion forum, thankfully not a citation-fest, so some people will give opinions, some will refer to other sites, etc. Everyone doesn't have to agree.
Hard to follow what you're saying. I'm sorry if the italics made it hard for you actually read the content, but what are you trying to say?
To restate my point: I agree that not everyone will agree on content, but there are rules of engagement, and if you don't want to follow them, you should try to engage somewhere else (I'm guessing you don't get the results you want elsewhere?).
