Linus Torvalds Encourages Kernel Developers & Everyone To Get Vaccinated

[coder]

Over mortality ? I do not know if I should laugh or cry.

I don't see your point. The term refers to how much higher than normal the (presumably global) death rate has been. It's one of the metrics epidemiologists look at.

[coder]

even common flu/cold itself can't be used against common flu/cold one year later or of different strain

As far as I know there's no vaccine for the half dozen or so viruses responsible for the "common cold".

As for influenza viruses and vaccines, there are multiple strains that differ enough they need to be individually targeted by the vaccine. The vaccines do not target all strains, and which strains dominate varies year-by-year. This is probably one reason the vaccine needs to be re-formulated each year. The other consideration is that influenza has two primary mechanisms by which mutations are introduced, whereas SARS-CoV-2 has only one. This makes influenza mutate much more rapidly than many other viruses. In contrast, I believe there are many vaccines which are not continuously reformulated.

The point being that you really shouldn't try to extrapolate from a single example.

[Gps4life]

I don't see your point. The term refers to how much higher than normal the (presumably global) death rate has been. It's one of the metrics epidemiologists look at.

https://www.partijvoordeliefde.nl/ne...iner-fuellmich

The only link I could find in English.

Lawyers from the USA Germany and the Netherlands, are going to work together to sue the people spreading the lies.

The ICC has already has accepted their case or is investigating it.

https://commonsensetv.nl/bpoc2020-bu...riminal-court/

The BPOC2020 Foundation joins forces with lawyers in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Poland and the United States and the United Kingdom in its suit before the International Criminal Court.

(The site is in Dutch, I used google translate, been following the BPOC for months now )

[coder]

What Delta variant? It's "dominant"? I don't know what comedy TV broadcast have you watched.

Reach to Public Health England, straight from the government: https://assets.publishing.service.go...riefing_17.pdf

This is from a week ago:

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57489740

Data shows that people over the age of 50 who are unvaccinated account for just 10% of the alleged confirm Covid cases, whilst those who are fully vaccinated account for 37% of the alleged confirmed cases.

People in a high-risk group who are not vaccinated, for whatever reason, are probably taking more precautions than ones who are.

A further 40% of the alleged cases are people who had received one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine at least 21 days prior to their alleged confirmed Covid-19 infection.

It's known that a single dose doesn't provide much protection from Delta. This is why the UK prolonged restrictions until more people could get their second dose.

Number of people over 50 who are fully vaccinated with an alleged confirmed case of the Delta variant outnumber those who are unvaccinated by 3 to 1,

The mere test-positivity statistics also don't tell you the severity of the cases. A lot of the break-through cases among the vaccinated are detected not because of symptoms, but because people are still compelled to get tested to participate in certain activities, such as travel.

Of the 117 alleged Covid deaths to have occurred since the 1^st February, a huge 60% of them were people who had received at least one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine which is allegedly supposed to protect them from serious illness. But the majority were not people who had only received one dose, 70% of those who had died even after at least one dose of the Covid-19 jab were in fact fully vaccinated, and a further 27% of those who’d had at least one dose had received their first dose at least 21 days prior to their death.

117 people died from Covid-19, over the past 4+ months, where? Let's see your source, because that should be over a very small geographical area.

As for the one-dose part, they need to have become infected after their body has had a chance to make the antibodies. It can't just be a couple of days after getting the shot.

And we know there are some with compromised immune systems, who simply don't make enough or the right kind of antibodies, which also makes them more susceptible to the virus.

The number of unvaccinated people to have allegedly died of the Delta variant accounted for just 37% of all alleged Covid deaths according to PHE data.

It's a new variant. There's a delay between cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

[blackiwid]

Bill Gates actually funds vaccine research and distribution, and therefore undoubtedly has lots of industry and academic contacts. As he doesn't personally stand to profit from vaccine production, I think he's a reasonably trustworthy reference. I wouldn't take his word as gospel, but I'd pay attention to his advice and see how well it checks out.

It took me 5 Seconds googling to proof that bullshit wrong:
https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/tops...ns/ar-BB19tg5o

Yes the article claims that he does not directly financially profit from it, but for rich people like him money is not the most important thing, but Power and seeing as good person, he even made contact to that guy that had a sex ring and died in the prison because he had contacts to get a nobel price:
https://nypost.com/2021/05/18/bill-g...-nobel-report/

All this white washing of course is worth lot's of money he will then get more invited to the white house or has other access to politics and media, which he can then use to push for proprietary property. Also he was wrong in the past proven every linux user knows that and it was back then for profit that proprietary software / laws and the production of it would be good and he is a monopolist a through and through evil person.

Since when is access to media not something you can transform into power / influence and in the end also in money? People pay lot's of money to get media time, heck we have here in germany even "state tv" that has very strong regulation on advertisement and they showed graphs with "microsoft" logo showing in the best times at some point.

They can pretent to be not satanic evil (microsoft) if their foundation is more successful, do you really think that he has no interest in his foundation getting bigger and can make people more depended on them for spending more money? Really? Let's say him wanting to win a nobel price has nothing to do with money then it's him buying a legacy as not only this through and through evil man he is, that is a value maybe not on his bank account, if you have trillions already theoretically more money is worth less, even this people seem to never have enough, but yes his foundation profit from this politics financially and when his foundation profits he get's more fame and that is profit. And 20 billion profit is not just a small thing, that is gigantic.

Let's assume I pay for a stadium as a average rich guy in a city and name it "my name stadium", some people in my city will like me more maybe buy some of my products more or at least I get applause from people and get fame and get into interesting circles, that maybe allow me to make other businesses, now let's assume somehow the foundation around that gets a opportunity that if something happens it earns so much that I can buy 5 other stadiums in the region, and I use my influence to make that happen, and I can write my name on all this 5 Stadiums, did I not gain value from it? Do I not have more influence have access to other people get more media coverage where again my name is mentioned, and more applause from more people? I don't get this absurd american theory that corruption only works with suitcase of money. And if Gates is such a great guy we should all use windows right...

[lowflyer]

Go back and read Med_ 's post.

https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...52#post1261652

I doubt that he (Med_) and you (coder) actually read the linked article in his (Med_'s) post.

Did you *actually* understand what I wrote? I think it is way too early to come to any conclusion about the safety of mRNA. Just google it. Whether you like him or not, Dr. Robert Malone has a point when he says "no forced application of experimental vaccines".

[coder]

Why do some posters here say flu is a coronavirus ? It isn't. Influenza viruses are a different family.

My best guess is that people sometimes use the terms "cold" and "flu" interchangeably, rather than using flu exclusively to mean a strain of influenza virus. Some "common cold" viruses are corona viruses.

[coder]

I doubt that he (Med_) and you (coder) actually read the linked article in his (Med_'s) post.

The linked article is an active work in progress, so I don't know if the part Med_ meant to reference got edited or moved somewhere else. However it does reference this page, which draws the important distinction between RNA and mRNA:

https://www.deplatformdisease.com/bl...ffect-your-dna

Did you *actually* understand what I wrote? I think it is way too early to come to any conclusion about the safety of mRNA.

So far, there's no evidence that it does modify DNA. As long as there's good reason to think it doesn't (see link for explanation), the benefits seem to outweigh the risks.

And if that's not good enough for you, then you can take one of the non-mRNA vaccines. Those are still very good.

Whether you like him or not, Dr. Robert Malone has a point when he says "no forced application of experimental vaccines".

I don't know him, but I think it's a mistake to read or watch whatever someone posts on the internet. Even if their credentials are real, there are fringe elements of any community. Even if what he's saying seems to make sense, there's a lot of pseudo-science that sounds reasonable while being completely wrong.

Science isn't based on trusting what some supposed expert thinks, it's based on experiments conducted to a rigorous standard, which is then anonymously reviewed by other experts in the field, then published and often presented at conferences. After that, the entire field can read the findings and challenge them with their own experiments. Some time after that, a consensus can form around the findings, if they're repeatable. Even then, it's still not set in stone, in case someone comes along with a better explanation and has the data to back it up.

So, if you think of it in terms of data processing or security, there are multiple points where errors or bias can be detected and driven out. That's how science advanced us to the point we're at. Not by always being right, but by always converging towards a more consistent and complete understanding of the world. That's the power of the scientific process -- one of humanity's crowning conceptual achievements.

[coder]

It took me 5 Seconds googling to proof that bullshit wrong:
https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/tops...ns/ar-BB19tg5o

Yes the article claims that he does not directly financially profit from it,

So, you just contradicted yourself, then. He's not profiting from it, at all.

The $10 billion that we gave to help provide vaccines, drugs, bed nets and other supplies in developing countries created an estimated $200 billion in social and economic benefits

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

he even made contact to that guy that had a sex ring and died in the prison because he had contacts to get a nobel price:
https://nypost.com/2021/05/18/bill-g...-nobel-report/

In any large group of people, there are some bad ones, and you don't always know a person's full history when dealing with them.

This is another favorite tactic of right-wing media: if they can't find something bad about a person, they try to connect them with someone who is bad, no matter how slim the connection really is.

which he can then use to push for proprietary property.

And exactly where is there evidence of this?

he was wrong in the past proven every linux user knows that

It's really Steve Ballmer who lead the charge against Linux.

it was back then for profit that proprietary software / laws and the production of it would be good and he is a monopolist a through and through evil person.

As I said before, I haven't forgiven Bill Gates for the anti-competitive things he did at Microsoft. I simply view his philanthropic work as another phase in his life. People are not cartoon villains, where they're all good or all bad. Gates is smart, focused, and resourceful. At Microsoft, he used these powers to compete ruthlessly. Now, he's now trying to use them to do some good in the world. One doesn't cancel out the other, they're separate. It's not so hard to understand.

They can pretent to be not satanic evil (microsoft)

At its worst, Microsoft was never Satanic.

do you really think that he has no interest in his foundation getting bigger and can make people more depended on them for spending more money? Really?

All of their money is small by comparison with total global philanthropy, not to mention government spending. Their goal is not to try and make people dependent on them, but rather to use their resources in the way that creates the most good, as explained in the article you linked.

I think they expressly don't want to create dependence on the Gates Foundation. I'm sure their funding priorities are always shifting, and they don't want a bunch of charities to suddenly fail if Gates decides not to fund them the next year.

Let's say him wanting to win a nobel price has nothing to do with money then it's him buying a legacy as not only this through and through evil man he is,

Well, you're going to have trouble finding anyone who's a true altruist. However, you just have to look at his deeds and their impact. And those are not the deeds of an evil person. The only people saying he is are conspiracy nuts and other extremists. They love to construct a "bogey man" they can use to try and scare people with. Scared people aren't as skeptical, which is why right-wing media and Q-Anon types resort to scare-tactics.

And 20 billion profit is not just a small thing, that is gigantic.

Where did this number come from? Just to be clear, there was no profit in that story. Zero.

Let's assume I pay for a stadium as a average rich guy in a city and name it "my name stadium",

If he just wanted to get his name on a lot of things, he could do that for far less money and trouble. His foundation is not just buying naming rights. It's about trying to do the most good for the most people. That's not an easy way to make a name for yourself.

Trump is the guy who goes around putting his name on stuff he doesn't own. And BTW, Trump is even more closely connected to Epstein and Maxwell, but you won't hear that in the right-wing media. Trump even wished Maxwell well, in her fight against child sex-trafficking charges, in spite of a wealth of evidence that she's guilty. That should make some Q-Anons heads explode, but they just ignore it.

And if Gates is such a great guy we should all use windows right...

No, you should separate the man & his philanthropy from Microsoft. And whatever you think about Microsoft, as a company, you should use the OS that best suits your needs and priorities.

[lowflyer]

So far, there's no evidence that it does modify DNA.

You're quite ignorant then. Are you?

As long as there's good reason to think it doesn't (see link for explanation), the benefits seem to outweigh the risks.

Two problems here. Well actually three. 1. "it affects DNA" is not the only problem, there are other dangers with mRNA. 2. "the benefits" are lower than what you think they are. Just have a look at how pharmaceutical companies calculate the "95% effectiveness" 3. "the risks" are mostly unknown. If you are honest, you cannot weigh them. If you choose to do so anyway, you'll end up with a very "wacky" result that should not be used for conclusions. (see your point about rigorous scientific standards below)

And if that's not good enough for you, then you can take one of the non-mRNA vaccines. Those are still very good.

What is "good enough" for you is not automatically acceptable by everybody else. There *are* people out there that have been very adversely affected by vaccines. Some have died. Tell me where I wrote something against "all the vaccines".

I don't know him,

Another sign that you're quite ignorant.

but I think it's a mistake to read or watch whatever someone posts on the internet. Even if their credentials are real, there are fringe elements of any community. Even if what he's saying seems to make sense,

Well you seem to be one of the main advocates of the work of Dr. Robert Malone here in this thread (hint: mRNA). Your willingness to generally dismiss credentials if it goes against your opinion is a telltale sign of your preconceived opinion. How serious are you about "scientific process"?

there's a lot of pseudo-science that sounds reasonable while being completely wrong.

Science isn't based on trusting what some supposed expert thinks, it's based on experiments conducted to a rigorous standard, which is then anonymously reviewed by other experts in the field, then published and often presented at conferences. After that, the entire field can read the findings and challenge them with their own experiments. Some time after that, a consensus can form around the findings, if they're repeatable. Even then, it's still not set in stone, in case someone comes along with a better explanation and has the data to back it up.

So, if you think of it in terms of data processing or security, there are multiple points where errors or bias can be detected and driven out. That's how science advanced us to the point we're at. Not by always being right, but by always converging towards a more consistent and complete understanding of the world. That's the power of the scientific process -- one of humanity's crowning conceptual achievements.

You use big words here. In another post in this thread I already wrote that I am quite amused about how many software developers act up as microbiology experts. To be honest, I'm quite appalled by their arrogance.

The crux with the "scientific process" is: scientists are humans. Scientists too fall for things like bias, success, seduction and blackmail. I don't need to remind you of recent cases of plagiarism that plagued the scientific community. The health industry is known for their excessive use of "benefits" towards pleasing scientific studies. There are even studies about bias in studies. To prevent anyone from twisting my every words, I **do not say** science cannot be trusted at all. But it is quite stupid to just jump on every new fad even if it comes from science. It is prudent and wise to take it slowly.