As we have had proven repeatedly over the last 2 years, we can't stomp (or stop) the virus. Since that is not possible (and never was, so don't feel badly about dropping the ball; we never had it to drop) we should be looking at damage control. Rough numbers: covid deaths 6 million. WHO projects TB deaths at 35 million due to interrupted testing, supply chains, and interrupted medication regimes. Additionally they project 20 million children starving to death for similar reasons. Both projections are based on border closures from covid response. So far the math does not support the response. There have been riots the world over, confidence in governments has gone to shit, there are massive social divisions as governments, in all practicality, support and promote discrimination based on vaccination status.

From a damage control perspective, letting it run rampant would have caused much less. So yep, I say let it run!

Your own maths doesn't work. 6 millions with the control measures - but how many without? Apples and oranges.

Exactly.

we have in place a strong and competent tracing system. Folk who have been identified as potentially carrying the Dreaded Lurgy are asked to get tested and isolate pending the result. If someone were to attend a venue during that period they would receive a $1000 fine. — Banno

How 'identified'?

Look, the point being made here is simple. (and also answers @EricH's question earlier). There's a whole host of solutions to this crisis - better investment in healthcare, proper equipping of ICUs, removing barriers to healthcare in minority and poor communities, transparent and believable information about hygiene practices, efficient and fast lockdowns, social distancing, masking, and vaccines.

Of that list, vaccines, are a very effective aid to reducing disease severity in those at risk. Their effect on transmission in actual population settings hasn't even been established, their benefit to the under 25s is marginal if present at all, their potential to end the crisis has been labelled "a myth" by the government's own experts...

...yet all we hear about is their promotion, how anyone not taking them is public enemy number one. Nothing about the government's abject failure to provide equitable healthcare, zip about the food industry's ruthless complicity in the obesity and heart disease that makes so many more vulnerable to this, nada about the pharmaceutical companies' sickening profiteering at the expense of poorer countries...

There's one thing which will determine if you are liable to spread the virus to others, and that's having the virus. Whether or not you are likely to have the virus can be determined by a test. Any other means of determining if you're a likely threat is a secondary proxy of less value. There's one thing which determines if you're immune and that's having the appropriate antibodies, that too can be tested for, any other measure is a secondary proxy of less value.

So why vaccine mandates, why vaccine passports? Why use these second-best proxy measures of infectivity and immunity?

Why do governments push the one solution that earns the largest government lobby group the world has ever seen billions of dollars...? Do we really need to ask?

Why do the media push the one solution which earns one of their largest advertising revenue stream billions of dollars, media companies on whose board sit the same people as sit on the board of the global pharmaceutical companies (just for good measure)...? Again, no mystery.

Why do the medical scientific journals and establishments, mainly funded and overseen by the pharmaceutical industry, keep publishing data supportive of this one solution and reject, or smear, data opposed to it...? Not much mystery there either.

Why do the government agencies like the FDA who have a known 'revolving door' system of cushy corporate consultancy positions as rewards for those favourable to the industry, come out in support of the industry solution...? Not exactly rocket science.

Why do independent left-wing voices, supposedly concerned about things like social welfare, fighting corporate overreach and government 'sponsorship' rackets, act like they're in Pfizers PR department...? That's the mystery that's actually interesting. That's what keeps me coming back to pick at it.

I hadn't dared to post Norman's work, I'm glad someone did. Another perfectly decent career down the pan. He hasn't had a single paper accepted by any journal since publishing his query about the validity of these statistics. A perfectly normal (actually slighter higher than average) acceptance rate up to that point. But apparently nothing to see here...

Since it's out now - his evidence to the UK's Parliamentary committee - https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/13847/pdf/

Why do independent left-wing voices, supposedly concerned about things like social welfare, fighting corporate overreach and government 'sponsorship' rackets, act like they're in Pfizers PR department...? — Isaac

One reason I've been away from the forum a few months is I accused a private equity investor of money laundering (because he was obviously laundering money and trying to use our engineering documents and concepts to do so ... then tried to make me actively help launder money by offering a million Euro bribe), which created a shit storm that persists to this day.

But the other reason, is that the libertarian critique of most of the left turns out to be true, not surprising for the corporate left, but I have been genuinely surprised at the extent it's true for also for the "independent voices".

Likewise, I thought maybe the US needed assault weapons for all to check US government power ... but in advanced democracies we were "better" and there was effective democratic processes that made the threat of violent insurrection unnecessary political tool.

It's painful to see I was wrong, how easily so called advanced democracies become "paper carrying" jurisdictions.

Turns out Nazi's were totally correct about the use of coercive medical interventions (whatever people want to call it), relentless propaganda and blaming everything on a scapegoat that in turn solicits unquestioning loyalty to government power insofar as governments can deliver on harms to those scapegoats.

I guess the idea now is that the Nazi's were just wrong about the reasons for their coercion, wrong about their particular version of "peer reviewed science", and wrong about the class of people targeted for scapegoatism and second class citizenship ... but they were right about the basic setup, as long as the reasons happen to be claimed as "correct" this time? That's the European policy?

But it appears that gone are the times when mainstream society would think that operating that way is not ethical. — baker

Yep.

JCVI statement 19th July - ‘any decision on deployment of vaccines must be made on the basis that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks to those people who are vaccinated’

JCVI view on the health benefits of universal vaccination in children - ‘the health benefits in this population are small, and the benefits to the wider population are highly uncertain. At this time, JCVI is of the view that the health benefits of universal vaccination in children and young people below the age of 18 years do not outweigh the potential risks’.

Government response two weeks later - new guidance issued for the rollout to include healthy 16-17 year-olds with no new data presented.

JCVI statement in response September 3rd - ‘there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms’.

Government response - fuck off and take the fucking vaccine

Again, that we expect this from governments is lamentable but unsurprising. That we expect independent socially-minded people to actively do their dirty work for them is shocking.

One reason I've been away from the forum a few months is I accused a private equity investor of money laundering (because he was obviously laundering money and trying to use our engineering documents and concepts to do so ... then tried to make me actively help launder money by offering a million Euro bribe), which created a shit storm that persists to this day. — boethius

Fuck! Well done.

Turns out Nazi's were totally correct about the use of coercive medical interventions (whatever people want to call it), relentless propaganda and blaming everything on a scapegoat that in turn solicits unquestioning loyalty to government power insofar as governments can deliver on harms to those scapegoats.

I guess the idea now is that the Nazi's were just wrong about the reasons for their coercion, wrong about their particular version of "peer reviewed science", and wrong about the class of people targeted for scapegoatism and second class citizenship ... but they were right about the basic setup, as long as the reasons happen to be claimed as "correct" this time? That's the European policy? — boethius

Yeah, as I said some way back...

I'm afraid I'm quite baffled as to why the pronouncements of the medical industry are taken as such gospel truths. We wouldn't treat the oil industry, or arms manufacturers the same way. If any policy favours either of those we're (quite rightly) immediately deeply suspicious. We suspect lobbying pressure, we suspect insider dealing, we suspect backhanders, share deals etc. The pharmaceutical industry spends four, five times more than either of those on lobbying and yet those same suspicions when levied against them are treated as mad conspiracies.

Edit - "baffled" is rhetorical. I'm not baffled at all. We fear death, the medical industry offers us a way to postpone it, we fear rejecting them. — Isaac

A little fear was all it took.

Governments and their corporate sponsors are presiding over the largest transfer of wealth the world's ever seen and the left-wing want to keep the front page firmly focussed on the trivial medical decisions of a handful of the population.

How 'identified'? — Isaac

By contact tracing. I remain somewhat surprised by your questions - I had thought this a universal practice. Does your community not use QR code check-ins to identify casual and close contacts?

I understand your concerns, but I do not share them. The evidence I've seen is that vaccination reduces viral load and hence transmission.

Money heading off to Pfizer and friends might be regretted eventually. Nationalise 'em, I say.

Anti-vaxxers & Assange?

I hadn't dared to post Norman's work, I'm glad someone did. Another perfectly decent career down the pan. He hasn't had a single paper accepted by any journal since publishing his query about the validity of these statistics. A perfectly normal (actually slighter higher than average) acceptance rate up to that point. But apparently nothing to see here...

Since it's out now - his evidence to the UK's Parliamentary committee - https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/13847/pdf/ — Isaac

The idea Dr. Norman (and his whole team!) can just be removed from the conversation is completely absurd. Likewise, other experts, of which there are many with advanced degrees, professorships, questioning the statistical "evidence" of the governments as well as moral / legal basis for mandates in any case.

I was told by a doctor, who I happen to know, just last weak that she spoke with her infectious disease colleagues and they are all against the mandates and say the policy is driven by politics and not science; that the health minister her has made "fighting Covid" her little personal war.

Of course, these doctors aren't against reasonable policy vis-a-vis Covid, but against using Covid as the only health metric of society. For instance, my friend doctor and most of her colleagues were extremely worried about school closings due to the mental health consequences on children (rich kids with good parents "no school" can fun, but a lot of poor kids school is the place they get a good meal, have structure and feel safe, not to mention just physical space needed to stay healthy: being stuck in an apartment was difficult for adults and adult relationships, yet society decided the affect on children can be completely ignored; and that's not even to mention the obvious consequence on learning!).

But, ok, if they're wrong (in particular that we can know "cost-benefit" without even collecting the data about the costs!), people can present the rebuttal.

Academics that don't speak out are simply corrupt.

Anti-vaxxers & Assange? — Agent Smith

1. What does anyone here think of the link between Assange & Conspiracy theories? There's lotsa ammo in the warehouse, sir! — Agent Smith

What Assange helped expose were obvious conspiracies such as unjustified killing of journalists and torture (denied at the time ... and even if "legal" in the States due to someone writing a memo, that didn't make it magically legal in other countries where supporting, directly or indirectly, the US torture program was obviously illegal, at least nominally, in other Western countries).

Assange being extradited to the US is likewise an obvious conspiracy between US and UK governments, as the charges are complete bullshit. But again, if you use the standard any thing stamped "legal" by a government cannot, by definition, be a conspiracy to make a mockery of the law or then against international legal standards or simply moral standards, then feel free to assume Assange publishing whistle blower information can be considered "espionage".

Likewise, if high ranking politicians openly advocating assassinating someone is cause for political asylum if coming from a corrupt government of a poor country ... but not if the US does it. Feel free to apply such a double standard.

Now, dictionary has re-defined "anti-vaxx" to refer to those also against mandates; i.e. creating second class citizens. Assange, like most anti-authoritarians on both the right and the left, are against such mandates. The whole point of the limit to government power is not that "well, it's ok as long as the government happens to be 'right'" it's because governments should need to actually convince their populations to comply (use that reason and science they keep talking about to convince people to comply in good faith) and also ... maybe the government's gets it wrong next time; who's to judge.

If people aren't convinced because they have lost faith in institutions for waging unjust wars, letting elites get away with obvious crimes, degrading the environment, obvious irrational and massively harmful policies like the war on drugs, degrading work conditions, fraudulent inflation numbers justifying lowering wages in real terms and increasing rents, etc. etc. etc. maybe trust and respect need to be earned, and making credible institutions is the solution and not institutions simply skipping the whole "convince people" part and using coercion and force to implement "right according to themselves".

Are the obvious conflict of interest, misrepresenting data, hiding data, using proxy data to draw unsupported conclusions, not collecting data that can only say "the wrong things", etc. etc. a criminal conspiracy? Well, no. It's business as usual.

Do my eyes deceive me?

Is the Philosophy Forum finally catching up to the fact that everything about this crisis reeks?

All I'm saying is that conspiracy theorists, including but not limited to anti-vaxxers, shouldn't be dismissed as loonies/morons out of hand. Their societal role is that of the 10th man (vide infra).

In a group of ten, everyone is given the same information. If nine group members come to the same conclusion, the tenth person becomes the devil's advocate. The tenth person is now responsible for disproving the others.

By contact tracing. — Banno

I'm confused (or surprised, whichever turns out to be the case). Are you saying that there's a $1000 dollar fine just for attending a social gathering just knowing you've been in contact with someone who's had Covid (having been contacted on your tracing app)? In England it was never even a legal requirement to isolate, only a recommendation.

The asymptomatic, the socially isolated (as measured by 'pings'), the negatively tested, the bearers of natural antibodies, the vaccinated. All have good reason to believe they're less infectious than average, yet all have a small chance of being infectious despite their status. But only one of the five gets their freedom (in all cases - sometimes tests are allowed, sometimes not). It's the one that earns money for the pharmaceutical companies. The very same pharmaceutical companies who spent an unprecedented amount of money last year lobbying the very governments who make the decisions about who's free and who isn't.

Corporations are getting away with lobbying government into choosing solutions that massively favour them at a time when we desperately need more careful planning and social welfare spending than ever. If that's not something we should be opposing then I've totally misunderstood what left-wing politics was about.

I understand your concerns, but I do not share them. The evidence I've seen is that vaccination reduces viral load and hence transmission. — Banno

The discourse around this topic has become so toxic, it's refreshing to hear someone disagree in such respectful terms. I appreciate that.

Money heading off to Pfizer and friends might be regretted eventually. Nationalise 'em, I say. — Banno

I was pitching for up-against-the-wall-come-the-revolution, but yeah...nationalise sounds more pragmatic!

The idea Dr. Norman (and his whole team!) can just be removed from the conversation is completely absurd. Likewise, other experts, of which there are many with advanced degrees, professorships, questioning the statistical "evidence" of the governments as well as moral / legal basis for mandates in any case. — boethius

Interesting interview with Stefan Baral on that topic

https://www.newstatesman.com/uncategorized/2020/10/why-scientists-fear-toxic-covid-19-debate

Only a few pages back (or perhaps on the other thread) I cited Vinay Prasad (a perfectly well respected contributor to public health discourse for decades) and the person I cited it to immediately trawled through his previous work to find something, anything, by which his name could be smeared out of the discussion.

Likewise when citing Martin Kuldorff (didn't he do an interview on a show which also interviewed an anti-semite?), Pete Doshi (didn't he write an article that was opposed to Pfizer a few years ago?), Sunita Gupta (didn't she get funding from AIER who also funded Philip Morris)...and so on...

No-one shies away from citing government figures of industry-sponsored trials.

The pharmaceutical industry spend an average of $233 million per year, on lobbying the US federal government; $414 million on contributions to presidential and congressional electoral candidates, national party committees, and outside spending groups; and $877 million on contributions to state candidates and committees. It dwarfs, for example, the AIER's purported role in the Great Barrington Declaration by several hundred thousand orders of magnitude, yet it's the dissenters that get put under the spotlight and the mainstream treadmill of lobbying money and cushy consultancy posts is waived through...nothing to see here. It's pathetic.

The Great Barrington Declaration (which I don't actually agree with, by the way - I'm using it as an example of the discourse, not an example of good policy) was trodden into the dirt for receiving web hosting and administrative support from AIER (who, again, I've got absolutely no time for) totalling some thousand at most. The government appointed CDC declarations are treated as gospel despite receiving over a billion dollars from the very industry whose products their pronouncements are about - and no-on even so much as raises an eyebrow.

This pre-print is interesting, though I wouldn’t know enough to dispute or confirm either way.

Evaluating the number of unvaccinated people needed to exclude to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmissions

Background:

Vaccine mandates and vaccine passports (VMVP) for SARS-CoV-2 are thought to be a path out of the pandemic by increasing vaccination through coercion and excluding unvaccinated people from different settings because they are viewed as being at significant risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2. While variants and waning efficacy are relevant, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines reduce the risk of infection, transmission, and severe illness/hospitalization in adults. Thus, higher vaccination levels are beneficial by reducing healthcare system pressures and societal fear. However, the benefits of excluding unvaccinated people are unknown.

Conclusion

Vaccines are beneficial, but the high NNEs suggest that excluding unvaccinated people has negligible benefits for reducing transmissions in many jurisdictions across the globe. This is because unvaccinated people are likely not at significant risk – in absolute terms – of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to others in most types of settings since current baseline transmission risks are negligible. Consideration of the harms of exclusion is urgently needed, including staffing shortages from losing unvaccinated healthcare workers, unemployment/unemployability, financial hardship for unvaccinated people, and the creation of a class of citizens who are not allowed to fully participate in many areas of society.

In England it was never even a legal requirement to isolate, only a recommendation. — Isaac

...that worked well.

...that worked well. — Banno

Never hear people mention the under reaction happens on an exponential curve and the over reaction on a logistic curve. When something fails to contain the virus and there is no virus the result is minimal, but the opposite means one step the other direction results in a greater negative result.

I was pitching for up-against-the-wall-come-the-revolution, but yeah...nationalise sounds more pragmatic! — Isaac

That could work, though I don't know about large international companies.
(Now wait for someone to yell "Communism!", "Theft!" :grin:)
Jail time for employees that can be held accountable, board members, ...
Being health-related means serious enough, laissez-faire capitalism won't do.

Anyway, a bit peripheral here, might warrant a new opening post, though I'd expect most to be disgusted about the scandals.

^{Some high profile scandals, might have been posted before ...
• Bristol-Myers Squibb to Pay More Than $515 Million to Resolve Allegations of Illegal Drug Marketing and Pricing (Sep 28, 2007)
• Merck to Pay More than $650 Million to Resolve Claims of Fraudulent Price Reporting and Kickbacks (Feb 7, 2008)
• The Case Against Pfizer (Sep 2, 2009)
• Pharmaceutical Giant AstraZeneca to Pay $520 Million for Off-label Drug Marketing (Apr 27, 2010)
• GlaxoSmithKline whistleblower awarded $96m payout (Oct 27, 2010)
• GlaxoSmithKline to Plead Guilty and Pay $3 Billion to Resolve Fraud Allegations and Failure to Report Safety Data (Jul 2, 2012)
• Johnson & Johnson to Pay More Than $2.2 Billion to Resolve Criminal and Civil Investigations (Nov 4, 2013)
• Lessons from GlaxoSmithKline’s record $492 million bribery fine in China (Sep 23, 2014)}

better investment in healthcare, proper equipping of ICUs, removing barriers to healthcare in minority and poor communities, transparent and believable information about hygiene practices . . . — Isaac

If we were to do a Venn Diagram of our positions, there would be a fair amount of overlap. I would enthusiastically support all of these things even if the pandemic had never happened.

efficient and fast lockdowns, social distancing, masking, and vaccines. — Isaac

I would put vaccines second in that list but otherwise we are largely in agreement.

There's one thing which will determine if you are liable to spread the virus to others, and that's having the virus. Whether or not you are likely to have the virus can be determined by a test. — Isaac

I guess daily testing of the entire population and enforced isolation of people who test positive might also work. I can't speak for other countries, but that would never fly in the good old USA.

There's one thing which determines if you're immune and that's having the appropriate antibodies — Isaac

I could be mistaken but to the best of my knowledge that is not correct. You can have antibodies and still get Covid - albeit most likely a mild case.

Why do governments push the one solution that earns the largest government lobby group the world has ever seen billions of dollars... — Isaac

Agree that the profit motive should be removed from health care in the USA. But I do not buy the narrative that the influence of the evil pharmaceuticals extends to all the countries in the world that have socialized medical systems.

{vaccines] are a very effective aid to reducing disease severity in those at risk — Isaac

Whether vaccine mandates prevent transmission is an open question - there are both pro & con studies. But I still go back to the fact that the daily death rate in the US is over 1K and that 99% of the deaths are unvax'd. In New York City, after vaccines were mandated for municipal workers? The rate of vaccinated workers shot up dramatically. I don't have the exact figures, but it went from something like 60% to over 90%. If vaccine mandates will get folks to take the jab when they otherwise would not, then I approve.

People who are trying to harm you and people who happen to harm you because they are wrong are two very different categories of people.

This seems to be another common theme here, judging other people's intents using your beliefs. Other people act on the basis of their beliefs, not yours.

If they think the vaccine is overall more harmful then you'd judge them to be mistaken, not selfish.

I can get behind the idea that selfish people deserve any negative consequence they reap, I find it a lot harder to get behind the idea that mistaken people do. — Isaac

This is going back to my schadenfreude. I get the distinction between being deliberately harmed and mistakenly harmed, but this only goes so far. Regarding beliefs, one of the most common topics of conversation on TPF is the distinction between knowledge & beliefs. I am not going too deeply down that particular rabbit hole, but if a person's beliefs do not correspond to reality then bad things can happen. I understand why people are suspicious of government (especially African -American), but at some point you have to either accept the facts or take your chances.

We are all responsible for the reasonably predictable consequences of our actions. If a person does not get a vaccine and they also put themselves in situations where they can get exposed, they are gambling not only with their health & lives but also the health & lives of the people they are close to.

Now if a person were to say "It's my choice, and if I get Covid I will stay at home and accept the consequences of my actions - if necessary I will die of Covid so that I will not put an unnecessary burden on the health system. Plus I will pay for the medical costs of anyone I infect"

I guess I could sort of respect that. But that's not happening. Instead large numbers of people are ignoring sound medical advice that in most cases would keep them healthy, but when they get sick they go back to the same medical system whose advice they ignored.

When I hear about one of these anti-vax media commentators dying of Covid, I cannot help but feeling some moment of schadenfreude.

- - - - - - - - -
I thank you again for your thoughtful and reasoned responses. My real world activities are calling and I have to bow out of this conversation.

Cornell University reports more than 900 Covid-19 cases this week. Many are Omicron variant cases in fully vaccinated students

"Virtually every case of the Omicron variant to date has been found in fully vaccinated students, a portion of whom had also received a booster shot," said Vice President for University Relations Joel Malina in a statement.

As of result, the school has decided to shut down its Ithaca, New York, campus, where it has about 25,600 students. Cornell's overall vaccination rate among students is 97%.

[ … ]

The school has a mandatory vaccination policy for students, with exemptions for religious or medical issues. All unvaccinated students and many vaccinated students are required to take part in surveillance testing. Mask wearing indoors is compulsory.

Employees must be vaccinated by January 18. Ninety-seven percent of people on campus are fully vaccinated, the university says on its website.

"Cornell is not requiring members of our community to receive a booster at this time; however, as breakthrough cases continue to occur, we encourage you to consider receiving a booster," officials said.

An institution with a mandatory vaccination policy, compulsory mask policy, and surveillance testing has become a den of superspreaders. So what will they think of next?

A little fear was all it took. — Isaac

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: !

I'd expect most to be disgusted about the scandals. — jorndoe

Most? Most seem to presume their products are manna from heaven, their every word is the gospel truth and any notion that they might be manipulating information wild conspiracy theory.

I've posted most of those before. Between the deafening silence, in place of solidarity, I was accused of being mentally ill.

So no. I don't think most would be disgusted about the scandals. Most want to sweep the scandals under the rug and pretend it isn't happening. See my response to Boethius above.

The Great Barrington Declaration (which I don't actually agree with, by the way - I'm using it as an example of the discourse, not an example of good policy) was trodden into the dirt for receiving web hosting and administrative support from AIER (who, again, I've got absolutely no time for) totalling some thousand at most. The government appointed CDC declarations are treated as gospel despite receiving over a billion dollars from the very industry whose products their pronouncements are about - and no-one even so much as raises an eyebrow. — Isaac

It's not enough to look at all those scandals and simply say 'tsk!'. These people are in charge of the response to the crisis. I just don't understand how people cannot put the two facts together.

They (you included) seem to have no trouble seeing the severity of the disease. They maybe agree that the pharmaceutical industry (and their ties with government and regulators) are as bent as a nine-bob note. Then, when deciding what to fill the front pages with, think that the fact that these criminals are being handed the reins and unflichingly believed wholesale at every turn is of secondary import to that fact that a few nutjobs think the vaccine turns them into a 5g transmitter.

That's the great thing about propaganda eh, you can always say "but think how bad it would be IF we hadn't done it!" All I know is that if one uses that same logic on a business model one soon finds oneself being charged with fraud. I find it concerning that it's ok for public health and the government however.

So what will they think of next? — NOS4A2

No chance they say "ah shit, nothing is working, might as well stop all the bullshit restrictions and carry on." Too bad really, because that is the most logical approach. Don't worry though, someone will say I am an anti-vaxer and write me off. It is much more comfortable for them that way.

"Virtually every case of the Omicron variant to date has been found in fully vaccinated students, a portion of whom had also received a booster shot,"

That's a misleading quote.
All students at Cornell are supposed to be fully vaccinated, otherwise they aren't supposed to be there.
Breakthrough cases are always to be expected with the proportions depending on 1) social distancing 2) virulence of the variant.

The main problem is the lack of social distancing. Vaccines can only help to a statistical extent and even then, only for non-idiots.

That's a misleading quote. — magritte

Misleading how? The point being made was...

An institution with a mandatory vaccination policy, compulsory mask policy, and surveillance testing has become a den of superspreaders. So what will they think of next? — NOS4A2

...(literally the only point made in the entire post).

So how does the fact that everyone there is vaccinated make the quote misleading with regards to that point. It is indeed true that the policies in place (specifically the vaccine) have not worked to prevent this cluster, that's the only point being made and the quote supports it entirely transparently.

The main problem is the lack of social distancing. — magritte

No, the main problem is that the vaccine is a poison making those who take it vulnerable to the new variant.

(see what we can do if we abandon the need to cite our theories?)

literally the only point made in the entire post — Isaac

But you didn't make any point at all. I wish you would.

Lack of social distancing is the superspreader, and that's regardless of any variant of COVID or any other communicable disease.
College campuses are social gatherings, students are there to socialize, and it's this lack of social distancing aspect that the university is addressing.