It's not just that people weren't warned, it's that we were presented with a bunch of a priori reasoning about why mRNA shots couldn't possibly have this effect. So it raises the question, which of the other assertions (which were not backed by long term clinical data, because none existed) were also wrong?
If you dig into the actual data cited in the paper, the assertion that recovery was demonstrated at T3 is dodgy at best. The study authors may have put some reassuring language in their commentary to get past political roadblocks to publication. I would not have added the quotes myself, but they're not necessarily misplaced.
I would still be more focused on DeFi and maybe large leveraged positions like Saylor's over Tether, which is ultimately backed by Bitfinex, a highly profitable crypto exchange which is probably still doing decent volumes during this down wave. If Tether does fail it might very well come toward the tail end of crypto price declines, when trading volumes have dried up and the incentive to prop it up is gone.
Bitcoin has only just reached its marginal cost of production. The dynamics of Bitcoin are probably different (it doesn't take years to shut down or spin up a mine), but when they enter bear cycles, many commodities will trade below the marginal cost of production for years. The marginal cost of production itself could also fall if energy prices decline from here.
Throughout bitcoin's entire existence, the Federal Reserve and central banks globally have been in a posture of monetary easing and accommodation. There may be some reason to believe this crypto winter will be deeper and longer than the prior ones, and that the absurd heights of Ponzi speculation that were reached this time will not be seen again for a long time, if ever.
> might reduce the time they can spread it to more at risk people or possibly reduce the viral load
That the vaccines could do this (especially for the new variants) was never demonstrated in any rigorous randomized controlled trials whatsoever, and if anything the experience of highly vaxxed countries and jurisdictions (hello, Bay Area!) suggests that they are actually increasing the rate of infection. It's possible that the main effect of the vaccines is to suppress immune response, which helps prevent the immune-induced cytokine storm which leads to severe disease, but also allows for higher asymptomatic viral loads.
The reference to "inconvenience" shows you are really either unfamiliar or obtusely dismissive of the skeptics' reasons for declining COVID vaccines.
It does seem like there should be some happy medium between this and Tesla's policy of not counting it as an Autopilot crash if it disengages one second before impact.
And they're surely not the only ones. Michael Saylor at MicroStrategy insists he won't have any forced sales all the way down to $3,500 but it seems hard to believe.
The "having COVID versus having the vaccine" comparison doesn't make sense because the vaccines do little to prevent infection (and may even be increasing the odds with more recent strains). So the risks are cumulative, not mutually exclusive.
From where I'm sitting, the large vested interests you're pointing to benefitted enormously from the COVID response, especially the lockdowns which destroyed around a third of small businesses and concentrated that market share upward.
It's more: unsure of cost-benefit for healthy males without comorbidities up to 40 and women up to 30 (especially those who were already recovered from Covid), the insanity of recommending the shots to pregnant women with zero data regarding impact on fetal development, reactivation of latent viruses like herpes simplex which might suggest some level of induced broader immune dysfunction, and the potential for vaccine enhanced disease or OAS (especially given the use of the long defunct Wuhan strain spike protein in ongoing booster campaigns).
Anyway, focusing on the specifics of the concerns is to avoid the more fundamental point, which is that doctors are not some cohort which one can implicitly trust to be guided by pure objective truth and scientific rigor at all times, nor are they a perfectly homogeneous group in lockstep agreement on all scientific questions.
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that it was not a metaphysical impossibility that some unknown issue with the novel technology applied in these vaccines was missed in the severely abbreviated clinical trials. The control groups were all vaccinated the second the EUAs were granted, so we have no controls against which we can check our hypotheses. In the (I know, completely impossible) hypothetical I am putting forth, wouldn't the first hints of the problem be something like unexplained excess deaths coinciding with vaccine rollout?
In private conversation my PCP will express concerns about the vaccines that she steadfastly refuses to share with most patients for fear of professional repercussions. You are operating from an assumption ("the institutions of authority are healthy and aligned with the imperative of finding and disseminating the truth") which I don't share.
We're talking about 886 excess deaths in a province that reported 114 COVID deaths. Are unreported COVID deaths at home really that common and likely to be missed on the death certificate? In my understanding of the lethal progression of the disease, there's usually a telltale pulmonary phase which is very likely to lead the infected person to seek care.