CV and mad panic behaviour

[Thryleon]

The highlighted term is your problem, I'm asking you about what type of evidence you accept, and you deliver an opinion supported by another opinion.

It's not that hard to understand the difference.
You keep talking about advantages of your opinion without listing the risks, it's not balanced.
You can't conduct this argument with gross generalisations, entities like Murdoch Media or the GOP are not the NIH, CDC, NHS, etc., etc..
I think you confuse the social media opinion and news media opinion with science and research, the bulk of the studies reporting the numbers are not conducted by the companies making the vaccines and certainly not conducted by the political parties. There is not a single scientific report that suggest the vaccine is dangerous, and millions and millions of people have been inoculated already, yet that doesn't seem to be enough evidence, and the long terms effects of COVID potentially being avoided by that inoculation isn't evidence either.

Then what is the evidence you need Thry, it's a simple question?

What you have written suggests you have created a relationship that doesn't really exist, both in analysis of the commentary and subjectively in reading of this debate.

Evidence gazumps opinion, opinions like those offered by Murdoch, GOP, Kelly, Evans, and that horrendously appalling Portugeuse COVID vaccine death correlation quoted in an earlier response.

Blah blah blah blah blah.

The end.

LP give it a rest, you are welcome to your opinion, dont attack mine asserting a position of dominance.  its bullshit.