This isn't true.

"Healthy boys may be more likely to be admitted to hospital with a rare side-effect of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine that causes inflammation of the heart than with Covid itself, US researchers claim."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-r...

There are a lot of people who have already had covid and now have antibodies, who were also never in, and continue not to be in, a risky demographic. The risk for these people is very, very low already.

On top of that, the vaccine is not entirely without risk. There have been many reports of side effects, specifically heart issues in young males. There have been some deaths.

The counterargument might be, "okay, that may be technically true, but the risk is very, very low." And the people who do not want the vaccine, who are not in a risky demographic, might say in reply to you: exactly, that's the same thing we're saying about the virus.

"Healthy boys may be more likely to be admitted to hospital with a rare side-effect of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine that causes inflammation of the heart than with Covid itself, US researchers claim."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-r...

> My understanding is that the incidence of myocarditis is much higher in a COVID infection than from any of the vaccines.

"Healthy boys may be more likely to be admitted to hospital with a rare side-effect of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid vaccine that causes inflammation of the heart than with Covid itself, US researchers claim."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-r...

Only if they actually get to see the reality presented to them somewhere. I fear that most people still won't. If they've been in the bubble for years, there will be nothing indicating to them that they should venture outside of it this one time.

When I say "If a certain demographic were ... 4x more likely to respond to a benign pullover with violence", that is a post-fact observation, with the demographic being the specific collection of people pulled over.

Why would you interpret it the way you did? Holy shit. I feel like we're going into the "math is racist" territory.

> it’s just a discussion about the fact that non-white people are more likely to be subject to LEO violence

There are answers, but you're ignoring them.

"I looked at it and the study doesn't account for anything. For example, if a certain demographic were 2x more likely to die in an encounter, but 4x more likely to respond to a benign pullover with violence, then they're actually 2x more likely to be treated with less force than their actions require.

This is basic, the study (at least on my glance) appears to not account for anything like this at all."

This is basic, the study (at least on my glance) appears to not account for anything like this at all.

Also the source isn't everything but its political leanings are somewhat-important as this type of misdirection that I've just showed here is used all the time to craft narratives around statistics, so even when you're crafting leans in a certain direction and you still can't tell the story you'd like, it's a strong indicator that the data more distinctly show certain patterns.

The NYTimes however did research it and found that "this data does not prove that biased police officers are more likely to shoot blacks in any given encounter": https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/upshot/police-killings-of...

And as another poster said [1], even if there were bias, that does not equate to likely, in absolute terms. The idea that you're essentially sending a black person to death, or rolling the dice on their life, by calling the cops on them for nonviolent crime, is ridiculous.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/upshot/police-killings-of...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29200539

> Time and time again we see someone get called on a welfare check only to be shot to death

You really need to pierce your bubble and ask what else happens that might not be shown to you. The news isn't real. Not really, anyway. Every single outlet has a bias and "lying by omission" to shape a narrative is common.

For example, did you know George Floyd is hardly the first person to have died under the knee of the police officer? At least 2 times before it, it was a minority officer killing a white man. You can watch it with your own eyes:

Here's Tony Timpa being killed this way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c-E_i8Q5G0

Here's Joseph Hutcheson being killed this way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnsE6_lVkrE&list=LL&index=50...

Another thing that's been so sad to watch recently is peoples' disbelief in how different the reality of the Kyle Rittenhouse situation is from how it is presented to them on the news, when they simply watch the actual trial. E.g.: https://twitter.com/sarahbeth345/status/1458593872557133825