You probably believe that virology is science based. Well I know it is not.
Your superstitions do not make virology scientific.
The same can be said for the alarmist climate modelers who simply ignore most emissions (vulkanos etc.) to get to their ridiculous conclusions.

The CO2 level is rising because of rising temperature. This is evident when looking at 1500 year climate history.
The optimum for humans would be ~quadrupled CO2 levels because plants just grow better. Peak CO2 correlates clearly with civilisation peaks multiple times.
You're being scammed.

No one denies that climate changes.
Thinking that CO2 *causes* global warming is frankly retarded. It is a transparent gas. Correlation is not causation. Look it up - no one is hiding the information from you that CO2 is transparent.

That is not science. But the science is simple.
The correlation between CO2 growth and temperature growth does not imply the direction of causality or any causality.
CO2 is transparent. It does not cause any greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect really is convection, not reflection, meaning that it works by keeping the warm air in. I'm not seeing any glass dome.
The actual reflection in the atmosphere, which is not a greenhouse effect, but may still keep warmth in, is caused by water vapor. It is not transparent.
More CO2 also means more growth of certain plants, like trees in the rainforest. It means more plant life. Of course that cannot be bad.
It saddens me to see that media propaganda and misquoting that famous poll among scientists has more effect than simple science.

Scientists can read the stats, but obviously you are not able to understand what science sais:
CO2 has no effect on climate. It has not been warming significantly for a decade (or more).
Global warming is primarily caused by sun cycles. The global warming of the last century is neither special nor dramatic.

Of course they should be fired.
Violation of most constitutions and the nuremburg code.
Vaxxers have their believe system that 'Viruses' make sick or that bacteria make you sick.

They also believe that injecting toxins will 'protect' when in fact toxins make you sick.
Don't let me get into the details of vaccine production or trials on infants, the poor, orphans, handicapped people - the details are horrific.

The causal chain showing that viruses or bacteria *cause* disease does not exist. It is 'believed' and this believe can be dangerous, like any religion.

How a religion / fake science of disease causing viruses threw half the world into chaos.

There's not even overwhelming evidence that HIV is infectious. Don't believe this PR BS that is dominating Wikipedia.

Funny how one can write extensively about past Infodemics while at the same time trusting the current narratives, like the global Covid19 infodemic.
We already had soo many PR-Narratives. This time it's different, this time it's real.
See you in 10 years...

How children react to Sars-Cov2 matches pretty much how immune is defined.
Single rare cases do not invalidate the claim.
So "almost" is wrong, by the usual definition of immune.
Maybe that is the reason why it was banned. ;)

It is no longer funny how some people appear to succeed in enforcing their version of the truth. THAT is the real danger.

(Note: I don't care about trump or american politics in general, but this "censorship" through private corporations goes to far)

It is called a pandemic because it spreads worldwide und the WHO found it convenient to call it a pandemic. This is the precisely the definition. Severity does not factor in.
In the real world we have many more dangerous infectious diseases every year that kill a similar number of people globally, every year. Those *other* diseases could be called pandemic, because the satisfy the definition, but they are not. (For example Malaria, TBC, Seasonal Flu of 17/18)

Side effects severity are expected to follow the gaussian bell curve.
If *everyone* had somewhat severe side effects among healthy young people in a small trial, then you can be sure that on the left of the curve, there would be plenty people with only light or no side effects.
But you can also be sure there would be *plenty* people on the right side who would have much more severe side effects, including death.

The problem is though that your statement is true for vaccines aswell: "Statistically you only have a very small chance of dying, especially if you're under 40, but it's still a chance."
Of course, the same can be said for almost any medication.
However since we are talking about a rather mild disesase and since vaccination is done on healthy people, that chance of dieing needs to be orders of magnitude below 0.006% (global death rate, which is not really growing much) or else the vaccination would be just as bad as Sars-Cov2.
To me, a death rate (from the vaccine) of one in 10000000 (0.0001%) might seem acceptable. I'm not sure that's ok with everyone.

Addition:
And the infection fatality rate deducted from antibody-studies does not take into account that some people do not develop the antibodies that are being detected (Maybe none, maybe different antibodies / cross immunity).
I have seen estimates ranging from 30%-80% of people not developing those antibodies that are still immune.
Primarly children are suspected not to develop antibodies.
Overall fatality rate if everyone is probably as low as 0.05%

This article is really fucking stupid.
No one is claiming that the *case* fatality is 0.26%. The CDC is saying that the *infection* fatality is 0.26.
The *case* fatality in south korea is around 0.7. The infection fatality rate can only be lower.
The number of *cases* is really of low informational value, because it is mainly determined be the number of tests and by who is tested.
The 0.26 comes from antibody studies and matches the Age-Corrected result of the Heinzberg-Study among many others.