"I re-read the usatoday article and no mention of immune-compromised children."

I think it is a reasonable assumption that the children that died had compromised immune systems, but I'll admit that I must have not read the article at the time. I would happily wager it was definitely a majority, since in my country over 90% of deaths had comorbidities.

"there is a 33% chance your body won't produce any anti-bodies at all. Thus, no post-infection immunity"

Isn't that because the infection is so mild that your body doesn't even have enough time to spin up their identification and production before its eradicated? As in, pragmatically from the evolutionary perspective of conserving resources, it's so mild that it's not even worth developing immunity to.

"Anecdotal is the weakest form of evidence only useful for forming hypothesis not reinforcing."

I appreciate that anecdotal evidence is fallible, but this isn't merely any anecdote with respect to my choice and opinion, it is my own experience. You are literally telling me not to believe my lying eyes.

I personally am on the side of preserving humanity, to the point of having an aversion to those that aren't human-centric as being some degree of ill.

But with regards to god, didn't he flood the world and kill a detergent-certainty proportion of the population? Because they were degenerate? Even without the bible, there are numerous historical references to some sort of massive flood. And what, the only reason he won't do it again is because he promised not to? A promised signed by the rainbow, which we now flaunt in his face in provocation?

God absolutely will kill us, with another similar flood at that. Sooner than later if you believe in the climate apostles to the letter, to some even as early as 2013.

Irrelevant? I was agreeing with the person I replied to, and what I said in that particular comment supports your sentiments. Do you read anything?

I've had it twice now, it's extremely mild as I expected. The second time I only had a runny nose for 3 days. An utter non-issue to my health.

"Over 700 children have died from the disease"

Sure, I've seen data like that and there's an oversight; would those 700 immuno-compromised children have survived had they not caught covid or would they have gone on to die of a subsequent cold?

I'd generally agree with your conclusions, provided the premises you've gathered. But I'm questioning the premise of the power of the individual. What if this mass conformity is a recent development of say, the last 100 years or so? That would cover your examples of past disasters, but also covers the advance of socialism and other related collectivist ideologies.

The explosion of industrialisation, free markets, and for example the founding of the US are all hyper-individualist movements following the enlightenment that appear to be responsible as you note for lifting humanity out of the dark ages, but also needed enough popular support to overthrow their establishments of the time, so where did that support come from? Is it possible that the people during this period were independant liberal thinkers, or where they merely conforming to a new liberal ideology?

Our schools likely don't help in this regard either, kids sit in rows all doing the same thing, asking permission for all interactions. Most schools foster behaviour inclined towards collectivism, and many great inventors and businessmen specifically note particular dislike of schools, often dropping out completely. Is entrepreneurial living a skill we've lost or been subverted away from? Or was humanity always doomed to be sheep?

Also, I'd imagine nobody expects themselves to be a mindless unit of the herd even today (aside from the PoMos that literally believe that), so how can a herd exist nonetheless?

Dependence. To separate MSM and progressives from Trump is to separate Christians from God. Wherefrom will they get their morality without their anti-compass? What windmills will there be to slay? What outlet for their consuming hatred?

Until a substitute drug is found, these poor people will still be jittering about the cheeto fascist for years to come.

Your calls to tolerate Islam are what have led to Islam exerting its influence to repress tolerance itself. Why would you be intolerant in the name of tolerance? If you are to be intolerant either way, why fall in favour of Islam in your intolerance? Especially in response to barbarism such as beheadings in response to blasphemy, or the Bataclan theatre in France.

Both your claims are factually accurate.

I think per capita is sometimes misleading. A more useful metric would be fatalities per police encounter, and relating them by severity. This helps weed out other discrepancies such as black people committing more crime and the severity of crime.

Dunno really. On one hand the West is decelerating while China is accelerating, so maybe the west will be the next eastern Europe.

On the other hand, if we keep Africans countries dependent on handouts they'll never actually develop themselves. Their local businesses can't compete with free.

I don't think you read what I said, I basically just paraphrased Sowell.

Ah yes, good old regulation. Squashing the little guy since time immemorial. Starts with the public attempting to suppress businesses, then as the public goes to sleep the businesses swing the very same regulation to be used to suppress new competition.