Facebook Disallows Reporting of Official Israeli COVID Vaccine Data — Anti-Empire Hit

Post expunged and page rating downgraded permanently by “fact-checking” for reporting of cold, hard figures. It doesn’t get any more factual than straight reporting of data but there you go:

The article in question:

Israeli Data Shows Natural Immunity MASSIVELY More Protective Than Vaccination

Nearly 40% of new COVID patients were vaccinated — compared to just 1% who had been positive previously

It’s a reprint from Arutz Sheva, one of the biggest Israeli news portals (associated with the Zionist right).

The fact check claims this straightforward reporting of official data is “misleading” and “lacks content”. Anti-Empire has 1500 to 2000 other COVID-related articles. How is that for context? Does every single COVID-related article have to include every single bit of other COVID information?

What exactly is “misleading” about straight numbers? Actually, the fact check relies on straw-manning the article. It claims the article posits that natural immunity is “superior” which would be a matter of subjective judgment, but the only actual claim being made is that Israeli data indicates natural immunity is MORE PROTECTIVE against reinfection which is an indisputable fact. One is still perfectly free to pick the less protective option as “superior” on some different criteria or preference for less protection.

Misleading: Both infection and vaccination generate immunity. However, vaccines do so without exposing the person to the risks associated with the disease, and are thus a much safer way to acquire immunity.

LOL. Surely everyone with a functioning brain cell understands that acquiring natural immunity is associated with risk associated with natural infection, and acquiring vaccine protection is associated with risk associated with the vaccines. Whether such inane “information” is included or not is up to the editor, not a Facebook fact-checker who couldn’t make it as one.

Also, it’s hilarious how bitterly polemical this “fact check” is. The frustrated dweeb writing it actually writes “this comparison is meaningless” and that’s just in the summary. What is such language doing in a fact check, which one imagines ought to be dispassionate?

Lack of context: The claim that infection provides stronger immunity than vaccination is based on the proportion of infections among vaccinated and previously infected individuals. However, this comparison is meaningless because it doesn’t consider important factors, such as the severity of the disease or the lower total number of infections compared to pre-vaccination waves.

Not once is the accuracy of the reporting or of the figures disputed. Instead, the fact-checker argues against a subjective judgment with her own subjective argument that vaccine immunity is in fact the superior one. (Kind of like arguing whose dad can beat whose dad.) Except that unlike the fact-checker, the original article in question didn’t even cross over into realm of preference but just served up the numbers.

Oh yeah, but someone did tweet that natural immunity is “superior” and linked to this piece so I guess it’s okay to expunge the report that merely shared the data — and to hit anyone else who may have reprinted it. Hilarious stuff.

Israel decided to be the largest study in the world. Thanks to their sacrifice we now know that Natural Immunity is far superior with 1% experiencing re-infection while 40% of new cases were previously Vx’d. Any questions?https://t.co/K3thHGLivR

— Del Bigtree (@delbigtree) July 17, 2021