DEEP DIVE: Covid Myths -- How the medical establishment AND skeptics failed

The medical establishment deservedly lost Americans’ trust, but popular skeptics got things horribly wrong, too. Together, this led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.


Great piece. I particularly appreciated these sections, which decisively refute some of the anti-lockdown and anti-vax arguments made elsewhere on QC.

8) Some skeptics claim that lockdowns never work

We’ve all heard this, and it’s true that attempted lockdowns were ineffective in the US and other places where governments have relatively weak control over people.

But when countries went ALL OUT with their lockdowns — namely Australia, New Zealand, and China — Covid deaths were virtually eliminated.

This graph shows that nearly 250 per 100,000 Americans (aka, 1-in-400) died of Covid. In contrast, about 1-in-12,000 Australians died of Covid. In New Zealand and China, virtually nobody died of Covid, when adjusted for population.

But, one might wonder, what if Covid cases aren’t being counted right? Or, what if lockdowns saved people from Covid, but they died of other things, like suicide or delayed medical treatment?

Fortunately, there’s data on excess deaths from all causes (not just Covid) compared to pre-pandemic:

Here, the US lost over 1-in-400 lives from Covid + reactions to Covid, while Australia and NZ saw fewer people die during the pandemic than in normal times! (Less driving probably helped.)

Lives will be permanently saved, not merely deferred. That’s because of vaccines (as we saw above) but also because medicines like Paxlovid are about to come online that further reduce death by 89% by deactivating an enzyme that Covid needs to reproduce.

Were the lives saved worth the cost to the economy, and to wellbeing? I don’t know. A future post will look into the complex cost-benefit there.

One datapoint regarding wellbeing: Suicide fell in Australia in 2020 (same in the US) contrary to a common narrative.

But were these draconian lockdowns worth the loss of freedom? Worth the permanent increase in state control? Many of us would rather live in a freer place with a higher death rate.

But regardless, the data are clear that draconian hard-line lockdowns can save lives.

9) Contrary to skeptics, side effect harm is NOT comparable to Covid harm

The VAERS side effect database shows over 10,000 deaths following vaccination. Some think the VAERS number is an over-count (false reports) and others, an undercount — missed incidents are very common in such databases.

One skeptic asked me: how do we know it’s not really 100,000 side-effect deaths?

Fortunately there is a way to get to the bottom of this — involving taking a big picture view of the data landscape rather than getting in the mud with flawed datasets.

Thanks to Australia and New Zealand holding Covid deaths to near zero, we have a clean dataset un-confounded by Covid deaths.

Between May and October 2021, in both NZ and Australia, more than half of their populations were given vaccines, including Pfizer and Moderna.

If Covid vaccines cause death, we should see rising all-cause mortality as they are administered. But here’s what we see:

Between the main vaccination period of May-Oct (bounded by the vertical black lines) Australia’s mortality rises slightly, and New Zealand’s falls slightly.

This suggests deaths from vaccine side effects are negligible; zero, as far we can tell (unlike Covid itself, which is super visible in the US line.)

Statistically, this shows it is ridiculous to worry about death by vaccine compared to Covid.



Thanks for the link!

If the mainstream media could match the quality and impartiality of this article, they wouldn’t have suffered the dramatic loss of confidence they have in recent years. And many people involved on both sides would clearly benefit from a better understanding of statistics.

Add to the mix a remedy for authoritarianism, and we could manage the pandemic as one would expect reasonable and compassionate people to do.

1 Like

In the very same PHE report, we find an updated version of what is becoming the world’s most disturbing graph. Infections in the vaccinated continue to outpace infections in the unvaccinated by ever greater amounts, and it’s just no longer credible to claim that this is a statistical error:

The universal vaccination campaign has coincided with a marked increase in the volatility of Corona and vast changes to regional and temporal patterns of infection. For the first time, SARS-2 has departed from the seasonality observed by other human coronaviruses. Official discourse has laid all of this at the feet of the Delta variant, but it is very doubtful even the scientists and bureaucrats responsible for this line really believe it. Mass vaccination has drastically altered the environment in which SARS-2 circulates. This was always expected to change the behaviour of the virus – just not in this precise way. In return for only limited protection against severe outcomes, the vaccines appear to encourage the spread of SARS-2, in multiple different ways. In continuing to insist on mass vaccination, our public health bureaucrats are doing the bidding of the virus. There is no other way to look at it.

I’m not convinced that vaccines are these supreme saviours of mankind. Long term tested vaccines have a historical benefit to quelling doubts. Drugs that have been discussed, theorised, lab tested on animals over protracted periods of time and deemed safe before being carefully administered to humans. Like many I am highly sceptical and doubtful that skipping over usual protocols and mass vaxxing huge sections of society is clever. Shouldn’t we be looking more toward alternate directive? The Swedish model seems quite promising. Obviously we don’t know the long term effects of vaccines on the human body. We haven’t trialled for this. Plus we skipped the animal trials. For many people like me it’s a case of wishing to see top scientists having a for and against debate on this matter. We have seen many vaccine cautious scientists marginalised who are more than welcoming toward such debate. So sorry folks, I am one of a growing percentage of humanity that has reasonable doubts. the trial isn’t over for any of us, including the long term effects of what these therapies are doing to our bodies. That is called reasonable doubt.

Instead of embracing Stockholm syndrome, what we should all be doing is demanding a science debate. If only to dispute vaccine sceptic arguments.


You know what would help even more is less breathing.


I like language like this:
. I particularly appreciated these sections, which decisively refute some of the anti-lockdown and anti-vax arguments made elsewhere on QC

They don’t decisively do anything other than decisively form half of an argument. The idea that people are anti-vaccine is ludicrous given that almost all people on planet Earth have been vaccinated in some form with other vaccines. It is therefore only this vaccine that has caused such an outcry. As for being anti-lockdown who actually wants to be held hostage by the state within their homes? Why are the Swedish doing so bloody well in comparison to elsewhere. They have 1.8 million children attending school, all unvaccinated and their teachers have the same levels of Covid antibodies in their bloodstream as any other citizen there.

I wonder about the levels of denialism spreading like a contagion amongst pro vaxxers that they’ll hit any positive commentary toward any argument that seems to support their narrative. This does seem to correlate largely with Stockholm syndrome. Is it not really the case that many pro-vaxxers have made their bed and must now lay in it? I do wonder, because it’s a very strange way to think that such people don’t themselves have reasonable doubts. Surely that wouldn’t be too conspiritational to suggest?

My fear is that this subject has had so much one way propaganda directed to collect impetus that peoples anecdotal experiences and fact checking contrasts so much collectively that many may avoid hospitals and effective vaccines altogether. A very normal reaction in view of the vast emerging evidence that differs immensely from earlier government advice and statistics. Tony Fauci says “He is Science.” Seems he’s not the only science. Would one inject their own child with such science when it’s still so open…For if you would be hesitant to do so can only truly indicate one thing and that is that ones belief is that vaccines carry risks too. I wonder what they are? Time will tell us no doubt.


Some would. Some are eagerly counting the days until their child turns five so they can be baptized and stop living in original sin.

Good parents on the other hand weigh risk against reward. Unknown risk vs negligible reward seems like a no-brainer to me. Kids are like kryptonite to covid.


Yes but who IS Toby Rogers?

Ad Hominems are bad, mm-kay?


The issue seems that by calling out a name that is in disguise that I am slating the character of that person, rather than their argument. This can lead to certain people thus claiming bad faith and an authoritarian stance at any point they fail themselves in their argument when one attaches that person to that side of that argument. It can be a fallacious form in of itself to claim ad hominem and especially when you weaponise such tactics as gameplay.


1 Like

Nice article, thanks for posting link Claire. Hits reasonably and with humor at some of the pearls both sides clutch.

For me, #8/9/10 are it.

It’s not whether “lockdowns work”, which is yet another false dichotomy. It’s “when you do it to the extent necessary for it to achieve its full effect, are you going to accept the cost-benefit that entails”.

I agree with the author. I am unaware of any late-onset vaccine side effects in general, and mRNA mechanistically does not provide any biologic concern for same. Recognizing as always that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it’s most certainly not evidence of presence either.

And the “vaccines cause variants” nonsense is theory that has yet to be reconciled with reality. Omicron merely adds to the absence of that evidence.


Actually, there is.

And a few money shots…

In the US, vax is working to prevent cases, and deaths. In all comers, and even in the age under 50 cohort who some anti-vaxxers seem to contend are bullet-proof. And the difference is particularly dramatic since Delta became dominant.

You will rightly note the US CDC data only represents 36% of the population. It is truly a shame we don’t have national data that is so thoroughly compiled like the NHS does.

You are correct that the UK data shows the opposite wrt cases (although iirc, vax is still highly protective against severe illness and death, even in the UK, and across all age groups…but it’s been a few weeks since I looked at that data).

So the question is, why have UK cases trended differently than here, even all the while maintaining protection against severe outcomes?

My theory is that it comes down to vaccine type. They used predominantly Astra Zeneca, whereas we used predominantly mRNA. Prior data had shown that Pfizer and Moderna were more effective at preventing infection even against delta than AZ (even while all 3 were good at preventing severe outcomes). I would submit that some of the difference comes down to that.

The other is that the UK toyed with vaccine passport, then backed off.


I know and I can keep producing graph after graph to counter these. Kind of an issue in of itself and a long winded and futile game really. I’m not a scientist so all that would happen here is that I’d spend endless hours digging through counter evidence from other scientists to present to you. Trouble is that I’ve read the dialogue of your previous encounters with other forum members and I’m smart enough and too pressed for time to play such games.

I’m not scolding you for finding and producing such sources, but within the game of you find and I find back there becomes this massive blind spot in finding any belief. I will say this and it is a problem and that is that its left to people such as you and I to find some middle ground based upon already made up principles. Dilemma.

What has always happened in all other examples of medicine is that long term trials and evaluations have come to pass; these including lab tests on animals. When abnormalities occur then the process is addressed and re-evaluated. With these vaccines big pharma can’t even be sued. That’s not a good look. Why do we seek guarantees? Why do we insure cars and houses? Because there are associated risks which we seek to protect right? Yet placing these vaccines into our bodies there is no recourse. This fills me with trepidation and hesitancy. If big pharma would offer to pay my family a few million in the event of death and subsequent autopsy then I’d feel far less hesitant.

I know this won’t help to truly support my concerns and I say this in good faith, but I have friends in many places. It’s not just years of travel, but also business adventure and the fact that I tend to retain friends over time and I wish to share with you just two anecdotal reasons that support my hesitancy and I’ve probed these people in the opposite direction.

First is a very rich client of mine. He flies all over the world representing one of the big drug manufacturers. I asked him about these vaccines and all he would say whilst looking me hard in the eyes was that he firmly believes in natural immunity. But his wife was far more forthcoming. She’d overheard the conversation and at an opportune point she told me that her husband wouldn’t dare provide me specifics, but that she would. She pointed to her kitchen bunker and to the collection of vitamins and minerals there. She advised that i take them. I asked her if she’d take these vaccines? Her answer I’ll never forget. “Spence, seriously I’d rather play Russian Roulette than ruin my survival with those things.”

One of my best friends is an Indian doctor who I befriended many many years ago whilst picking up the contract to build his surgeries. He does believe vaccines are good news but that there is a cost evaluation in taking them and that very healthy people ought not take them. He is a huge proponent of early stage Covid therapeutics. He will bang on all day about the success of drugs such as Ivermectin and how they were instrumental in alleviating many deaths and Covid spikes in India.

So there is this two sides war that has become heavily invested in peoples belief system. For the most part, very few people truly know the best form of this argument. The truth would be found at the very top level of big pharma and i for one will not place my trust in their disclosure. So the pro-vaxxers double down on their belief system and the vaccine hesitant get labelled anti-vax. Labelled, stigmatised. I find this strange because I can see how taking a vaccine that saves lives is prudent and therefore need spend little time trying to understand that side of the argument.- I mean it’s pretty clear right? So instead and I admit to it, I look for instances of negativity, of death and of injury within people who put faith in big pharma. Only by assessing all of the negative can one put both sides of this debate onto the table and evaluate what is the best policy.

Despite the counter science and deaths associated with these vaccines I believe that a super efficient vaccine could be developed. In which case I’d fully support the pro-vaccine movement. Until then I have reasonable doubts; many of them.

One of the aspects of the pro-vaccine movement is vaxxing children. I am very concerned about vaxxing my healthy child. She is alive today and will be tomorrow, yet some people have lost their children after vaccination. Never mind the long term effects.
Would you vaccinate your child? Would you take the responsibility for his/her death in such a decision if it went pear shaped? This is an important question as it deals with personal responsibility- for its easy to project ones fears over others and pick up authoritarian mandates and support them, yet vaxxing ones child acts as a reality check in ones own faith. It is a truth test. Further to this if a provax, pro-mandate individual draws the line at vaxxing their own child doesn’t this point out a hypocrisy within their own fears, doubts and actual belief system? For there must be a reality in addressing the truth that young people have an immune system that doesn’t warrant the assistance of vaccines and it gives upward momentum toward cost evaluation regarding a kind of cut off point whereupon herd immunity meets a point whereupon vaccination is more prudent. Now many would say this age is actually around 50 years old.

These were all easily found. This is the reasonable doubt concerning an ever-growing percentage of society. hence booster reluctance. There’s gonna be trouble.


In other words, I could provide evidence to support my views but I’m not going to. Instead, please enjoy these anecdotes:

So, a woman with no scientific expertise and an apparent predilection for alternative medicine thinks that vaccines are likely to kill her.

He’s entitled to his opinion, but it’s not supported by evidence:

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the National Task Force on Covid-19 have dropped the use of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) drugs from their revised guidelines for the treatment of the infection.

The decision was taken after experts found that these drugs have little to no effect on Covid-related mortality or clinical recovery of the patient.

Yes, it is.

True, and that’s precisely what the “Deep Dive” article does. In contrast, anti-vaxxers engage in motivated reasoning to downplay the risks posed by COVID and exaggerate the purported dangers of vaccines, which have been extensively tested (on animals and humans).

You’ll be happy to learn that it already has:

This is a legitimate issue, but not when framed in this misleading way:

True, it’s easy to find anti-vax contrarians. It doesn’t follow that doubts about the efficacy and safety of vaccination are reasonable. However, it is important to understand the source of this resistance:

If policy makers want to limit the damage that Omicron and future variants do, they’ll have to better understand why people reject vaccines. Something as complex as vaccine hesitancy is bound to have many causes, but research suggests that one fundamental instinct drives it: A lack of trust. Getting people to overcome their hesitancy will require restoring their trust in science, their leaders, and, quite possibly, one another. The crisis of vaccine hesitancy and the crisis of cratering trust in institutions are one and the same.

The world over, people feel lied to, unheard, and pushed aside. They no longer have any faith in their leaders. They’re lashing out against their governments and health officials, in some cases by rejecting the COVID-19 vaccine.

Populism, a political expression of this mistrust, is correlated with vaccine hesitancy. In a 2019 study, Jonathan Kennedy, a sociologist at Queen Mary University of London, found a significant association between the percentage of people who voted for populist parties within a country and the percent who believe vaccines are not important or effective. Past research has similarly found that populists around the world are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories about issues such as vaccination and global warming. “Vaccine hesitancy and political populism are driven by similar dynamics: a profound distrust in elites and experts,” Kennedy writes. In politics, populism manifests as supporting parties and figures outside the mainstream, like Donald Trump or UKIP. But populism can be expressed differently in other spheres. “In public health, there’s this growing distrust and anger towards doctors, also towards pharmaceutical companies. Medical populism is skepticism that’s uninformed,” Kennedy told me.

Medical literature reveals a strong connection between vaccine hesitancy and distrust of pharmaceutical companies, government officials, and health-care workers, even among health-care workers themselves. Studies and polls from various countries over the past two years show that people who are reluctant to get a COVID-19 vaccine are more likely to vote for politically extreme parties and to distrust the government, and to cite their distrust as a reason for not getting the shot.


Narr. There’s a plethora of counter evidence. I am neither a lawyer or a scientist… Are you? I don’t mind presenting such counter evidence if I believe that you are conversing in good faith instead of a deflectionary manner which would have me chasing down rabbit holes. That old gameplay.

No, that is a very subverted way to interpret something. I am quite sure that my client cannot due to a professional conflict of interest be specific on the ins and outs of vaccine safety.He represents a big pharma company. He did divert by telling me he believes in the power of natural immunity. An otherwise strange thing to say for a high end pharma company lawyer. What is interesting is that his wife who is party to my clients full trust and care, would share with me her husbands misgivings. Of course she didn’t have to disclose such information, and I’m sure that she doesn’t make a habit out of it. She must protect her husband. In this case our friendship allowed for the disclosure.

Changing the definitions of use is the issue is it not? It is true that Ivermectin and a whole host of other drugs are of little benefit in late stage Covid. It is interventional and therapeutic instances that have produced good statistics. I’m sure you could find it all if you were of a more lets call it nuanced persuasion. I shall not produce such evidence in this post, though I may for one of the other less say hostile members of this site. What are your thoughts on Remdesivir ?


Ahh anti-vaxxers. You mean me right? Are you using say my so far free choice as a way to intellectually discredit my justification for hesitancy? Is that some IQ form of dehumanising language sir? I’ve heard this low form of argument before. - Just that it skirts the boundaries of charitable good conduct. For your information I have been vaccinated. I now wish that I had not in view of the obvious evidence coming to bear. I however would never have vaxxed my child and this speaks huge volumes in and around the pro vaxxers that somehow give credence to this argument.

When people stop having heart attacks from taking vaccines I might give it a try.

Ahh time to play the contextualisation game is it?. I do believe when one splits my post and places it within separate quotations then that defines reframing. Is that true my good sir?

Yes and it makes the parents of killed or injured children search endlessly to correlate their findings to gather a larger audience. Afraid that’s what happens when a person loses a otherwise healthy child due to inadequate sources of trust.

Well of course you will find anti-vax and vaccine hesitant people Burt. This will continue until vaccine associated injuries continue. Watch that framing.- You said anti-vax, you never mentioned the far larger majority of people who are in fact vaccine hesitant. When big pharma are lawfully penalised for side effects that injure or kill people then I will have far greater confidence in their ethics and safety. It is not too much to ask to seek confidence creating guarantees. Otherwise there is reasonable doubt.

What we require is full disclosure of findings from the pharma companies. They will not disclose. See this gets my knickers in a tangle because the very best way to endorse clean vaccines is to disclose the information pertaining to their safety. When this does not happen people may take this to mean the companies have something to hide. Show me this information please sir. Also when you sell a product that may endanger life then one really needs to evidence trust by paying injured parties in the event of such injuries or death. Without such all the articles in the world will not convince anybody with critical thinking to not have very reasonable doubts.- I fail to understand how you can overlook this simple observation. X

Let’s go Brandon.


It’s part of a greater trend of which some people still may not be aware. There are a lot of strange things being said (space) by many (space) Pharma (space) players.

The media thought they could keep a lid on it. And they didn’t understand its not the old way anymore where they get to control all the information. So now it seems they’re getting Trevor Noah to dial it back a little with some damage control. He’s a cool, down to earth believable PoC. But we know from the Podesta emails that Hillary basically owned Colbert as a conduit to the masses. So there’s no reason to think that Noah is now any different on the show.

And this is why people don’t trust the media. The technology now can give us glimpses into their private conversations and distribute it all over the world. One of the great questions of our time is why did Wikileaks not immediately change everything? Maybe these things take time but from my standpoint this is molasses. However slowly, I must acknowledge the gatekeeper media are crashing. Their ratings no longer represent a viable business model----they survive by FCC fiat. They would crash and burn overnight if exposed to a free market.

The internet remains. The choke point is the ISP cartel. If we are to ensure censorship resistance, we’ll have to find ways to bypass the ISP. In private, covenant communities we could run intranets with a single, filtered point of contact with the backbone. Elon Musk has a satellite solution in the works which I am quite bullish on.

But thats looking forward. In current year there are people on sites known for heterodoxy linking to The Atlantisaurus bemoaning the lack of trust in government and pharma like that is the problem. Trust is a huge issue. Trust must be earned. If Pfizer wants me to trust them enough to take their shit in my arm then they can attempt to gain that trust by releasing their data today, not in 55 years time. Unless of course releasing that data today would give me even more reason to distrust the pharma industry instead of trusting them, in which case they’d be better off trying to bribe me with marijuana and donuts and locking me out of concerts and restaurants.

In another thread, Spencer, you’d responded to @Ella-B talking about the “anti vax” killing all optimism. Her brother in arms here has chosen the Father of Pessimistic Philosophy as his moniker, which to me seems very appropriate. It seems to me that anyone expecting people to obediently trust in a machine which wants everyone to get on board with their one size fits all subscription immune service and their surprize medicamp getaways without seeing all the pertinent data first are the ones who have given in to fatalism.

Opposing voices on the other hand like Maajid Nawaz are very optimistic in the spirit of Obama “Yes We Can” Hold The Line #RESIST et all. If we had no optimism we wouldn’t be fighting. We’d have given up. And a vax status has nothing to do with that. I know plenty people in my life–I’m married to one–who have more or less voluntarily rolled up their sleeve but who fight by my side nonetheless. Those in the top tier arrogantly counting their chickens before they hatch has given us an advantage.

If anything, I must always remember to keep my overabundant optimism in check.


Many pro vaxxers don’t wish to vaccinate their children. This seems to very much indicate a form of hypocrisy which has its basis in children’s brilliant immuno-response to virus’s. We really ought to have a policy that stems from this basis and is carried up through age and health until it hits a point where vaccines are more useful. Otherwise we have merely politicised health as a weapon of control.

If a company creates a product then it is normally independently investigated, especially if it involves human life. Let’s take car manufacturers.- their vehicles are crash tested by outside investigators. What this does is it places product care emphasis upon the manufacturer. Nobody wants to buy a car that doesn’t perform well in collisions. We purchase safe cars that have good records and we take out insurance in the event of accidents. How can we be assured that when we mess around with human genes in an irreversible way that we are actually safe and especially over a period of time. It is very simple, the drug companies must provide full disclosure of their findings and also set pay out terms to those hurt or killed. Without such a spine their body of evidence is all hearsay. You do not need to hide good evidence when trying to endorse your product. Your evidence is your endorsement.

But its fun trying.

1 Like

I liked the point-by-point formatting of the piece, and it did a great job disproving various myths, but I wish there were more names and addresses listed. Personal accountability is the only way the liars will learn their lessons, but because of the nebulous way mass media treats academia, Rachel bloody Dolezal can’t get a job but Dr. Ralph Baric remains gainfully employed.

1 Like

It’s interesting that you call me “hostile” when you accuse of me of “bad faith” and impugn my motives and intellectual integrity in virtually every post addressed to me. Focus on the arguments, not the individual (or what/who you imagine the individual to be).

The ICMR has stopped recommending use of Ivermectin at any stage of the disease.

I’m glad to hear it.

The evidence is obvious, but it supports the safety and efficacy of vaccination for all adults. As I said, the question of vaccinating children is more contested.

If you’re referring to myocarditis, it’s an extremely rare side effect and the symptoms are mild in almost all cases.

I agree that this is concerning if it is, in fact, occurring. Can you provide a link?

I think you should be more concerned about your overabundant conspiracism.


Is this a helpful demonstration on how to focus on the arguments over the individual?

Google “FDA 55” for more info. Basically the FDA wants 55 years to release its data on the Pfizer jab. Because to process and redact exempted info would take that long. You may ask yourself how they could possibly have reviewed all this data that will take 55 years to redact the necessary info from in such a short time as to approve the Pfizer shot in the first place and that would be a great question. If you consider the FDA approval of the Pfizer jab a legitimate approval, it took them about a year to review all of this data in order to approve the shot but will take them 55 years to redact everything and apparently comply with the Freedom of Information Act.

You will predictably respond with “but FDA is not a pharma company so checkmate the pharma companies aren’t withholding anything,” but as is well known to many of us who are neither naive dinosaurs nor far left activists throwing shade, the line between pharma and government is more blurred than all that. Unless you want to call Elizabeth Warren a conspiracy theorist as well for rightfully acknowledging this blatant conflict of interest of which this is just one of many. For another example look up Ursula Von Der Leyen’s husband. Did you ever call anyone a conspiracy quack for saying there’d be mandatory vaccinations, because that’s what the EU proposes to discuss. continent-wide. Do you think it means indefinite camp time for noncompliance, forced injections, or something else?

Another great question is what kind of info even needs redacting for their data on the Pfizer approval. Names of people? What else? How can deleting names take that much longer than reviewing and considering the data in order to approve the shot? Is this a question only a conspiracy wacko would ask?

All adults, you say? That’s quite the absolutist claim. All I’d have to do is find one case of an adult harmed by the jab. It’s too easy and I won’t jump through that ridiculous hoop just yet if at all. Instead I’ll ask at what age you consider someone to be an adult. Where is the magical line between child and adult?