Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[consolcwby]

I'LL SEE YOUR "PANDEMIC" AND RAISE YOU TWO BIDENS!
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/fda-admits-pcr-tests-give-false-results-prepares-ground-biden-virus-rescue-miracle
"The FDA today joined The WHO and Dr.Fauci in admitting there is a notable risk of false results from the standard PCR-Test used to define whether an individual is a COVID "Case" or not. This matters significantly as it fits perfectly with the 'fake rescue' plan we have previously described would occur once the Biden admin took office. But before we get to that 'conspiracy', we need a little background on how the world got here...

As a reminder, "cycle thresholds" (Ct) are the level at which widely used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test can detect a sample of the COVID-19 virus. The higher the number of cycles, the lower the amount of viral load in the sample; the lower the cycles, the more prevalent the virus was in the original sample. So, in summary, with regard to our current "casedemic", positive tests as they are counted today do not indicate a "case" of anything. They indicate that viral RNA was found in a nasal swab.  not sufficient replication of the virus to make anyone else sick.  the media  reports... and is used to fearmonger mask mandates and lockdowns nationwide..."
Why is this being brought up now? The Fake Rescue:

Biden will issue national standards, like the plexiglass barriers in restaurants he spoke about during the debate, and pressure governors to implement mask mandates using the federal government's financial leverage (NOTE: his 100-day mask-wearing 'mandate' is already in play). Some hack at the CDC or FDA will issue new guidance lowering the Ct the labs use, and cases will magically start to fall.  the change will only eliminate false positives, but most Americans won't know that.

IF YOU DO NOT OBEY, IT IS A DEATH SENTENCE!
https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1346308783325253633
https://twitter.com/tr00p3RR/status/1346314780135587842
https://twitter.com/chiIIum/status/1346491000613728257
https://twitter.com/MajorPatriot/status/1346481056355008514

Oooh! The leftists here must be so wet thinking about the coming MURDER, RAEP, VANDALISM, BURNINGS, AND UNMASKED HATRED they are so known for!
Their DESPAIR is exciting us to no end! Pu-pu-pu-pu-pu-pu!

[rawma]

Yes, I admitted my error. I almost always do.

It took you six replies before admitting your error; you can go back and look at the thread. I doubt you would have admitted it if I had not pointed it out repeatedly.

That you've brought it up -- is it dozens of times, now? -- without admitting to even one of your own blatant errors says a lot about your insecurities.

You could try listing just one error of mine instead of name calling. No, the "one bill or two" thing you kept bringing up doesn't qualify; it did not affect the correctness of my post, unlike your errors. Nor are my opinions of your honesty and politics an error; I stand by my opinion of what you post. So, what have you got? I'll judge the evidence fairly, as I do when evidence is provided.

[Pat]

Yes, I admitted my error. I almost always do.

It took you six replies before admitting your error; you can go back and look at the thread. I doubt you would have admitted it if I had not pointed it out repeatedly.

That you've brought it up -- is it dozens of times, now? -- without admitting to even one of your own blatant errors says a lot about your insecurities.

You could try listing just one error of mine instead of name calling. No, the "one bill or two" thing you kept bringing up doesn't qualify; it did not affect the correctness of my post, unlike your errors. Nor are my opinions of your honesty and politics an error; I stand by my opinion of what you post. So, what have you got? I'll judge the evidence fairly, as I do when evidence is provided.

As I've explained -- what, a half a dozen times now? --  I was planning on doing so right away, but I saw an opportunity show you your own hypocrisy by mirroring your behavior, without explicitly calling you out on it. I was trying to be nice. But when they clearly didn't work, I had no problem pointing out my own error. I do this regularly. It doesn't bother me.

The fact that this concept is so alien and incomprehensible to you that it hasn't sunk in yet after so many repetitions just shows how insecure you are and your complete lack of a moral compass.

And I've pointed out your errors in almost every single post. Yes, like the one/two bill. Or how about all the attempts at internet telepathy, where you decided you know better than I do what I think? Your claim that I haven't is another lie, because you literally just admitted that I've been bringing it up your mistake about the nature of the bill. You're just trying to weasel by saying it's not an error because it's not important. But that's nonsense. It's still an error. Which you made. And as I've pointed out endlessly, my error actually strengthens the point I was making. It doesn't undercut it in the slightest, as you're claiming. That one could just be a complete failure of comprehension on your part, but that's stretching the bounds of credulity since it's so plainly obvious. So let's call it what it is: Another lie.

You lie and lie and lie. You're the most dishonest poster I've had the misfortune to run across on this board.

[rawma]

Yes, I admitted my error. I almost always do.

It took you six replies before admitting your error; you can go back and look at the thread. I doubt you would have admitted it if I had not pointed it out repeatedly.

That you've brought it up -- is it dozens of times, now? -- without admitting to even one of your own blatant errors says a lot about your insecurities.

You could try listing just one error of mine instead of name calling. No, the "one bill or two" thing you kept bringing up doesn't qualify; it did not affect the correctness of my post, unlike your errors. Nor are my opinions of your honesty and politics an error; I stand by my opinion of what you post. So, what have you got? I'll judge the evidence fairly, as I do when evidence is provided.

As I've explained -- what, a half a dozen times now? --  I was planning on doing so right away, but I saw an opportunity show you your own hypocrisy by mirroring your behavior, without explicitly calling you out on it. I was trying to be nice.

Here's Pat being nice after I pointed out his error with documentation and links:

You're completely dishonest.
...
Plus, much of the rest of your post was illegible garbage.
...
But I prefer to believe you at least qualify as a dimbulb
...
So that's another case where you've displayed a combination of blissful ignorance and dishonesty, flavored by your nutso variety of irrational partisanship.

You're a fucking moron.
...
You're like a child who was raised in a box, and has never seen the range of wonders in the wider world.

No, you're just a moron

What motivated this? I pointed out that Pat was wrong and called him right-wing, which he later said he didn't care about:

And I don't care whether people think I'm right-wing or not, either.

So, I could be equally nice to Pat: "Pat, you're a stupid lying clown who desperately tries to hide his political bias to give himself credibility that his dull-witted recycling of incorrect right-wing talking points fails to give him." But I'll refrain. 

But when they clearly didn't work, I had no problem pointing out my own error. I do this regularly. It doesn't bother me.

What bothers you is being called right-wing and having errors pointed out.

And I've pointed out your errors in almost every single post. Yes, like the one/two bill.

Excluded, as I've already rebutted it in the very post you are replying to. I graciously offered you this much:

The part about the foreign aid not being part of the $900 intended for coronavirus relief? You're right, and I was wrong.

I will in turn concede that I did not consider whether the two parts of the bill were passed together; they were widely reported as separate entities and had very different paths of negotiation, and it was not important except to change the possible issues from a presidential veto.

But you wouldn't or couldn't let it go.

Acting condescending

Apparently you could not bear not to have the last word.

Or how about all the attempts at internet telepathy, where you decided you know better than I do what I think?

Also excluded; as previously stated, I stand by my opinion of you and your posts, based on observation of what you write.

Your claim that I haven't is another lie, because you literally just admitted that I've been bringing it up your mistake about the nature of the bill.

List a statement you think is an error that isn't one of the two I excluded. Document it. Rebut it with actual evidence, not unfounded accusations or name-calling. If there are so many blatant errors, surely one would not fall within the two categories I excluded.

And as I've pointed out endlessly, my error actually strengthens the point I was making.

Your point was that foreign aid and the Springfield race riot study in the $900 billion bill were not coronavirus relief or stimulus, which was nonsense because they weren't part of the coronavirus relief; nobody but your right-wing sources were claiming they were. Saying nonsense doesn't strengthen your point. That an omnibus bill contains spending you don't like is barely even a point, but not getting facts right doesn't strengthen it.

You lie and lie and lie. You're the most dishonest poster I've had the misfortune to run across on this board.

Why do you keep replying to such a dishonest person but then concede that he is correct in pointing out your error? I keep replying to you because you keep attacking me, but I am also here generally to rebut false posts.

[Pat]

And once more, you're lying. We already did this a couple times. For instance, a couple replies back you claimed that I called you insane without any provocation, and that you just made a nice innocent little point. And then I went back, quoted the actual post, and what do you know? Your point not only was completely baseless, but you mixed it in with crazy claims that you had selectively edited out.

Also, I can give as good as I get, but I never start fights. I generally respond in kind, and then drop it if there's no further provocations. You were the one who started with the insults, and have made them relentlessly. You can't claim I'm the aggressor. Well, I suppose you can. But that's because you're a liar.

You're a despicable liar, Rawma. And incredibly insecure.

Why do you keep replying to such a dishonest person but then concede that he is correct in pointing out your error?

So you're baffled that I told the truth, even to a liar?

The level of dishonesty behind your reasoning is staggering.

[rawma]

And once more, you're lying. We already did this a couple times. For instance, a couple replies back you claimed that I called you insane without any provocation, and that you just made a nice innocent little point. And then I went back, quoted the actual post, and what do you know? Your point not only was completely baseless, but you mixed it in with crazy claims that you had selectively edited out.

Since you won't bring the evidence, I guess I will. No editing, since Pat will insist it's lying.

You appear to be referring to one of my posts to which you replied like this, quoted here in its entirety:

Kool-aid overdose (sour grape flavor). They've looked it over and stuck with it because it's true. Media mostly prefer the fifth definition you list, because it flatters them with the most importance. But I encourage you or Trump to sue Fox News over this. Be aware that they've defended lawsuits by claiming they're entertainment rather than news, and Sean Hannity recently admitted that he doesn't vet the information on his show.

Note that many media are also referring to Biden as the 46th President; that's one thing Trump could prevent, by resigning and making Biden 47th (or beyond). Add that demand to your lawsuit, please, for the entertainment value.

You're making up fantasies about me.

You're irrational and insane.

Addressing your less bugfuck crazy shit: The President-elect is not defined by the press, the GSA has no authority over who becomes president, Trump's tweet was ambiguous and he clarified it was not a concession, and just because something is almost certain to happen doesn't mean that it's already happened. Using President-elect to refer to Biden without a caveat like "presumptive" is simply incorrect. It may be acceptable in casual situations, as a shortcut, as long as everyone knows the presumptive is implied. But in professional works where precision is important, like the news, it's just wrong.

Here's how that post was referenced in the current thread:

This is a reply to the discussion we were having about

The Pat Pivot, as usual. 

No, by bringing in something completely unrelated, you were the one who was trying to pivot. I just pointed out what you did.

Accusing people of things you just did is becoming a favorite tactic of yours.

Oh look, another personal attack.

If you really wanted to talk about the earlier discussion and personal attacks, you would notice this:

You're irrational and insane.

Purely in response to my observation that you and your right-wing talking points were wrong.

Oh look, another false pivot on your part. My comment that you were irrational and insane was a reference to stuff like "But I encourage you or Trump to sue Fox News over this."

You weren't "observing" that I was wrong. You were randomly assigning me a set of politics and making ridiculous suggestions. Which is a bugfuck insane response.

(I don't blame other people.)

Endlessly repeating your delusions doesn't make them reality.

Here's a piece of reality:

The part about the foreign aid not being part of the $900 intended for coronavirus relief? You're right, and I was wrong.

Which you blamed on your sources.

I took explicit responsibility for my error, which you've never done for any of the errors you made. I never even mentioned my sources until several posts later, when I brought it up to help you save face from one of your own errors, by pointing out that both our errors were because we relied on sources that made the same errors. Note that is in no way "blaming" anyone for a mistake. It's just explaining how it happened. I'll also point out that when you made an error, I corrected it, and you dropped it, I never harangued you over it. The only exception is your one/two bill error, which I brought up several times to highlight that that's exactly what you were doing. Feel free to keep on doing it, though. I don't mind. I'm not that insecure.

But are you a 4 year old? Because you're acting like one.

I'm not going to quote the original post about the President elect, but it's linked in the first quote above. You misrepresent my comments: the only things that assigned politics to you were "PR you're desperately trying to spin", "I understand that you're disappointed with the result,", "Kool-aid overdose (sour grape flavor)." (in response to you accusing the media of all deliberately lying by saying Presdient elect) and suggesting that you file lawsuits to address your complaints.

You insisted that Biden should not be called President elect in December, when the practice for over a century has been to call the winner that when the election results (second Tuesday in November) are clear. The only time that's gone longer than December 2nd was in 2000, where there was legitimate uncertainty about the result.

The media in particular are in love with their own importance, as I pointed out and you quoted me saying, and as I also pointed out they will not listen to Pat's opinion on whether they are correct. You and Trump (and other right-wingers) are the only people who seem to care about withholding the title, once the transition was given the funding and access that is its due.

Asserting that all of the media are deliberately lying when they are following their long practice is not ... whatever it is you claim you are; it's over the top conspiracy theorizing.

You are very quick to accuse people who disagree with you (the media, me) of lying.

Continuing to question the outcome of an election that resulted in 306 electoral votes, 4%/7 million popular vote margin is purely the province of people who want to undercut Biden as president. I will call anyone who does that right-wing.

Do you really not understand that suggesting you file a lawsuit is a joke? The only sensible response is to laugh it off, not a scorched earth accusation of insanity. That was really an immense overreaction, like violent road rage because another driver shook his head at you.

In the quoted post from this thread, you imply I've made multiple errors you haven't harangued me about (earlier than this post) but you still haven't actually produced one with any evidence.

Also, I can give as good as I get, but I never start fights. I generally respond in kind, and then drop it if there's no further provocations. You were the one who started with the insults, and have made them relentlessly. You can't claim I'm the aggressor. Well, I suppose you can. But that's because you're a liar.

I guess this is Pat continuing to be nice. And not a liar. Your post is not aging well, Mistwell.

You're a despicable liar, Rawma. And incredibly insecure.

Why do you keep replying to such a dishonest person but then concede that he is correct in pointing out your error?

So you're baffled that I told the truth, even to a liar?

The level of dishonesty behind your reasoning is staggering.

I don't understand why you would continue to respond if this is something you find unpleasant, but especially why you would concede that I was correct on something that you had denied repeatedly. If you believe in telling the truth, why not tell it in the first place? If you only realized it was true because I kept pointing it out, then I obviously didn't lie as much as you claimed, and your accusations of lying end up sounding implausible. You could just escape the whole thing by not replying.

[moonsweeper]

Link

ON AVERAGE, EACH PERSON IN THE U.S. WHO HAS DIED FROM COVID-19 WAS DEPRIVED OF ABOUT 13 YEARS OF LIFE. 

Uh, no...

At which point do we consider the Atlantic to no longer be 'massaging' their data and actually 'raping' it instead?

It's not the Atlantic. I've linked to the guy they're citing before. He's a professor of genetics at Harvard. Here's his analysis:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.18.20214783v1.full.pdf

Note it's based on a pretty simple calculations, and hasn't been peer reviewed, though he's supposedly shopping it around to journals. Also, it's high compared to other estimates. And it doesn't look at the alternative costs. He's estimating that 2.5 million life years have been lost due to the pandemic, through early October. Another analysis, also not peer reviewed but also by qualified academics (Stanford physician, various professors of business, etc.), is estimating the lockdowns are costing 700,000 life years per month, far more than COVID-19 itself.
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/499394-the-covid-19-shutdown-will-cost-americans-millions-of-years-of-life

While the numbers sound scary, that's an irrational response because I don't have a good feel for what a million life years mean, when compared to other causes of death. But a few back of the envelope calculations suggests it's in the ballpark of other threats. For instance, if there are 40K car crash deaths, and the average age of death is 39 (half the US life expectancy), that's more than 1.5 million life years lost. In particular, I'd be curious to see a comparison to the seasonal flu. We know the number of deaths due to sar2 is higher, but the the flu is more deadly for people under 49, which would dramatically increase the average number of life years lost.

Yeah. I read the source piece.  That's why I was making fun of it.

[Pat]

Since you won't bring the evidence, I guess I will. No editing, since Pat will insist it's lying.

Nope. Unlike you, I only accuse people of lying when they lie. I'm not the one with truth issues, remember?

And once again, you demolished your own argument with a quote. You literally listed 3 different crazy things in that post you pretended was innocent.

You apparently think that's normal.

I guess this is Pat continuing to be nice. And not a liar. Your post is not aging well, Mistwell.

Nope.

I mostly kept a civil tone, while you were making endless personal attacks, and making up stuff about me. I always presented arguments, even when I also responded in kind to your insults. I repeatedly de-escalated, and gave you multiple graceful ways out.

You never accepted any of those olive branches, and in fact you doubled down, and dropped even the pretense of making an argument for a while.

I'm not a relentlessly miserable excuse for a human being like you, but I'm done with extending those olive branches.

Though you're right about the second part, I'm not a liar. That's you, remember?

[rawma]

Since you won't bring the evidence, I guess I will. No editing, since Pat will insist it's lying.

Nope. Unlike you, I only accuse people of lying when they lie. I'm not the one with truth issues, remember?

Why would I remember something that's just one of your lies? The last time I quoted one of those posts without the whole thing, you accused me of dishonestly editing it. No reason to believe you wouldn't have done that again.

And once again, you demolished your own argument with a quote. You literally listed 3 different crazy things in that post you pretended was innocent.

You apparently think that's normal.

Those are jokes, and even if interpreted as insults, they're pretty mild for this forum. There is something wrong with you if you can't recognize them as either. The only craziness was your belief that, if they have defied Pat's opinion, all media are deliberately lying. And the first thing you did? Called me irrational and insane. 

I guess this is Pat continuing to be nice. And not a liar. Your post is not aging well, Mistwell.

Nope.

I mostly kept a civil tone, while you were making endless personal attacks, and making up stuff about me. I always presented arguments, even when I also responded in kind to your insults. I repeatedly de-escalated, and gave you multiple graceful ways out.

You never accepted any of those olive branches, and in fact you doubled down, and dropped even the pretense of making an argument for a while.

I accepted your olive branch of admitting one mistake (after so many posts) but you only think I rejected it because I posted again. Your olive branches all came with a demand, apparently, that I stop posting. There was nothing left to argue about; your irrationality and hostility squeezed out all other topics. And lately, in response to Mistwell, giving you a chance to support your claims just proves that you have nothing.

And mostly kept a civil tone?  The lying is all from you, Pat.

I'm not a relentlessly miserable excuse for a human being like you, but I'm done with extending those olive branches.

Though you're right about the second part, I'm not a liar. That's you, remember?

As predicted, you have nothing, despite your expansive claims that I made so many errors. And you can't actually demonstrate any lies, only that I said things you found insulting but that represented my judgement of your posts. Nothing I've seen since has led me to believe otherwise. That you did not carry out an endless crusade against jeff37923 for calling you left-wing but will never relent because I called you right-wing seems to indicate that the latter hit too close to home. And still you will not give up and just walk away! 

[Garry G]

To be fair you can't be too hard on Kiero. He avowes to not care for anybody beyond his absolutely immediate family, is a latent anti-vaxxer who believes that governments across the world have a concerted plan to use a virus with no ill effects to take his liberty and states he owes others not the slightest effort to prevent them dying. As a complete mental he needs compassion.

Spare your faux-sincerity act for someone who actually believes you, you smug cunt.

Calm down you gadje I wasn't even talking to you and I can confirm that I was being completely sincere when I called you a mental.

Hm... FOR THOSE OF YOU PLAYING AT HOME, THE SECRET PASSWORD FOR TODAY IS ~
GADJE:
Borrowed from Romani gadje. Doublet of gadgie and gorger.

Noun
gadje (plural gadjes or gadje)

A non-Roma; a non-Romani person.
from: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gadje
----
Is Gary a Gypsy? 
----
Now back to our regularly scheduled programme, already in progress.

Garry isn't a gypsy but that's not bad. Dig deeper.

[Ghostmaker]

To be fair you can't be too hard on Kiero. He avowes to not care for anybody beyond his absolutely immediate family, is a latent anti-vaxxer who believes that governments across the world have a concerted plan to use a virus with no ill effects to take his liberty and states he owes others not the slightest effort to prevent them dying. As a complete mental he needs compassion.

Spare your faux-sincerity act for someone who actually believes you, you smug cunt.

Calm down you gadje I wasn't even talking to you and I can confirm that I was being completely sincere when I called you a mental.

Hm... FOR THOSE OF YOU PLAYING AT HOME, THE SECRET PASSWORD FOR TODAY IS ~
GADJE:
Borrowed from Romani gadje. Doublet of gadgie and gorger.

Noun
gadje (plural gadjes or gadje)

A non-Roma; a non-Romani person.
from: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gadje
----
Is Gary a Gypsy? 
----
Now back to our regularly scheduled programme, already in progress.

Garry isn't a gypsy but that's not bad. Dig deeper.

Good thing too, as I'm not particularly fond of travelers.

[Pat]

Since you won't bring the evidence, I guess I will. No editing, since Pat will insist it's lying.

Nope. Unlike you, I only accuse people of lying when they lie. I'm not the one with truth issues, remember?

Why would I remember something that's just one of your lies? The last time I quoted one of those posts without the whole thing, you accused me of dishonestly editing it. No reason to believe you wouldn't have done that again.

You claimed you posted a perfectly innocent post, and I called you crazy. You then quoted your "innocent" post, except you edited out the 3 or 4 parts where you made crazy claims.

And you're trying to play the aggrieved victim?

Those are jokes, and even if interpreted as insults, they're pretty mild for this forum. There is something wrong with you if you can't recognize them as either. The only craziness was your belief that, if they have defied Pat's opinion, all media are deliberately lying. And the first thing you did? Called me irrational and insane. 

You said crazy things about me, and I called you crazy in return. And I'm the one out of line?

You're a hypocritical piece of shit.

I accepted your olive branch of admitting one mistake (after so many posts) but you only think I rejected it because I posted again. Your olive branches all came with a demand, apparently, that I stop posting. There was nothing left to argue about; your irrationality and hostility squeezed out all other topics. And lately, in response to Mistwell, giving you a chance to support your claims just proves that you have nothing.

That wasn't the olive branch, asshole. I admitted I was wrong because I was wrong, not because of a miserable piece of shit like you. The olive branch I extended was showing you how you were wrong, by responding exactly like you were doing. I.e. showing you by example, without having to explicitly call you out on it. For anyone with a hint of self-awareness, that should have been a wake up call. But even though you've tacitly admitted your own mistake in the various contortions you've been making while trying to evade any responsibility, you refused to actually come out and say you're wrong because you have the maturity of a 4 year old.

That's, incidentally, a perfect example of you deliberately misreading what other people say. In other words, lying like the liar you are.

[rawma]

You claimed you posted a perfectly innocent post, and I called you crazy. You then quoted your "innocent" post, except you edited out the 3 or 4 parts where you made crazy claims.

I have not misrepresented what I wrote; humor, hyperbole, rhetoric, opinion, and mild by the standards of this forum. You reacted with outraged and humorless shrieks, and have subsequently misrepresented your posts significantly. I've invited you to make your case and you can't or won't.

Pat, if you're really such a snowflake, then you should not post in this forum which is obviously too rough for you. If you're just here to "play the aggrieved victim" as a troll, then I'll just keep pointing out what you are.

[Snowman0147]

Pat hate to sound like a broken record, but again a brick wall is going to constructive than rawma will ever be.  Swallow your pride and just put him on ignore.  This is beyond principle at this point.

[Garry G]

To be fair you can't be too hard on Kiero. He avowes to not care for anybody beyond his absolutely immediate family, is a latent anti-vaxxer who believes that governments across the world have a concerted plan to use a virus with no ill effects to take his liberty and states he owes others not the slightest effort to prevent them dying. As a complete mental he needs compassion.

Spare your faux-sincerity act for someone who actually believes you, you smug cunt.

Calm down you gadje I wasn't even talking to you and I can confirm that I was being completely sincere when I called you a mental.

Hm... FOR THOSE OF YOU PLAYING AT HOME, THE SECRET PASSWORD FOR TODAY IS ~
GADJE:
Borrowed from Romani gadje. Doublet of gadgie and gorger.

Noun
gadje (plural gadjes or gadje)

A non-Roma; a non-Romani person.
from: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gadje
----
Is Gary a Gypsy? 
----
Now back to our regularly scheduled programme, already in progress.

Garry isn't a gypsy but that's not bad. Dig deeper.

Good thing too, as I'm not particularly fond of travelers.

That's your weird bigotry. I'm just pointing out a fact like I should have done about his spelling of Garry.