Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[Mistwell]

I was being hyperbolic

I'm shocked. Shocked I say!

[Pat]

War spending produces nothing of value.

In unrelated news, China admitted there are covid-19 outbreaks in at least 15 cities. Which of course means the real outbreak is much, much bigger.

One of the cities is Wuhan, where they want to test 12 million people for sars2. How are they doing it?

Automated testing stations! Where you put your mouth on the plastic dildo and a robot shoves a cotton swab down your throat! And it's completely contact free, except for the part you and the next person and the next person all put your mouths on!

Who would've thought China would come up with something even more fun than anal probing diplomats!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eX4oy_5E8s

Nope. The part you put your mouth on is attached to it by you, and removed by you when you leave. I mean, it's almost like you linked to a site which is intended as counter-propaganda which itself employs propaganda?

You can see the actual test here, and you will see the patient places the nozzle on themselves and then removes it when they are done:

https://www.scmp.com/video/china/3117816/robotic-arm-conducts-covid-19-tests-china-fights-coronavirus-flare

Yes, that's literally what I said. I know it's hard to remember everything you just quoted, but remember where I said "you put your mouth on the plastic dildo"? Surprise, surprise it's a reference to the part you put in your mouth. The "you" should have given it away.

No you said it was the opposite. "except for the part you and the next person and the next person all put your mouths on!" No, that part you put your mouth on is replaced each time.

No, you're just switching what you're saying.

First of all, the South China Morning Post? And you're accusing others of repeating propaganda? In 2017, the SCMP became a mouthpiece of a totalitarian regime that's lied about almost everything when it comes to covid-19. So those are all carefully curated and vetted staged shots, while China Uncovered video is actual footage of what happens in the field. Not only that, but a huge chunk of CU video involves them explicitly pointing out out that China violates their own safety standards in innumerable ways. They show at at least a dozen examples. So even if this is a perfect solution under ideal conditions, there's every reason to expect expedience, pressure to get it done, and control over all media will lead to widespread unsanitary practices.

Secondly, your video doesn't show that. Only one shot shows a part being removed, and it's a weird angle, done very quickly, and the part isn't clearly seen. But it's a small part, easily removed, and thus clearly doesn't make a tight seal. And you can see from other shots that people are pressing their lips down to the glass.

[Mistwell]

So the report Biden ordered which he apparently wanted to come back as "Virus origin from an animal and not the Wuhan lab" has instead come back as "Inconclusive: Could have been an animal, or could have been the Wuhan lab." Which I am sure is not landing well in Washington DC today.

Link

[HappyDaze]

Without bogging down on details, CMS does do audits, and they expect participants to self-audit too. Their own audits get much more involved if the self-audits are not up to par (solid self-audits with disclosed fallouts won't get you scrutinized nearly so much as half-assed self-audits that come up "clean"). It's a feedback loop to get participants to honestly self-report for fear of drawing the eyes of the inquisition.

It should be obvious, but in case it wasn't, I was being hyperbolic when I said they don't investigate fraud. They do, but the amount they spent on fraud prevention is tiny, compared to say a credit card company. In general, they've used that to claim their administrative costs are low, even though it's a bad trade off, because each additional dollar they spend on fraud prevention would reduce fraud by a multiple of that. Medicaid is even worse. The reason this happens is purely political; waste is just a number, but if you make life slightly inconvenient for even a single family, that's a sob story your enemies can run forever.

To your initial point, compliance costs are another big source of waste. It's not just the byzantine requirements, but how subjective many of them are. It's really hard to properly CYA, and that uncertainty adds to costs. That's why even modest doctors' offices often have half a dozen or more staff in the basement or a back office somewhere just to deal with medical billing.

You (now) say you were being hyperbolic, I say you are (as is usual for you) using weasel words when called on your bullshit.

[Mistwell]

Without bogging down on details, CMS does do audits, and they expect participants to self-audit too. Their own audits get much more involved if the self-audits are not up to par (solid self-audits with disclosed fallouts won't get you scrutinized nearly so much as half-assed self-audits that come up "clean"). It's a feedback loop to get participants to honestly self-report for fear of drawing the eyes of the inquisition.

It should be obvious, but in case it wasn't, I was being hyperbolic when I said they don't investigate fraud. They do, but the amount they spent on fraud prevention is tiny, compared to say a credit card company. In general, they've used that to claim their administrative costs are low, even though it's a bad trade off, because each additional dollar they spend on fraud prevention would reduce fraud by a multiple of that. Medicaid is even worse. The reason this happens is purely political; waste is just a number, but if you make life slightly inconvenient for even a single family, that's a sob story your enemies can run forever.

To your initial point, compliance costs are another big source of waste. It's not just the byzantine requirements, but how subjective many of them are. It's really hard to properly CYA, and that uncertainty adds to costs. That's why even modest doctors' offices often have half a dozen or more staff in the basement or a back office somewhere just to deal with medical billing.

You (now) say you were being hyperbolic, I say you are (as is usual for you) using weasel words when called on your bullshit.

The lawyer in me recognizes and admires Pat's skill in this

[Pat]

Without bogging down on details, CMS does do audits, and they expect participants to self-audit too. Their own audits get much more involved if the self-audits are not up to par (solid self-audits with disclosed fallouts won't get you scrutinized nearly so much as half-assed self-audits that come up "clean"). It's a feedback loop to get participants to honestly self-report for fear of drawing the eyes of the inquisition.

It should be obvious, but in case it wasn't, I was being hyperbolic when I said they don't investigate fraud. They do, but the amount they spent on fraud prevention is tiny, compared to say a credit card company. In general, they've used that to claim their administrative costs are low, even though it's a bad trade off, because each additional dollar they spend on fraud prevention would reduce fraud by a multiple of that. Medicaid is even worse. The reason this happens is purely political; waste is just a number, but if you make life slightly inconvenient for even a single family, that's a sob story your enemies can run forever.

To your initial point, compliance costs are another big source of waste. It's not just the byzantine requirements, but how subjective many of them are. It's really hard to properly CYA, and that uncertainty adds to costs. That's why even modest doctors' offices often have half a dozen or more staff in the basement or a back office somewhere just to deal with medical billing.

You (now) say you were being hyperbolic, I say you are (as is usual for you) using weasel words when called on your bullshit.

I made a one-line, throw away assertion, without any qualifiers. Short, general statements like that can't account for every possible case. They're either tautologies, or truisms, or hyperbole. The fact that I stated that a government agency with a budget of hundreds of trillions ignored fraud would indicate, to any reasonable person, that it was exaggeration for effect.

You countered with a throw away line about a compliance department, which also used rhetorical devices that weren't intended to be taken literally, like personification. Your compliance department didn't "say" anything, but like with my hyperbole, every reasonable person with a basic grasp of language structure would know that and understand exactly what you were saying. I replied with a cite, that showed a high level of fraud and waste in general in Medicare. You pointed out my source was almost 10 years old, and I in turn pointed out that information on this topic was hard to come by, and that source seemed to be widely used by other more recent analyses. You then replied with more details about compliance practices that you were familiar with, and I replied with a more nuanced explanation of my position, where I clarified that the program investigated fraud, but only at a minuscule level due to political reasons.

In other words, we were carrying on a reasonable conversation. We'd moved beyond simple statements and rhetorical devices to more substantive details. That means you understood the intent of my first post, I understood the point of your similar statement, and that we were engaging in good faith.

At least up until your last post. In another throw-away line in the post you were replying to, I clarified that my original statement was hyperbole. It wasn't necessary; we'd moved beyond that, and you clearly understood what I was saying. There was no ambiguity. But I thought it might be useful to anyone who was following along, but not following the discussion as closely.

And you jumped on it as a sign of weakness. Which it isn't. It's not a confession, or an admission or error, or of wrongdoing. There's no reasonable way it could be interpreted like that. But you chose to interpret it that way, anyway, because it allowed you to make a cheap shot that might fool someone who was only superficially following the conversation.

The lawyer in me recognizes and admires Pat's skill in this

And you're being a douchebag.

Mistwell and HappyDaze, this is exactly the kind of bad faith sniping and unwillingness to engage people fairly that makes this board shit so much of the time. You may or may not be shitty people in general, but this is shitty behavior.

[Mistwell]

And you're being a douchebag.

HA! No I was being serious but you took it as sarcasm.

Only you would take me saying I admire you as douchebaggery.

[Pat]

And you're being a douchebag.

HA! No I was being serious but you took it as sarcasm.

Only you would take me saying I admire you as douchebaggery.

You quoted HappyDaze saying I used weasel words to support my bullshit, agreeing with and saying I was good at it. There's no sarcasm there, just a flat-out insult.

[Kiero]

Just as I said, they're coming for 12-15 year olds - and claiming they can use Gillick competence to waive parental consent (and bully and intimidate children into agreeing to it): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/25/nhs-draws-plans-vaccinate-12-year-olds/

Only a matter of time before they then move on to 5-11 year olds. Evil fuckers, pushing this so they can boost the profits of their mates in Big Pharma. All for a virus that is of no concern whatsoever for children, and a "vaccine" that not only doesn't work, but is much deadlier to the under-25s than the virus itself.

[deadDMwalking]

I am the parent of a 14, 10 and 6 year-old. 

I personally am looking forward to the approval for my younger children.  My wife, my oldest child, and I have all had the vaccine.  We did not get sick as a result of it.  We have not gotten sicker or died from a Covid infection.  As far as we know, we haven't had Covid. 

I know how vaccines work.  My children have had all the vaccines that they're supposed to have, including optional ones like HVP. 

Vaccines save ~20 Million people per decade.  Vaccines were critical in defeating Smallpox, which killed between 300-500 million people in the 20th century (all before the certification of its global eradication in 1979). 

Most school districts and universities require that you have required vaccines in order to participate in activities with other young people.  We recognize that individuals must take certain actions to protect those around them, in part because we ALL have the incentive to let everyone else take the action so we can contain the benefit.  I would have just as much protection if everyone ELSE had all the vaccines and I had none (assuming the disease isn't spread environmentally), but not everyone can.  Therefore, the socially responsible thing is for those who can to get the vaccines generally - for their protection and the protection of those around them. 

Those who choose not to take those actions are restricted in what types of activities they can do.

Of course, the validity of these arguments was well-documented BEFORE COVID. 

We've had the COVID vaccines for months.  The efficacy has been demonstrated.  They're not perfect, but they clearly help.  If our rate of vaccination was closer to 100%, I don't think we'd be seeing the same kind of spread now.  Israeli studies indicate the break-through rate is 2.6%  Unvaccinated people promote the spread and the mutation of the virus.  Full vaccinations and mask wearing for 1-2 months in large gatherings would almost certainly curtail the spread of the virus.  However, we have never reached that point.  It's almost like some people would prefer the pandemic to continue for some reason....

[FelixGamingX1]

It's almost like some people would prefer the pandemic to continue for some reason....

I used to think the same. Truth is, not getting vaccinated doesn't represent that.
Unfortunately foreign nations are planting trojan horses to create misinformation and division. We simply lost track of our priorities. Without a doubt, Covid is nasty and particularly dangerous on the elderly. However, the panic has been fueled by news networks like CNN, etc. If you watch Newsmax you'll only hear about the virus once or twice a day. We are back to the usual routine for the most part.

[Kiero]

I am the parent of a 14, 10 and 6 year-old. 

I personally am looking forward to the approval for my younger children.  My wife, my oldest child, and I have all had the vaccine.  We did not get sick as a result of it.  We have not gotten sicker or died from a Covid infection.  As far as we know, we haven't had Covid. 

I know how vaccines work.  My children have had all the vaccines that they're supposed to have, including optional ones like HVP. 

Vaccines save ~20 Million people per decade.  Vaccines were critical in defeating Smallpox, which killed between 300-500 million people in the 20th century (all before the certification of its global eradication in 1979). 

Most school districts and universities require that you have required vaccines in order to participate in activities with other young people.  We recognize that individuals must take certain actions to protect those around them, in part because we ALL have the incentive to let everyone else take the action so we can contain the benefit.  I would have just as much protection if everyone ELSE had all the vaccines and I had none (assuming the disease isn't spread environmentally), but not everyone can.  Therefore, the socially responsible thing is for those who can to get the vaccines generally - for their protection and the protection of those around them. 

Those who choose not to take those actions are restricted in what types of activities they can do.

Of course, the validity of these arguments was well-documented BEFORE COVID. 

Nothing has changed as a result of covid, with the exception of massive government overreach.

My children have had all their childhood vaccinations. They have never had the flu jab, because it's unnecessary. They will not be having this jab, because it's equally unnecessary.

They had covid, as I did, at the beginning of the year. It was a trivial infection, just as they usually are. The critical operator in your statement about not having covid is "as far as you know". Because the chances are pretty high that you have had it.

As for "social responsibility", that would only apply if these jabs actually worked. They don't stop infection or transmission, which makes that entire argument irrelevant.

I'd suggest you do some more research on smallpox, the conditions that led to it's successful eradication are rather specific. In particular there being no animal reservoir for that virus. By contrast there are multiple animal reservoirs for coronaviruses. Which is why we are infected with them all the time.

We've had the COVID vaccines for months.  The efficacy has been demonstrated.  They're not perfect, but they clearly help.  If our rate of vaccination was closer to 100%, I don't think we'd be seeing the same kind of spread now.  Israeli studies indicate the break-through rate is 2.6%  Unvaccinated people promote the spread and the mutation of the virus.  Full vaccinations and mask wearing for 1-2 months in large gatherings would almost certainly curtail the spread of the virus.  However, we have never reached that point.  It's almost like some people would prefer the pandemic to continue for some reason....

Wow, months! Vaccine trials are normally 3-5 years. I'd suggest you update your Israeli data, particularly for August, because breakthrough infections are happening at a much higher rate than that.

And it's not the unvaccinated who cause mutations, that isn't how evolution works. In fact, forget it, you're true believer...

[deadDMwalking]

And it's not the unvaccinated who cause mutations, that isn't how evolution works. In fact, forget it, you're true believer...

If you are infected with the virus, due to random mutation there is the possibility that you create a new strain and spread it to others.  The more people who are infected, the more chances there are for a random mutation to result in either a higher rate of infection or a higher rate of morbidity (or both).  The new strain then may become dominant until the process repeats. 

If 100 people are infected and there is a 1% chance of this type of random mutation, you'd expect that probably 1 person perpetuates a new strain.  If those people had all been vaccinated before the infection and the vaccine provides an 80-90% protection from infection, only 10-20 people would have active infections.  As a result, there would be a much smaller chance that a more virulent/more deadly variation arose among the infected population. 

[oggsmash]

 You had me at HPV, just tell me you are not going to give that one to the son(s) as well.

[deadDMwalking]

I don't have any sons.  I have three daughters.  If I had sons, yes, they would get the HPV vaccine, too.