Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[Pat]

Doctors should make a clinical determination of the actual cause of death.

Do you believe that this isn't happening?

Do you believe it didn't happen, despite widespread reporting?

Doctors (including MEs) document cause of death (immediate and proximate). I don't think that's really in question. You might be better off questioning who filters those reports to get the numbers they want.

That's exactly what I was criticizing, HappyDerp. Read my entire post.

Petty name-calling, Pat? I thought you tried to be better than that.

I did read your whole post, and I'm saying you're pointing fingers at the wrong part of the issue. The doctors do state causes of death. Then those reports get entered into datasets and filtered by others that may or may not themselves be doctors into the garbage statistics that we see.

Yes, and that's exactly the point I've been making. We should be relying on the clinical assessments of doctors (and not giving them shit guidelines on how to do it, but that's a separate issue), rather than on simplistic aggregates. For instance, the UK's notorious "anyone who had a positive covid test within this broad span of many weeks is listed as a covid death" standard. Which are okay in a crisis, because it's better to have a broad but possibly incorrect assessment today than perfection in 3 years. But it's important to be upfront and acknowledge those limits instead of attacking the people who point them out, and better methods of collecting data should be phased in as soon as possible. This was clear in my first post, and I've explained it several times since as well. That's why you earned the *derp moniker.

[HappyDaze]

Doctors should make a clinical determination of the actual cause of death.

Do you believe that this isn't happening?

Do you believe it didn't happen, despite widespread reporting?

Doctors (including MEs) document cause of death (immediate and proximate). I don't think that's really in question. You might be better off questioning who filters those reports to get the numbers they want.

That's exactly what I was criticizing, HappyDerp. Read my entire post.

Petty name-calling, Pat? I thought you tried to be better than that.

I did read your whole post, and I'm saying you're pointing fingers at the wrong part of the issue. The doctors do state causes of death. Then those reports get entered into datasets and filtered by others that may or may not themselves be doctors into the garbage statistics that we see.

Yes, and that's exactly the point I've been making. We should be relying on the clinical assessments of doctors (and not giving them shit guidelines on how to do it, but that's a separate issue), rather than on simplistic aggregates. For instance, the UK's notorious "anyone who had a positive covid test within this broad span of many weeks is listed as a covid death" standard. Which are okay in a crisis, because it's better to have a broad but possibly incorrect assessment today than perfection in 3 years. But it's important to be upfront and acknowledge those limits instead of attacking the people who point them out, and better methods of collecting data should be phased in as soon as possible. This was clear in my first post, and I've explained it several times since as well. That's why you earned the *derp moniker.

Pat you've been making a habit of arguing with posters that agree with your point but don't necessarily agree that you make your points clearly. This has happened enough with several different posters that you should probably consider that your posts are not as clear as you believe them to be.

[Pat]

Doctors should make a clinical determination of the actual cause of death.

Do you believe that this isn't happening?

Do you believe it didn't happen, despite widespread reporting?

Doctors (including MEs) document cause of death (immediate and proximate). I don't think that's really in question. You might be better off questioning who filters those reports to get the numbers they want.

That's exactly what I was criticizing, HappyDerp. Read my entire post.

Petty name-calling, Pat? I thought you tried to be better than that.

I did read your whole post, and I'm saying you're pointing fingers at the wrong part of the issue. The doctors do state causes of death. Then those reports get entered into datasets and filtered by others that may or may not themselves be doctors into the garbage statistics that we see.

Yes, and that's exactly the point I've been making. We should be relying on the clinical assessments of doctors (and not giving them shit guidelines on how to do it, but that's a separate issue), rather than on simplistic aggregates. For instance, the UK's notorious "anyone who had a positive covid test within this broad span of many weeks is listed as a covid death" standard. Which are okay in a crisis, because it's better to have a broad but possibly incorrect assessment today than perfection in 3 years. But it's important to be upfront and acknowledge those limits instead of attacking the people who point them out, and better methods of collecting data should be phased in as soon as possible. This was clear in my first post, and I've explained it several times since as well. That's why you earned the *derp moniker.

Pat you've been making a habit of arguing with posters that agree with your point but don't necessarily agree that you make your points clearly. This has happened enough with several different posters that you should probably consider that your posts are not as clear as you believe them to be.

I always consider that. I go back and check what I said, repeatedly, when other people jump to false conclusions. I suspect I'm one of the few people who does that. But if the failure is on my part, you should be able to go back and point out where I said something that I later contradicted, or at least clearly describe how the overall thrust of my argument conveyed the wrong impression.

But that never happens. It's always something like this, where you cherry pick a single statement and ignore the context in which it's placed, thus misinterpreting the overall point I'm making; and when challenged, you just state, vaguely, that I need to be clearer without being able to specify how I was imprecise or misleading. That amorphous accusation combined with the inability to point out where I did anything wrong shifts the burden of fault to you.

The most plausible assumption is I presented my case clearly, but you either didn't read it all, or jumped to conclusions based on assumptions about my beliefs, or just skimmed it for hot button statements to latch onto, without considering the context or how the statement contributes to everything else around it. You've seen this yourself, with all the people jumping to false conclusions about your politics, based on isolated positions on specific topics.

So my assessment is that people rarely read for context anymore. They skim texts, latch onto isolated points and assume entire an entire edifice of political beliefs based on single isolated statements, and then cherry pick statements to "rebut". Or they only read a bit, and miss the cumulative argument that's being constructed and supported in the parts they missed.

I could write in a way that's always clear to people who peruse texts like that, but I'd be limited to one sentence cliches, preferably without any real content, which clearly signal a simplistic set of team-based beliefs. If I want to make substantive points, or develop arguments beyond a sound-bite, that's not an option.

[HappyDaze]

Doctors should make a clinical determination of the actual cause of death.

Do you believe that this isn't happening?

Do you believe it didn't happen, despite widespread reporting?

Doctors (including MEs) document cause of death (immediate and proximate). I don't think that's really in question. You might be better off questioning who filters those reports to get the numbers they want.

That's exactly what I was criticizing, HappyDerp. Read my entire post.

Petty name-calling, Pat? I thought you tried to be better than that.

I did read your whole post, and I'm saying you're pointing fingers at the wrong part of the issue. The doctors do state causes of death. Then those reports get entered into datasets and filtered by others that may or may not themselves be doctors into the garbage statistics that we see.

Yes, and that's exactly the point I've been making. We should be relying on the clinical assessments of doctors (and not giving them shit guidelines on how to do it, but that's a separate issue), rather than on simplistic aggregates. For instance, the UK's notorious "anyone who had a positive covid test within this broad span of many weeks is listed as a covid death" standard. Which are okay in a crisis, because it's better to have a broad but possibly incorrect assessment today than perfection in 3 years. But it's important to be upfront and acknowledge those limits instead of attacking the people who point them out, and better methods of collecting data should be phased in as soon as possible. This was clear in my first post, and I've explained it several times since as well. That's why you earned the *derp moniker.

Pat you've been making a habit of arguing with posters that agree with your point but don't necessarily agree that you make your points clearly. This has happened enough with several different posters that you should probably consider that your posts are not as clear as you believe them to be.

I always consider that. I go back and check what I said, repeatedly, when other people jump to false conclusions. I suspect I'm one of the few people who does that. But if the failure is on my part, you should be able to go back and point out where I said something that I later contradicted, or at least clearly describe how the overall thrust of my argument conveyed the wrong impression.

But that never happens. It's always something like this, where you cherry pick a single statement and ignore the context in which it's placed, thus misinterpreting the overall point I'm making; and when challenged, you just state, vaguely, that I need to be clearer without being able to specify how I was imprecise or misleading. That amorphous accusation combined with the inability to point out where I did anything wrong shifts the burden of fault to you.

The most plausible assumption is I presented my case clearly, but you either didn't read it all, or jumped to conclusions based on assumptions about my beliefs, or just skimmed it for hot button statements to latch onto, without considering the context or how the statement contributes to everything else around it.

So my assessment is that people rarely read for context anymore. They skim texts, latch onto isolated points and assume entire an entire edifice of political beliefs based on single isolated statements, and then cherry pick statements to "rebut". Or they only read a bit, and miss the cumulative argument that's being constructed and supported.

I could write in a way that's always clear to people who peruse texts like that, but I'd be limited to one sentence cliches, preferably without any real content, which clearly signal a simplistic set of team-based beliefs. If I want to make substantive points, or develop arguments beyond a sound-bite, that's not an option.

No matter how much you proofread your own material, you'll always miss something that others might not (even if it's just the absence of something). You know this.

[Pat]

No matter how much you proofread your own material, you'll always miss something that others might not (even if it's just the absence of something). You know this.

And that's why I go back and double check, whenever someone draws the wrong conclusion.

[HappyDaze]

No matter how much you proofread your own material, you'll always miss something that others might not (even if it's just the absence of something). You know this.

And that's why I go back and double check, whenever someone draws the wrong conclusion.

It's always possible to draw more than one conclusion from a post, and it's rare that only one is 'correct' -- unless you're the one posting (in which case the other conclusions that you don't intend will fall into your blindspot due to your own inherent biases).

[Pat]

No matter how much you proofread your own material, you'll always miss something that others might not (even if it's just the absence of something). You know this.

And that's why I go back and double check, whenever someone draws the wrong conclusion.

It's always possible to draw more than one conclusion from a post, and it's rare that only one is 'correct' -- unless you're the one posting (in which case the other conclusions that you don't intend will fall into your blindspot due to your own inherent biases).

Then be specific. Otherwise, this is just a accusation you're keeping deliberately vague so you can make an attack without having to support it.

[HappyDaze]

No matter how much you proofread your own material, you'll always miss something that others might not (even if it's just the absence of something). You know this.

And that's why I go back and double check, whenever someone draws the wrong conclusion.

It's always possible to draw more than one conclusion from a post, and it's rare that only one is 'correct' -- unless you're the one posting (in which case the other conclusions that you don't intend will fall into your blindspot due to your own inherent biases).

Then be specific. Otherwise, this is just a accusation you're keeping deliberately vague so you can make an attack without having to support it.

I'm not trying to attack you, but that's a fine example of you drawing a conclusion out that I didn't intend. Is it 'correct' though?

[Pat]

No matter how much you proofread your own material, you'll always miss something that others might not (even if it's just the absence of something). You know this.

And that's why I go back and double check, whenever someone draws the wrong conclusion.

It's always possible to draw more than one conclusion from a post, and it's rare that only one is 'correct' -- unless you're the one posting (in which case the other conclusions that you don't intend will fall into your blindspot due to your own inherent biases).

Then be specific. Otherwise, this is just a accusation you're keeping deliberately vague so you can make an attack without having to support it.

I'm not trying to attack you, but that's a fine example of you drawing a conclusion out that I didn't intend. Is it 'correct' though?

That would be fair, if that was my only statement on the subject. But it's not. It's literally a quick summary of a longer argument I made, just a few posts ago:
https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/covid-the-lockdowns-etc/msg1200209/#msg1200209
... where I included all the caveats and qualifiers. Since that was just a few minutes earlier, and you replied to that post, I assumed you could remember the full argument, and I wouldn't have to repeat everything. Again.

And they're definitely coming across as attacks, of the "I don't have an argument, so I'll just make vague assertions" kind. Especially since you still haven't provide a single specific example pointing out how it was my post that led to your false interpretation.

[Kiero]

They still died of covid. That's still wrong. But otherwise, I largely agree. I've pointed out in endless posts that expected years of life lost is a more useful metric than a flat number of deaths, which is just a figure used to drum up terror by the fear merchants who pretend to be journalists. Covid is unusual in that the morbidity profile almost perfectly matches the natural morbidity profile (i.e. your chance of dying from covid is proportional to your chance of dying from all other causes). It's very dangerous to those who would be expected to die soon anyway, and of very little risk to everyone else. In many states, the average age of someone dying of covid was higher than the natural lifespan. That's very different from many other diseases, for instance the 1918 flu, which killed the young at very high rates.

No they didn't. They died of something else, but because at some point within the last month/two months they tested positive on a shitty test never designed as a diagnostic tool, they are a "covid death" (bonus money for the hospital, no conflict of interests there!).

It perfectly matches the natural morbidity profile because it's an irrelevant aside that almost never killed the people concerned. That's why Italy reclassified 95% of their covid deaths as something else.

Comparisons to the 1918 flu are meaningless, that was actually deadly in its own right. It killed old and young, healthy and sick alike.

That's without getting into what happened in spring 2020. Which was mass murder of old people. In the UK they used up three years supply of Midazolam (a sedative) to euthanise elderly patients because they feared a surge of cases that would overwhelm hospitals. New York state did the same thing.

Yes, and that's exactly the point I've been making. We should be relying on the clinical assessments of doctors (and not giving them shit guidelines on how to do it, but that's a separate issue), rather than on simplistic aggregates. For instance, the UK's notorious "anyone who had a positive covid test within this broad span of many weeks is listed as a covid death" standard. Which are okay in a crisis, because it's better to have a broad but possibly incorrect assessment today than perfection in 3 years. But it's important to be upfront and acknowledge those limits instead of attacking the people who point them out, and better methods of collecting data should be phased in as soon as possible. This was clear in my first post, and I've explained it several times since as well. That's why you earned the *derp moniker.

We're not in a crisis now, and likely never were. The UK's all-cause death stats for 2020 are not exceptional. If the Midazolam murders hadn't taken place, along with all the people who's lungs were destroyed by ventilating them, it would probably have continued the downward trend that had been consistent since 2000.

[HappyDaze]

They still died of covid. That's still wrong. But otherwise, I largely agree. I've pointed out in endless posts that expected years of life lost is a more useful metric than a flat number of deaths, which is just a figure used to drum up terror by the fear merchants who pretend to be journalists. Covid is unusual in that the morbidity profile almost perfectly matches the natural morbidity profile (i.e. your chance of dying from covid is proportional to your chance of dying from all other causes). It's very dangerous to those who would be expected to die soon anyway, and of very little risk to everyone else. In many states, the average age of someone dying of covid was higher than the natural lifespan. That's very different from many other diseases, for instance the 1918 flu, which killed the young at very high rates.

No they didn't. They died of something else, but because at some point within the last month/two months they tested positive on a shitty test never designed as a diagnostic tool, they are a "covid death" (bonus money for the hospital, no conflict of interests there!).

It perfectly matches the natural morbidity profile because it's an irrelevant aside that almost never killed the people concerned. That's why Italy reclassified 95% of their covid deaths as something else.

Comparisons to the 1918 flu are meaningless, that was actually deadly in its own right. It killed old and young, healthy and sick alike.

That's without getting into what happened in spring 2020. Which was mass murder of old people. In the UK they used up three years supply of Midazolam (a sedative) to euthanise elderly patients because they feared a surge of cases that would overwhelm hospitals. New York state did the same thing.

Yes, and that's exactly the point I've been making. We should be relying on the clinical assessments of doctors (and not giving them shit guidelines on how to do it, but that's a separate issue), rather than on simplistic aggregates. For instance, the UK's notorious "anyone who had a positive covid test within this broad span of many weeks is listed as a covid death" standard. Which are okay in a crisis, because it's better to have a broad but possibly incorrect assessment today than perfection in 3 years. But it's important to be upfront and acknowledge those limits instead of attacking the people who point them out, and better methods of collecting data should be phased in as soon as possible. This was clear in my first post, and I've explained it several times since as well. That's why you earned the *derp moniker.

We're not in a crisis now, and likely never were. The UK's all-cause death stats for 2020 are not exceptional. If the Midazolam murders hadn't taken place, along with all the people who's lungs were destroyed by ventilating them, it would probably have continued the downward trend that had been consistent since 2000.

The Midazolam Murders? Oh goody, more tinfoil hat madness from Kiero the King of Nutcases.

[Daztur]

So now Trump's being booed again for telling people to get vaccinated. He's trying so hard to claim credit for vaccine development and his main obstacle is the stupidity of his own dim-witted followers.

Brings joy to my heart in these dark times.

[Kiero]

The Midazolam Murders? Oh goody, more tinfoil hat madness from Kiero the King of Nutcases.

Yes, end of life care was prematurely applied to the elderly in care homes in their tens of thousands to get them out of the way: https://dailyexpose.uk/2021/08/29/midazolam-was-used-to-prematurely-end-the-lives-of-thousands-who-you-were-told-had-died-of-covid-19/

[HappyDaze]

The Midazolam Murders? Oh goody, more tinfoil hat madness from Kiero the King of Nutcases.

Yes, end of life care was prematurely applied to the elderly in care homes in their tens of thousands to get them out of the way: EDIT: <link removed>

Nice source you got there, be a shame if someone were to fact check them...

I mean, really, tin foil hat & quackery are literally some of the terms used to describe them.

[Kiero]

Nice source you got there, be a shame if someone were to fact check them...

I mean, really, tin foil hat & quackery are literally some of the terms used to describe them.

"Fact check" - you mean propagandists paid for by Big Pharma?