HERE IS YOUR MASK PROTOCOL:Feel better now, nutter? You're a sad, silly little bitch.
Step 1: Throw away your damn mask.
Step 2: Stop living like a fucking cuck.
This is America. Land of the free and home of the brave. That's not a slogan. That's how your ancestors built this nation under FAR greater dangers, challenges and stress than 99% of you have ever faced. Respect their sacrifices by growing a pair now.
And masks were always a joke. The new studies with real math proves the mask mandates are worthless and the old studies pre-Corona repeated the same thing. Ever smell a fart? That's because that's dudes' poo-poo flew out of his ass through his jeans across the room and into your nose. Yes, every fart you smell is SHIT particles in your nose.
But I have co-morbidities!!! I'm in danger!
Here's your special snowflake protocol:
Step 1: accept that most people with co-morbidities survive CoronaChan.
Step 2: do something about your co-morbidities. Do you smoke? Stop. Are you a giant fat fuck? Drink water, eat healthy and move your fat ass. No more excuses. Time for you to see your dick again. You don't need a gym. Walking is free and breathing fresh air and getting Vitamin D from the sun is vital for your immune system.
Step 3: if you either can't (or won't) do something about your co-morbidities, then accept the risk and live your damn life while you still can. You ain't gonna live forever and living in fear won't extend your life one day.
The overwhelming majority of us have 99.8% or greater survival chance from the China Virus. The world is a dangerous place. Cars, trains, planes all crash. Cancer causing crap is always nearby in the modern world. Totally healthy humans die of weird shit all the damn time. Innocent people die of violence every day. The time to live is now. Hiding from the sniffles ain't living.
As the old saying goes, if you ain't busy being born, you're busy dying.
...stuff...
HERE IS YOUR MASK PROTOCOL:
Step 1: Throw away your damn mask.
Step 2: Stop living like a fucking cuck.
So stunning. So brave. We have a real Caitlyn Jenner among us.HERE IS YOUR MASK PROTOCOL:
Step 1: Throw away your damn mask.
Step 2: Stop living like a fucking cuck.
And they say on this day Spinachcat's balls grew three sizes. The Spinachcat had a strength of ten Spinachcats plus two.
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)
I'm just waiting for the CDC, WHO, et al ., to push a mandatory solution to the masks:I guess we should all be thankful you're not an advisor for the outgoing president.
PLASTIC! Plastic is better than paper machete.
So to prevent COVID, place a plastic bag over your head and tie it off around your neck with razorwire. This way, the virus won't get in AND no one will want to come within 6 feet of you and your blood spurts!
Also, the media will reiterate: And radiation is good for you too!
::)
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)
They could block 110% of every disease ever known to man; that's still not a reason to mandate them.
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)
Your freedom to swing your arm ends when you make contact with my face. The mask mandate isn't to protect you from others. It's to protect others from you. You don't have the freedom to risk the lives of those around you just because you don't like to wear masks any more than you have the freedom to just randomly fire off your gun when other people are down range just because you like to fire your gun which you otherwise have a right to have. Or, for that matter, to swing your arm in such a way that it is likely to connect with my face just because you like to swing your arms. Or to not smoke cancer-causing cigarettes indoors in a business.By that rationale, you could argue that the government can do literally anything, as long as it can be argued that it in some way contributes to public health. It requires no action on the part of the so-called aggressor, no direct evidence of harm, no clear standard of evidence, and no measure of the harm caused by the restrictions. That's far beyond the scope of even the most totalitarian regimes in history.
So yeah, the reason to mandate masks is to protect other people from you, and the Government can mandate that without impinging on your freedom to enjoy a mask-free life, other than when you're not in public. Because you do not have the right to risk the lives of others around you like that.
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)
They could block 110% of every disease ever known to man; that's still not a reason to mandate them.
Your freedom to swing your arm ends when you make contact with my face. The mask mandate isn't to protect you from others. It's to protect others from you. You don't have the freedom to risk the lives of those around you just because you don't like to wear masks any more than you have the freedom to just randomly fire off your gun when other people are down range just because you like to fire your gun which you otherwise have a right to have. Or, for that matter, to swing your arm in such a way that it is likely to connect with my face just because you like to swing your arms. Or to not smoke cancer-causing cigarettes indoors in a business.
So yeah, the reason to mandate masks is to protect other people from you, and the Government can mandate that without impinging on your freedom to enjoy a mask-free life, other than when you're not in public. Because you do not have the right to risk the lives of others around you like that.
A mask does not inhibit breathing (nor speaking). In a similar way, while we don't stop you from shitting yourself in public, we do have laws that require you to wear pants while doing so.Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)
They could block 110% of every disease ever known to man; that's still not a reason to mandate them.
Your freedom to swing your arm ends when you make contact with my face. The mask mandate isn't to protect you from others. It's to protect others from you. You don't have the freedom to risk the lives of those around you just because you don't like to wear masks any more than you have the freedom to just randomly fire off your gun when other people are down range just because you like to fire your gun which you otherwise have a right to have. Or, for that matter, to swing your arm in such a way that it is likely to connect with my face just because you like to swing your arms. Or to not smoke cancer-causing cigarettes indoors in a business.
So yeah, the reason to mandate masks is to protect other people from you, and the Government can mandate that without impinging on your freedom to enjoy a mask-free life, other than when you're not in public. Because you do not have the right to risk the lives of others around you like that.
We're not talking about people swinging their arms wildly, blowing cigarette smoke straight onto someone's face or randomly shooting a gun into a crowd. We're talking about people breathing--BREATHING! This is the "freedom" that you're framing as "irresponsible behavior", you fucking lunatic.
BREATHING!!!
Over a fucking virus with a 99.8% survival rate for most of the population. When we get to the point where we're curtailing people's right to BREATHE over virus that they probably don't even have and it's not likely to kill anyone around them even if they did, we're no longer talking reasonable precautions. We're talking people irrationally OBSESSED with the illusion of "safety". And if our species is so fucking WEAK it requires everyone around them to stop breathing in order to withstand a fucking bug, maybe it deserves to die out.
A mask does not inhibit breathing (nor speaking). In a similar way, while we don't stop you from shitting yourself in public, we do have laws that require you to wear pants while doing so.Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)
They could block 110% of every disease ever known to man; that's still not a reason to mandate them.
Your freedom to swing your arm ends when you make contact with my face. The mask mandate isn't to protect you from others. It's to protect others from you. You don't have the freedom to risk the lives of those around you just because you don't like to wear masks any more than you have the freedom to just randomly fire off your gun when other people are down range just because you like to fire your gun which you otherwise have a right to have. Or, for that matter, to swing your arm in such a way that it is likely to connect with my face just because you like to swing your arms. Or to not smoke cancer-causing cigarettes indoors in a business.
So yeah, the reason to mandate masks is to protect other people from you, and the Government can mandate that without impinging on your freedom to enjoy a mask-free life, other than when you're not in public. Because you do not have the right to risk the lives of others around you like that.
We're not talking about people swinging their arms wildly, blowing cigarette smoke straight onto someone's face or randomly shooting a gun into a crowd. We're talking about people breathing--BREATHING! This is the "freedom" that you're framing as "irresponsible behavior", you fucking lunatic.
BREATHING!!!
Over a fucking virus with a 99.8% survival rate for most of the population. When we get to the point where we're curtailing people's right to BREATHE over virus that they probably don't even have and it's not likely to kill anyone around them even if they did, we're no longer talking reasonable precautions. We're talking people irrationally OBSESSED with the illusion of "safety". And if our species is so fucking WEAK it requires everyone around them to stop breathing in order to withstand a fucking bug, maybe it deserves to die out.
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)
Thanks for that article.
Its nice to know that since I cover my nose and mouth when I cough or sneeze, like any human being over the age of five with a reasonable upbringing, I won't be spreading droplets that way.
...and since I am antisocial and don't talk to people, I won't be spitting on them, and the only virus I'll be spreading is from normal exhalation. Since masks don't stop that transmission, I will continue to go mask-free in good conscience.
Subhuman? Please tell us all about your master race theory and how you're planning to win the impending genocide.A mask does not inhibit breathing (nor speaking). In a similar way, while we don't stop you from shitting yourself in public, we do have laws that require you to wear pants while doing so.Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)
They could block 110% of every disease ever known to man; that's still not a reason to mandate them.
Your freedom to swing your arm ends when you make contact with my face. The mask mandate isn't to protect you from others. It's to protect others from you. You don't have the freedom to risk the lives of those around you just because you don't like to wear masks any more than you have the freedom to just randomly fire off your gun when other people are down range just because you like to fire your gun which you otherwise have a right to have. Or, for that matter, to swing your arm in such a way that it is likely to connect with my face just because you like to swing your arms. Or to not smoke cancer-causing cigarettes indoors in a business.
So yeah, the reason to mandate masks is to protect other people from you, and the Government can mandate that without impinging on your freedom to enjoy a mask-free life, other than when you're not in public. Because you do not have the right to risk the lives of others around you like that.
We're not talking about people swinging their arms wildly, blowing cigarette smoke straight onto someone's face or randomly shooting a gun into a crowd. We're talking about people breathing--BREATHING! This is the "freedom" that you're framing as "irresponsible behavior", you fucking lunatic.
BREATHING!!!
Over a fucking virus with a 99.8% survival rate for most of the population. When we get to the point where we're curtailing people's right to BREATHE over virus that they probably don't even have and it's not likely to kill anyone around them even if they did, we're no longer talking reasonable precautions. We're talking people irrationally OBSESSED with the illusion of "safety". And if our species is so fucking WEAK it requires everyone around them to stop breathing in order to withstand a fucking bug, maybe it deserves to die out.
Exhaling is not the same fucking thing as shitting, you fucking mongoloid! Do you fucking subhumans speak in anything other than false equivalencies?
Your freedom to swing your arm ends when you make contact with my face. The mask mandate isn't to protect you from others. It's to protect others from you. You don't have the freedom to risk the lives of those around you just because you don't like to wear masks any more than you have the freedom to just randomly fire off your gun when other people are down range just because you like to fire your gun which you otherwise have a right to have. Or, for that matter, to swing your arm in such a way that it is likely to connect with my face just because you like to swing your arms. Or to not smoke cancer-causing cigarettes indoors in a business.By that rationale, you could argue that the government can do literally anything, as long as it can be argued that it in some way contributes to public health. It requires no action on the part of the so-called aggressor, no direct evidence of harm, no clear standard of evidence, and no measure of the harm caused by the restrictions. That's far beyond the scope of even the most totalitarian regimes in history.
So yeah, the reason to mandate masks is to protect other people from you, and the Government can mandate that without impinging on your freedom to enjoy a mask-free life, other than when you're not in public. Because you do not have the right to risk the lives of others around you like that.
The traditional standard during epidemics is that the government can quarantine people or otherwise impose behavioral restrictions on people who are showing symptoms, in order to protect the wider public. Flipping that, and imposing great harm on the entire public in order to protect against something that affects only a tiny percentage of the public at any time, and which is less dangerous than the seasonal flu to the vast majority of the school and working age public (everyone under the age of 49), is cartoonish, mustache-twirling villainy, even if we ignore the science and assume that masks work.
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)
They could block 110% of every disease ever known to man; that's still not a reason to mandate them.
Your freedom to swing your arm ends when you make contact with my face. The mask mandate isn't to protect you from others. It's to protect others from you. You don't have the freedom to risk the lives of those around you just because you don't like to wear masks any more than you have the freedom to just randomly fire off your gun when other people are down range just because you like to fire your gun which you otherwise have a right to have. Or, for that matter, to swing your arm in such a way that it is likely to connect with my face just because you like to swing your arms. Or to not smoke cancer-causing cigarettes indoors in a business.
So yeah, the reason to mandate masks is to protect other people from you, and the Government can mandate that without impinging on your freedom to enjoy a mask-free life, other than when you're not in public. Because you do not have the right to risk the lives of others around you like that.
We're not talking about people swinging their arms wildly, blowing cigarette smoke straight onto someone's face or randomly shooting a gun into a crowd. We're talking about people breathing--BREATHING! This is the "freedom" that you're framing as "irresponsible behavior", you fucking lunatic.
BREATHING!!!
Over a fucking virus with a 99.8% survival rate for most of the population. When we get to the point where we're curtailing people's right to BREATHE over virus that they probably don't even have and it's not likely to kill anyone around them even if they did, we're no longer talking reasonable precautions. We're talking people irrationally OBSESSED with the illusion of "safety". And if our species is so fucking WEAK it requires everyone around them to stop breathing in order to withstand a fucking bug, maybe it deserves to die out.
People have died from contagious airborne diseases since the moment of the founding. The logic used requires masks in perpetuity, if it is applicable here.
Yes, by aerosolized particles. Which bypass masks. It was originally believed that COVID-19 was spread by droplets. This was wrong. In fact, the research led them to realize the concepts of aerosolization they were using to model diseases were wrong. It's not that airborne diseases fall into two well-defined categories: Aerosolized and non-aerosolized. It's that aerosolization is a spectrum, and all airborne diseases are aerosolized to a greater or lesser degree. More than that, the novel coronavirus is far more aerosolized than they initially believed. In fact, that's the leading explanation for why masks don't work -- the disease is largely spread by tiny, airborne droplets that pass through masks as if they weren't there, and which quickly fill any room. This is why all those bus riders caught the disease, from someone who was facing the other direction and almost 10 meters away. That's why they were detecting the particle in hospital ducts. That's why ventilation is important, because you can't stop the spread with simple barriers, but you can with airflow.Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)
Thanks for that article.
Its nice to know that since I cover my nose and mouth when I cough or sneeze, like any human being over the age of five with a reasonable upbringing, I won't be spreading droplets that way.
...and since I am antisocial and don't talk to people, I won't be spitting on them, and the only virus I'll be spreading is from normal exhalation. Since masks don't stop that transmission, I will continue to go mask-free in good conscience.
That's not what it says. It says you spread it by exhaling and talking as well.
Yes, by aerosolized particles. Which bypass masks.
People have died from contagious airborne diseases since the moment of the founding. The logic used requires masks in perpetuity, if it is applicable here.
Exactly. And airborne diseases have been a thing since before our species even existed. But people suddenly want to become hysterical about them after tens of THOUSANDS of years (and HUNDREDS of thousands of years of our species existing), and pretend that this is a reasonable worldview somehow. This is fucking retarded! This is a height of neuroticism!
Can we just ignore HappyDaze and Mistwell already? They don't want a discussion, or add anything to these discussions. They just want to give us the same bullshit which was proven to not be true in prior threads. They want us to shut up.Have I asked you to shut up? I'm perfectly fine with you continuing to embarass yourself through stupidity that you want to call patriotism. However, if you want to ignore me, feel free, but I'll still call out your idiocy for others
Greetings!That's, like, your opinion, man. I'm a conservative even if I'm not a right-wing extremist, and I support reasonable masking requirements and some limitations on business access. I find that it's the right-wing extremist assholes that see the measures as all or nothing.
I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!That's because leftists are NOT liberals. They get wet thinking of child-murder, death camps, burkas or any covering over faces, and rape. And those like Mistwell, the self-hating CAPOS - well, the founders and the Torah DID warn about zionist scum like him. I tried to reach him, but I guess when you're fap-fap-fapping to your own bloodlust and lies.... Well, at least he'll die along with people like me! That should be a relief for his idiocy!
I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I didn't say the article said that. I was pointing out why the article is based on faulty science.Yes, by aerosolized particles. Which bypass masks.
Again, not what it says. This would go so much easier if you read the thing you're responding to.
I didn't say the article said that. I was pointing out why the article is based on faulty science.Yes, by aerosolized particles. Which bypass masks.
Again, not what it says. This would go so much easier if you read the thing you're responding to.
This would go much easier if you read the rest of what I said, where I explained that in detail.
I've provided many links in the coronavirus thread. I agree that real world examples matter more than theory. So here are few focused more on pragmatics. The first is the most significant recent study on masks. It's a large, randomized study, so unlike many of the sloppy, limited, and biased studies at the start of the pandemic, it meets very high standards of evidence.I didn't say the article said that. I was pointing out why the article is based on faulty science.Yes, by aerosolized particles. Which bypass masks.
Again, not what it says. This would go so much easier if you read the thing you're responding to.
This would go much easier if you read the rest of what I said, where I explained that in detail.
It would help if you would provide a link to support your assertion that aerosolized particles are the more significant mode of transmission. The World Health Organization seems to consider both; if masks reduce the one significantly, that should still have a useful effect. Nobody is suggesting that masks alone are sufficient steps.
While experimentation in laboratories is certainly important, I am more encouraged by observed results in the real world, such as the differing experience of Kansas counties with mask mandates versus those without.
https://apnews.com/article/health-kansas-virus-outbreak-f218e1a38cce6b2af63c1cd23f1d234e
This could be for other reasons, of course; a mask mandate might include or at least encourage other steps to reduce transmission, or people in counties who resist mask mandates may also resist other steps to discourage transmission.
Can we just ignore HappyDaze and Mistwell already? They don't want a discussion, or add anything to these discussions. They just want to give us the same bullshit which was proven to not be true in prior threads. They want us to shut up.
Greetings!That's because leftists are NOT liberals. They get wet thinking of child-murder, death camps, burkas or any covering over faces, and rape. And those like Mistwell, the self-hating CAPOS - well, the founders and the Torah DID warn about zionist scum like him. I tried to reach him, but I guess when you're fap-fap-fapping to your own bloodlust and lies.... Well, at least he'll die along with people like me! That should be a relief for his idiocy!
I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Give him a little more time and I'm sure he'll surprise you with even more explicitly anti-Semitic rantings. To be fair though, I don't think he's going to limit himself to just that...Greetings!That's because leftists are NOT liberals. They get wet thinking of child-murder, death camps, burkas or any covering over faces, and rape. And those like Mistwell, the self-hating CAPOS - well, the founders and the Torah DID warn about zionist scum like him. I tried to reach him, but I guess when you're fap-fap-fapping to your own bloodlust and lies.... Well, at least he'll die along with people like me! That should be a relief for his idiocy!
I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Wait, you're calling me "zionist scum" and claiming I have "bloodlust" because I disagree with you about the election and masks?
OK. You're officially creepy now.
Have I ever even mentioned Israel? I can only assume "Zionist scum" is some issue with Jews, given I don't think I have ever mentioned Israel.
Why? Because he's an obvious capo who delights in the suffering of others?Give him a little more time and I'm sure he'll surprise you with even more explicitly anti-Semitic rantings. To be fair though, I don't think he's going to limit himself to just that...Greetings!That's because leftists are NOT liberals. They get wet thinking of child-murder, death camps, burkas or any covering over faces, and rape. And those like Mistwell, the self-hating CAPOS - well, the founders and the Torah DID warn about zionist scum like him. I tried to reach him, but I guess when you're fap-fap-fapping to your own bloodlust and lies.... Well, at least he'll die along with people like me! That should be a relief for his idiocy!
I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Wait, you're calling me "zionist scum" and claiming I have "bloodlust" because I disagree with you about the election and masks?
OK. You're officially creepy now.
Have I ever even mentioned Israel? I can only assume "Zionist scum" is some issue with Jews, given I don't think I have ever mentioned Israel.
Yes, keep on deflecting. Others won't have to wonder much longer, and no one has to label you when we can just point at the labels you've put on yourself.Why? Because he's an obvious capo who delights in the suffering of others?Give him a little more time and I'm sure he'll surprise you with even more explicitly anti-Semitic rantings. To be fair though, I don't think he's going to limit himself to just that...Greetings!That's because leftists are NOT liberals. They get wet thinking of child-murder, death camps, burkas or any covering over faces, and rape. And those like Mistwell, the self-hating CAPOS - well, the founders and the Torah DID warn about zionist scum like him. I tried to reach him, but I guess when you're fap-fap-fapping to your own bloodlust and lies.... Well, at least he'll die along with people like me! That should be a relief for his idiocy!
I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Wait, you're calling me "zionist scum" and claiming I have "bloodlust" because I disagree with you about the election and masks?
OK. You're officially creepy now.
Have I ever even mentioned Israel? I can only assume "Zionist scum" is some issue with Jews, given I don't think I have ever mentioned Israel.
...
I makes me truly wonder what is making me anti-Semitic other than SCREAMING about the plan of kill Jewish people in concentration camps, here in America? Is it because I vehemently disagree with those who FORGET HISTORY? Or are you attempting to label me a NAZI because we disagree?
Hm.
Makes me wonder...
Why? Because he's an obvious capo who delights in the suffering of others?Give him a little more time and I'm sure he'll surprise you with even more explicitly anti-Semitic rantings. To be fair though, I don't think he's going to limit himself to just that...Greetings!That's because leftists are NOT liberals. They get wet thinking of child-murder, death camps, burkas or any covering over faces, and rape. And those like Mistwell, the self-hating CAPOS - well, the founders and the Torah DID warn about zionist scum like him. I tried to reach him, but I guess when you're fap-fap-fapping to your own bloodlust and lies.... Well, at least he'll die along with people like me! That should be a relief for his idiocy!
I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Wait, you're calling me "zionist scum" and claiming I have "bloodlust" because I disagree with you about the election and masks?
OK. You're officially creepy now.
Have I ever even mentioned Israel? I can only assume "Zionist scum" is some issue with Jews, given I don't think I have ever mentioned Israel.
...
I makes me truly wonder what is making me anti-Semitic other than SCREAMING about the plan of kill Jewish people in concentration camps, here in America? Is it because I vehemently disagree with those who FORGET HISTORY? Or are you attempting to label me a NAZI because we disagree?
Hm.
Makes me wonder...
A "ZIONIST" SCUMBAG:Why? Because he's an obvious capo who delights in the suffering of others?Give him a little more time and I'm sure he'll surprise you with even more explicitly anti-Semitic rantings. To be fair though, I don't think he's going to limit himself to just that...Greetings!That's because leftists are NOT liberals. They get wet thinking of child-murder, death camps, burkas or any covering over faces, and rape. And those like Mistwell, the self-hating CAPOS - well, the founders and the Torah DID warn about zionist scum like him. I tried to reach him, but I guess when you're fap-fap-fapping to your own bloodlust and lies.... Well, at least he'll die along with people like me! That should be a relief for his idiocy!
I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Wait, you're calling me "zionist scum" and claiming I have "bloodlust" because I disagree with you about the election and masks?
OK. You're officially creepy now.
Have I ever even mentioned Israel? I can only assume "Zionist scum" is some issue with Jews, given I don't think I have ever mentioned Israel.
...
I makes me truly wonder what is making me anti-Semitic other than SCREAMING about the plan of kill Jewish people in concentration camps, here in America? Is it because I vehemently disagree with those who FORGET HISTORY? Or are you attempting to label me a NAZI because we disagree?
Hm.
Makes me wonder...
What does the phrase "zionist scum" mean to you, and why do you think it applies specifically to me?
That is what I believe you to be.Isn't that special. Nobody is going to prove anything to you because you'll never admit you're wrong, so you just go on thinking what you want about others, and I'll keep thinking your real name appears on the sex offender registry. Oh, and...prove me wrong, bitch.
Prove me wrong.
A "ZIONIST" SCUMBAG:Why? Because he's an obvious capo who delights in the suffering of others?Give him a little more time and I'm sure he'll surprise you with even more explicitly anti-Semitic rantings. To be fair though, I don't think he's going to limit himself to just that...Greetings!That's because leftists are NOT liberals. They get wet thinking of child-murder, death camps, burkas or any covering over faces, and rape. And those like Mistwell, the self-hating CAPOS - well, the founders and the Torah DID warn about zionist scum like him. I tried to reach him, but I guess when you're fap-fap-fapping to your own bloodlust and lies.... Well, at least he'll die along with people like me! That should be a relief for his idiocy!
I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Wait, you're calling me "zionist scum" and claiming I have "bloodlust" because I disagree with you about the election and masks?
OK. You're officially creepy now.
Have I ever even mentioned Israel? I can only assume "Zionist scum" is some issue with Jews, given I don't think I have ever mentioned Israel.
...
I makes me truly wonder what is making me anti-Semitic other than SCREAMING about the plan of kill Jewish people in concentration camps, here in America? Is it because I vehemently disagree with those who FORGET HISTORY? Or are you attempting to label me a NAZI because we disagree?
Hm.
Makes me wonder...
What does the phrase "zionist scum" mean to you, and why do you think it applies specifically to me?
There are those who claim to be true zionists but are NOT. They despise Israel, observant Jews, and Christians who support them. They HATE GOD, and they believe MEN can be AS GODS. They are ashamed of themselves, their heritage. They want to be just like "EVERYONE ELSE". They support U.N. Resolution 3379 ( See https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/24893 ), for example. I place the Rothschildes and others in this EXACT category. They worship the mountain, not the God who created the mountain. They supported the German Nazis, and were the harshest torturers during that time of those who are true to themselves. They are the followers of evil, NOT of the laws. They hate all laws and consider themselves superior to them. They say they love, but they only hate. They have broken their oaths and care not for their kin. They think they are superior, when they are the worst upon this earth. They call themselves ZIONISTS to confuse others.
That is what I believe you to be.
Prove me wrong.
Greetings!Ehhh, I recall back when the pandemic was really kicking off around Feburary that it was largely a right-wing stance to push for lockdowns, closing borders, taking the virus seriously, etc. The Left by contrast were the ones talking about how it was just "the flu" and that the whole virus was being blown out of proportion by evil nazi fascist bigots as an excuse to be xenophobic towards Chy-nah.
I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
It would help if you would provide a link to support your assertion that aerosolized particles are the more significant mode of transmission. The World Health Organization seems to consider both; if masks reduce the one significantly, that should still have a useful effect. Nobody is suggesting that masks alone are sufficient steps.I've provided many links in the coronavirus thread. I agree that real world examples matter more than theory. So here are few focused more on pragmatics. The first is the most significant recent study on masks. It's a large, randomized study, so unlike many of the sloppy, limited, and biased studies at the start of the pandemic, it meets very high standards of evidence.
While experimentation in laboratories is certainly important, I am more encouraged by observed results in the real world, such as the differing experience of Kansas counties with mask mandates versus those without.
https://apnews.com/article/health-kansas-virus-outbreak-f218e1a38cce6b2af63c1cd23f1d234e
This could be for other reasons, of course; a mask mandate might include or at least encourage other steps to reduce transmission, or people in counties who resist mask mandates may also resist other steps to discourage transmission.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
Slightly older, but surveys of the evidence on masks, from the CDC and Oxford:
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/
no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others
Aerosolization:
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/9/2311/5867798
Ehhh, I recall back when the pandemic was really kicking off around Feburary that it was largely a right-wing stance to push for lockdowns, closing borders, taking the virus seriously, etc. The Left by contrast were the ones talking about how it was just "the flu" and that the whole virus was being blown out of proportion by evil nazi fascist bigots as an excuse to be xenophobic towards Chy-nah.
At some point between Feburary and April some switch got flipped and both sides did a total 180.
The whole thing has looked like such a politicised/partisan farce as an outsider looking in on the US.
We are not prepared for a pandemic. Trump has rolled back progress President Obama and I made to strengthen global health security. We need leadership that builds public trust, focuses on real threats, and mobilizes the world to stop outbreaks before they reach our shores.
Different degrees of certainty. The empirical evidence suggests masks have little or no effect. But why? Large droplet transmission can't explain it, aerosolization can. That doesn't mean it's the right answer, just it's the one answer that seems to fit the displayed behavior. I don't know of any studies that have empirically measured the primary mode of transmission, but we still have to make a best guess.It would help if you would provide a link to support your assertion that aerosolized particles are the more significant mode of transmission. The World Health Organization seems to consider both; if masks reduce the one significantly, that should still have a useful effect. Nobody is suggesting that masks alone are sufficient steps.I've provided many links in the coronavirus thread. I agree that real world examples matter more than theory. So here are few focused more on pragmatics. The first is the most significant recent study on masks. It's a large, randomized study, so unlike many of the sloppy, limited, and biased studies at the start of the pandemic, it meets very high standards of evidence.
While experimentation in laboratories is certainly important, I am more encouraged by observed results in the real world, such as the differing experience of Kansas counties with mask mandates versus those without.
https://apnews.com/article/health-kansas-virus-outbreak-f218e1a38cce6b2af63c1cd23f1d234e
This could be for other reasons, of course; a mask mandate might include or at least encourage other steps to reduce transmission, or people in counties who resist mask mandates may also resist other steps to discourage transmission.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
Slightly older, but surveys of the evidence on masks, from the CDC and Oxford:
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/
These don't seem to support your assertion that aerosolized particles are the more significant mode of transmission. An interesting limitation in the first study:Quoteno assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others
Masks have generally been presented as primarily protecting people other than the wearers, but providing some protection to the wearer (among the conclusions, "The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection."). I suspect that mask mandates may be helpful where rates of infection are very high.
Among the problems with masks that are not addressed by mask mandates: people wear them incorrectly, they use masks of materials that are less effective, and they don't wash the cloth ones as they should.
But mask mandates address other issues: remind people to take other appropriate actions (social distancing, not touching their faces, avoiding large gatherings), reduce pressure not to wear masks, and reduce feelings that individuals have no control. And, if the protection is primarily for other people, it works against the free rider problem.QuoteAerosolization:
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/9/2311/5867798
They don't seem to be advocating against masks, which are not mentioned but may be part of what they describe as droplet precautions (presumably also sneezing into your elbow and such). And it doesn't support that aerosolized particles are the more significant mode of transmission, although it may be that if we defend against every other mode of transmission it will account for more infection.
Ventilation was also a goal in the 1918 pandemic, apparently affecting heating system design:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-05/the-curious-history-of-steam-heat-and-pandemics
Ventilation was also a goal in the 1918 pandemic, apparently affecting heating system design:Different degrees of certainty. The empirical evidence suggests masks have little or no effect. But why? Large droplet transmission can't explain it, aerosolization can. That doesn't mean it's the right answer, just it's the one answer that seems to fit the displayed behavior. I don't know of any studies that have empirically measured the primary mode of transmission, but we still have to make a best guess.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-05/the-curious-history-of-steam-heat-and-pandemics
It's worth remembering that we still know relatively little about COVID-19, and that it's a very strange virus.
Interesting link. I wonder whether, a century from now, any changes we make in response to sars2 will be recognized to have negative effects.
I've never worn one.
Asymptomatic transmission is a fiction, the entire premise for mask-wearing is a fraud.
1) Pre-symptomatic transmission is real and proven.
2) A lot of people don't recognize something is a symptom, or write it off as something else.
When a stomach ache is a frequent first symptom, a whole lot of people write it off as just having eaten the wrong thing.
When sniffles is a frequent first symptom, a whole lot of people write it off as just seasonal allergies.
When a headache is a frequent first symptom, a whole lot of people write it off as just a headache perhaps from stress or lack of caffeine or lack of sleep.
When loss of smell is a frequent first symptom, a whole lot of people simply never notice.
If you don't recognize you have a symptom, then it's not asymptomatic transmission, but you might not wear a mask because you don't know you have a symptom.
And of course you don't know you're going to show a symptom tomorrow, but are contagious right now.
Yes, and that experts change their advice as more is learned should not be overly criticized. Doing nothing at all while waiting for complete knowledge is fair to criticize.Yes, they're bound to make mistakes at the start. I'm far more critical when they don't reassess. But I think one of the greatest failures of public health is conveying ambiguity. We need less reassurance and confidence, and more discussion of the limits of our knowledge.
I recall reading past discussions of another bit of safety advice: wearing a bicycle helmet. There are accidents that it would help in, but unfortunately the bulk of bicycle accidents involve motor vehicles and the helmets would mostly be irrelevant. And like masks people wear helmets incorrectly and don't maintain them. If bicycle accident injuries preventable with helmets threatened to overwhelm hospital capacity, I think there would be a lot more mandatory bicycle helmet laws. But as it is there are still mandatory bicycle helmet laws in the US, although most are aimed at children.
To an extent, it's surprising that that change persisted so long. If people stopped shaking hands in favor of bowing to each other or anything else, that would probably be a welcome change. Working remotely seems like it might persist, at least for part of the time and in jobs most compatible with it, and that might increase an existing trend for people to be isolated and lonely.The trends toward social isolation might be one of those things they look back on in a 100 years, and say "what were they thinking?"
It's been ages, so I could be misremembering, but I've seen bicycle helmets listed as one of the contributing factors that's led to childhood becoming much safer over the last 40 years.
I'm not sure I believe that. It could be true. But it could just as easily be false. People are terrible at statistics, and there's a lot of incentive for advocates and public officials to claim the measures they promoted or enacted really do work. All they need is a few sob stories to support their cause.
The trends toward social isolation might be one of those things they look back on in a 100 years, and say "what were they thinking?"
Greetings!That's, like, your opinion, man. I'm a conservative even if I'm not a right-wing extremist, and I support reasonable masking requirements and some limitations on business access. I find that it's the right-wing extremist assholes that see the measures as all or nothing.
I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!That's, like, your opinion, man. I'm a conservative even if I'm not a right-wing extremist, and I support reasonable masking requirements and some limitations on business access. I find that it's the right-wing extremist assholes that see the measures as all or nothing.
I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
If am curious about that statement. What does conservative mean, and list some of your conservative positions. I think with all the post shifting I am not sure what conservative, liberal, progressive, left wing extremist, or right wing extremist mean.
Greetings!That's, like, your opinion, man. I'm a conservative even if I'm not a right-wing extremist, and I support reasonable masking requirements and some limitations on business access. I find that it's the right-wing extremist assholes that see the measures as all or nothing.
I think it is interesting that all of the people here--as well as in society--that are Leftists almost exclusively and stridently support mask wearing and strict lockdown policies for society in regards to the China virus, while more right-wing and Conservative people support freedom, for both individuals and individual communities making independent choices.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
If am curious about that statement. What does conservative mean, and list some of your conservative positions. I think with all the post shifting I am not sure what conservative, liberal, progressive, left wing extremist, or right wing extremist mean.
I'm more worried about the kids. A lot of development for babies is about recognizing faces, and for school age children it's about socialization with their peers and developing interpersonal skills. Kids tend to be quite resilient, but we also know that things like strong trauma has lasting negative effects. With luck, they'll bounce back. But who knows?The trends toward social isolation might be one of those things they look back on in a 100 years, and say "what were they thinking?"
I suspect that will be true, but it shouldn't all be blamed on the pandemic.
https://www.hrsa.gov/enews/past-issues/2019/january-17/loneliness-epidemic
That's all true. Now that Jeffery Epstein is alive, those poor kids have even MORE to worry about! Fun Fact: Will J. Epstein become the new Chuck Norris?I'm more worried about the kids. A lot of development for babies is about recognizing faces, and for school age children it's about socialization with their peers and developing interpersonal skills. Kids tend to be quite resilient, but we also know that things like strong trauma has lasting negative effects. With luck, they'll bounce back. But who knows?The trends toward social isolation might be one of those things they look back on in a 100 years, and say "what were they thinking?"
I suspect that will be true, but it shouldn't all be blamed on the pandemic.
https://www.hrsa.gov/enews/past-issues/2019/january-17/loneliness-epidemic
Masks block 99.9% of large Covid-linked droplets: study (https://news.yahoo.com/masks-block-99-9-large-131416084.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&tsrc=fb)
---snippp---A Despair-inducing and Esoteric-sounding sentence ~ please elucidate!
Corona has set you up the bomb. Make your time now.
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?On a personal level, know several people that have had it and one that has died. If you include professional contacts, those numbers are both considerably higher, but as I'm a nurse, that's not likely to be surprising (unless you're one of those nutters that's in total denial about COVID).
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?Several immediate family members, a few more distant relatives, and a close family friend who's still in the step down unit after spending more than 4 weeks on a ventilator. Professionally, surprisingly few given I'm healthcare-adjacent.
This bug acts like it rolls on an RPG table for effects. One person will get it and never even notice, another gets mildly sick. a third winds up in the hospital, and a fourth keels over.Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?Several immediate family members, a few more distant relatives, and a close family friend who's still in the step down unit after spending more than 4 weeks on a ventilator. Professionally, surprisingly few given I'm healthcare-adjacent.
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?
I have not had it, nor do I know anyone who has. But there is very little COVID in my neck of the woods, so not surprising.
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?
I have not had it, nor do I know anyone who has. But there is very little COVID in my neck of the woods, so not surprising.
Over a fucking virus with a 99.8% survival rate for most of the population.(Emphasis mine)
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?
My understanding is actually that 99.8% is the absolute worst survival rate, exhibited only in the 80-and-over age category (with an average of 2.5 co-morbidities). Everyone else's survival rate is significantly higher.
No, it's considerably higher than that among the high risk populations. The overall infection fatality rate seems to be about 0.3%, give or take, across the entire population. But that skyrockets after age 60/65. Though it's lower than that for school kids and the working age population -- for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.Over a fucking virus with a 99.8% survival rate for most of the population.(Emphasis mine)
My understanding is actually that 99.8% is the absolute worst survival rate, exhibited only in the 80-and-over age category (with an average of 2.5 co-morbidities). Everyone else's survival rate is significantly higher.
No, it's considerably higher than that among the high risk populations. The overall infection fatality rate seems to be about 0.3%, give or take, across the entire population. But that skyrockets after age 60/65. Though it's lower than that for school kids and the working age population -- for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.A tinfoil hat theory I've had for a while is that China did cook this bug up, but it wasn't meant to get loose -- it was to cull their aging population and clear them out.
No, it's considerably higher than that among the high risk populations. The overall infection fatality rate seems to be about 0.3%, give or take, across the entire population. But that skyrockets after age 60/65. Though it's lower than that for school kids and the working age population -- for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.A tinfoil hat theory I've had for a while is that China did cook this bug up, but it wasn't meant to get loose -- it was to cull their aging population and clear them out.
Like I said, very tinfoil hat territory. But let's be honest, we could all easily see the CCP doing this.
No, it's considerably higher than that among the high risk populations. The overall infection fatality rate seems to be about 0.3%, give or take, across the entire population. But that skyrockets after age 60/65. Though it's lower than that for school kids and the working age population -- for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.A tinfoil hat theory I've had for a while is that China did cook this bug up, but it wasn't meant to get loose -- it was to cull their aging population and clear them out.
Like I said, very tinfoil hat territory. But let's be honest, we could all easily see the CCP doing this.
Best theory I heard back in the before times was that this was an attempt to come up with an AIDS vaccine or treatment (not a doctor) that went awry. Hence the international funding and involvement in the facility -- the AIDS epidemic is a million times worse and something the whole world is concerned about. It also could explain why some places were successful in treating it with said drugs.
No, it's considerably higher than that among the high risk populations. The overall infection fatality rate seems to be about 0.3%, give or take, across the entire population. But that skyrockets after age 60/65. Though it's lower than that for school kids and the working age population -- for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.A tinfoil hat theory I've had for a while is that China did cook this bug up, but it wasn't meant to get loose -- it was to cull their aging population and clear them out.
Like I said, very tinfoil hat territory. But let's be honest, we could all easily see the CCP doing this.
Best theory I heard back in the before times was that this was an attempt to come up with an AIDS vaccine or treatment (not a doctor) that went awry. Hence the international funding and involvement in the facility -- the AIDS epidemic is a million times worse and something the whole world is concerned about. It also could explain why some places were successful in treating it with said drugs.
I recall hearing that theory. The idea was that someone botched containment or safety procedures and several people were exposed at once, leading to the outbreak.
Can't argue with any of that. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity. And I've heard tales that ChiCom lab protocols are... um... less than robust. Lots of cargo-cult behavior based on what they observe in Western labs.
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?
Can't argue with any of that. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity. And I've heard tales that ChiCom lab protocols are... um... less than robust. Lots of cargo-cult behavior based on what they observe in Western labs.
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?
about 12 people. 7 fairly well, and the other 5 in passing. 7 of them are over 70. 4 are in their 20's and one is a 40+ with some pre existing health issues. No fatalities, one hospitalization (pre existing conditions, over 70, and though the research is not solid yet, a susceptible blood type).
Other than that, I do not know anyone in person or any friend or family member that has gotten Covid.
Can't argue with any of that. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity. And I've heard tales that ChiCom lab protocols are... um... less than robust. Lots of cargo-cult behavior based on what they observe in Western labs.
Can't argue with any of that. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity. And I've heard tales that ChiCom lab protocols are... um... less than robust. Lots of cargo-cult behavior based on what they observe in Western labs.
A friend of mine visited a nuclear facility there (he has an interesting story about the journey there involving swapping taxis in the middle of a field). He said that it was possible to see in to the core of the reactor. (For those who don't know, this is a very bad thing). He didn't do it himself and he reckoned that either the whole thing was a sort of Potempkin Village or that none of the radiation alarms were switched on and the workers there would die very painful deaths.
for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.
CDC data:for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.
What numbers are you using for flu fatality rates in the under-49 age group?
Can't argue with any of that. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity. And I've heard tales that ChiCom lab protocols are... um... less than robust. Lots of cargo-cult behavior based on what they observe in Western labs.A friend of mine visited a nuclear facility there (he has an interesting story about the journey there involving swapping taxis in the middle of a field). He said that it was possible to see in to the core of the reactor. (For those who don't know, this is a very bad thing). He didn't do it himself and he reckoned that either the whole thing was a sort of Potempkin Village or that none of the radiation alarms were switched on and the workers there would die very painful deaths.
For the nulcear power sector, depends on plant designs. If based on old Soviet designs, then the safety measures are people, no automatic safety measures to prevent a meltdown. Three Mile Island was a case of people turning off the safety measures that would have prevented it.
I can't speak to their science or energy sectors, but personal experience with the manufacturing sector leaves me unsurprised by these accounts.
At this point, I would say that the main worry for any ADE effects would be if the coronavirus mutates to the point that the antibodies generated by the current vaccines become non-neutralizing. And honestly, I don’t see that happening (it certainly doesn’t seem to have happened yet).
CDC data:for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.
What numbers are you using for flu fatality rates in the under-49 age group?
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2019-2020.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html (scenario 5 is the best guess)
You can dig into the cited papers for more specific details. There was a good graph on twitter by a relevant expert showing the two fatalities rates vs. age, and the lines intersected at age 49 (which was especially evident on the log scale version of the graph), though I can't seem to quickly find it again.
EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!
EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!
Influenza reportedly killed 675,000 Americans in 1918. We're in a similar situation now with 383,000+ dead of Covid-19.
This almost certainly misses indirect deaths, where people can't get hospital care for an unrelated serious health issue because hospitals are too full, or people who hesitate to seek medical care where capacity exists that would save them because they're afraid of being exposed. White room comparison the two diseases is false comfort, even for people who don't care about anyone older than 50.
CDC data:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2019-2020.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html (scenario 5 is the best guess)
You can dig into the cited papers for more specific details. There was a good graph on twitter by a relevant expert showing the two fatalities rates vs. age, and the lines intersected at age 49 (which was especially evident on the log scale version of the graph), though I can't seem to quickly find it again.
Thanks. The two CDC pages certainly don't make it easy to compare. They break it down into different age cohorts for flu than for Covid. Plus one is reported as an infection fatality ratio and the other as numbers per 100,000, so you have to do some math to get comparable figures. But near as I can tell, the Covid mortality rate for 20-49 year olds is ten times higher than the flu mortality rate for 18-49 year olds (0.0002 vs. 0.000019 respectively).
EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!
I get that number as well, but I'm not terribly confident without looking over the data a lot more closely. As you noted, the pages aren't terribly friendly or easy to compare.CDC data:for those under age 49, it's less lethal the seasonal flu.
What numbers are you using for flu fatality rates in the under-49 age group?
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2019-2020.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html (scenario 5 is the best guess)
You can dig into the cited papers for more specific details. There was a good graph on twitter by a relevant expert showing the two fatalities rates vs. age, and the lines intersected at age 49 (which was especially evident on the log scale version of the graph), though I can't seem to quickly find it again.
Thanks. The two CDC pages certainly don't make it easy to compare. They break it down into different age cohorts for flu than for Covid. Plus one is reported as an infection fatality ratio and the other as numbers per 100,000, so you have to do some math to get comparable figures. But near as I can tell, the Covid mortality rate for 20-49 year olds is ten times higher than the flu mortality rate for 18-49 year olds (0.0002 vs. 0.000019 respectively).
EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!
While everyone is sword-fighting with statistics, I wonder why the SCIENCE crowd is so quiet about the latest political decisions and just-released lockdown studies?What else did you expect from LIARS, THIEVES, AND MURDERERS?
The lag between linking to favorable science is usually measured in nanoseconds, so the absence is noted
While everyone is sword-fighting with statistics, I wonder why the SCIENCE crowd is so quiet about the latest political decisions and just-released lockdown studies?
The lag between linking to favorable science is usually measured in nanoseconds, so the absence is noted
I get that number as well, but I'm not terribly confident without looking over the data a lot more closely. As you noted, the pages aren't terribly friendly or easy to compare.https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2019-2020.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html (scenario 5 is the best guess)
Thanks. The two CDC pages certainly don't make it easy to compare. They break it down into different age cohorts for flu than for Covid. Plus one is reported as an infection fatality ratio and the other as numbers per 100,000, so you have to do some math to get comparable figures. But near as I can tell, the Covid mortality rate for 20-49 year olds is ten times higher than the flu mortality rate for 18-49 year olds (0.0002 vs. 0.000019 respectively).
EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!
But that conflicts with other sources, which suggests the flu has an IFR of 0.1% (the CDC's 38 million infected/22K deaths for the last season is 0.57%, i.e. within in a factor of two but not the same) and that COVID-19's is only a few times larger.
The 22K deaths from the 2019-2020 flu season is parallel to the 390K total deaths from covid-19.
US population was 103.2 million in 1918. That is a massive proportional difference. Add in the average life span in 1918 was a bit over 50 (far fewer elderly and sick people to die from the flu) and tossing numbers like that around sort of makes it look like you are attempting to manipulate facts.EDITED TO ADD: that said, even if my math is right, I am not super confident in the flu-Covid comparisons except maybe in a broad-brush way. Flu is not reportable, so really hard to get a handle on its prevalence. Just look at the uncertainty intervals in the flu tables, they are huge!
Influenza reportedly killed 675,000 Americans in 1918. We're in a similar situation now with 383,000+ dead of Covid-19.
This almost certainly misses indirect deaths, where people can't get hospital care for an unrelated serious health issue because hospitals are too full, or people who hesitate to seek medical care where capacity exists that would save them because they're afraid of being exposed. White room comparison the two diseases is false comfort, even for people who don't care about anyone older than 50.
The 22K deaths from the 2019-2020 flu season is parallel to the 390K total deaths from covid-19.
2017-2018 Flu season caused an estimated 80k deaths so it looks like 2019-2020 was a very good year for preventing deaths.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/26/health/flu-deaths-2017--2018-cdc-bn/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/26/health/flu-deaths-2017--2018-cdc-bn/index.html)
Question, how many here have had COVID or know someone that has had it?
about 12 people. 7 fairly well, and the other 5 in passing. 7 of them are over 70. 4 are in their 20's and one is a 40+ with some pre existing health issues. No fatalities, one hospitalization (pre existing conditions, over 70, and though the research is not solid yet, a susceptible blood type).
Yeesh, this sort of thing makes me very happy I'm living in Korea. I'm in contact with all kinds of people through my work and ZERO of them have even come into contact with anyone with the virus, at least as far as Korea's very active contact tracing can tell. Like I said upthread the closest I've got to a link to the virus is a worker at my secretary's daughter's daycare who was working with a different batch of kids.
Did any of you miss what the Dems are saying? Don't worry about the COV! I mean, it's 2021 ~ Orange-man Gone ~ Time to RE-OPEN! FUCK THE SCIENCE! ITS RAY-CIS'd ANYWAY!
https://twitter.com/cbschicago/status/1349778522240389124
Greetings!
Golly, isn't it so wonderful that we have Biden and Kamala leading the way for America in the Covid era? Just bow down and suck Kamala's ass, and give thanks to the ever-wise and benevolent Democrats.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!
Golly, isn't it so wonderful that we have Biden and Kamala leading the way for America in the Covid era? Just bow down and suck Kamala's ass, and give thanks to the ever-wise and benevolent Democrats.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
To be fair it's got to be better than the last shower of glaikit shite.
Greetings!Now, now, let's be fair! Biden and Kamala won fair and square! I know it's true! CNN, MSNBC, and PBS told me so, why would they lie?? ::)
Golly, isn't it so wonderful that we have Biden and Kamala leading the way for America in the Covid era? Just bow down and suck Kamala's ass, and give thanks to the ever-wise and benevolent Democrats.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Yo face diaper wearing retards!
Peer reviewed STANFORD study says masks are useless. Fuck you all.
Yo face diaper wearing retards!
Peer reviewed STANFORD study says masks are useless. Fuck you all.
The box the mask comes in literally says they don't do anything to reduce the infection of viruses, so why the fuck do I need a peer-reviewed study to confirm that?
Peak clown world!
Yo face diaper wearing retards!
Peer reviewed STANFORD study says masks are useless. Fuck you all.
The box the mask comes in literally says they don't do anything to reduce the infection of viruses, so why the fuck do I need a peer-reviewed study to confirm that?
Peak clown world!
This "study"* was compiled by a clinical exercise physiologist. A glorified fitness trainer is hardly an authority on infectious disease. https://www.linkedin.com/in/baruch-vainshelboim-5591b532
*It was published online as a hypothesis, not a study. i.e. it contains no new information.
I'm not some rabid mask-clutching type, but dumb shit is still dumb shit.
Medical Hypotheses was therefore launched, and still exists today, to give novel, radical new ideas and speculations in medicine open-minded consideration, opening the field to radical hypotheses which would be rejected by most conventional journals. Papers in Medical Hypotheses take a standard scientific form in terms of style, structure and referencing. The journal therefore constitutes a bridge between cutting-edge theory and the mainstream of medical and scientific communication, which ideas must eventually enter if they are to be critiqued and tested against observations.Source: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/medical-hypotheses
This "study"* was compiled by a clinical exercise physiologist. A glorified fitness trainer is hardly an authority on infectious disease. https://www.linkedin.com/in/baruch-vainshelboim-5591b532
*It was published online as a hypothesis, not a study. i.e. it contains no new information.
I'm not some rabid mask-clutching type, but dumb shit is still dumb shit.
This "study"* was compiled by a clinical exercise physiologist. A glorified fitness trainer is hardly an authority on infectious disease. https://www.linkedin.com/in/baruch-vainshelboim-5591b532He's got a Ph.D. from Stanford and is an active researcher. He's not a medical doctor, but he has advanced knowledge in a relevant field. This is more about statistics and physiology than clinical judgments, anyway.
*It was published online as a hypothesis, not a study. i.e. it contains no new information.
I'm not some rabid mask-clutching type, but dumb shit is still dumb shit.
He's got a Ph.D. from Stanford and is an active researcher. He's not a medical doctor, but he has advanced knowledge in a relevant field. This is more about statistics and physiology than clinical judgments, anyway.
The "hypothesis" seems to a convention of the journal. It's not some magical thing that's different from a study. Though you're correct it doesn't contain much in the way of new information. It's effectively a meta-study, a survey and summary of the relevant literature, and doesn't really transform the information in new ways. As a result, it's mostly useful as a summary and a source of references.
It's also worth noting that it's hosted on the National Institute of Health's website, but that's not an endorsement by the government. The National Library of Medicine is just a public service, providing access to medical resources. JHKim is correct that the journal appears to be a publication aimed at ideas a bit outside the mainstream, but while being hosted by the NIH isn't an endorsement, it does suggest it's a legitimate journal. It's for emerging or less popular ideas, not nutty conspiracy theories.
I don't see any significant difference in what I said, although the bulk of the evidence outside this particular article doesn't support masks.He's got a Ph.D. from Stanford and is an active researcher. He's not a medical doctor, but he has advanced knowledge in a relevant field. This is more about statistics and physiology than clinical judgments, anyway.
The "hypothesis" seems to a convention of the journal. It's not some magical thing that's different from a study. Though you're correct it doesn't contain much in the way of new information. It's effectively a meta-study, a survey and summary of the relevant literature, and doesn't really transform the information in new ways. As a result, it's mostly useful as a summary and a source of references.
It's also worth noting that it's hosted on the National Institute of Health's website, but that's not an endorsement by the government. The National Library of Medicine is just a public service, providing access to medical resources. JHKim is correct that the journal appears to be a publication aimed at ideas a bit outside the mainstream, but while being hosted by the NIH isn't an endorsement, it does suggest it's a legitimate journal. It's for emerging or less popular ideas, not nutty conspiracy theories.
I agree it's not a nutty conspiracy theory. Still, it's a single author non-peer-reviewed paper with no new data. The author has a PhD and works at Stanford, but he doesn't seem to have any experience or done research in infectious disease.
I don't see any reason to take this one author over any other expert, especially people with specific experience and research in respiratory diseases. There are differences of opinion among those, but most of them do recommend masks based on the studies. They don't make as much difference as many laypeople believe, but it's not crazy to believe there is some benefit - though there is also room for doubt.
Will the upcoming riots in Minneapolis feature masks?
Will the upcoming riots in Minneapolis feature masks?
Bandits, Antifa and now cops have figured out the best way to not get in trouble -- wear a mask!Will the upcoming riots in Minneapolis feature masks?
Seem popular among the cops.
Bandits, Antifa and now cops have figured out the best way to not get in trouble -- wear a mask!Will the upcoming riots in Minneapolis feature masks?
Seem popular among the cops.
Shame those wacky insurrectionists never figured that out.
This "study"* was compiled by a clinical exercise physiologist. A glorified fitness trainer is hardly an authority on infectious disease. https://www.linkedin.com/in/baruch-vainshelboim-5591b532
*It was published online as a hypothesis, not a study. i.e. it contains no new information.
I'm not some rabid mask-clutching type, but dumb shit is still dumb shit.
I'd trust a fucking clinical exercise physiologist over any of these "doctors" running around with absolutely zero pragmatic experience. All those "experts" rarely, if ever, have practiced medicine, and most have never been outside of a fucking lab. But you know that, don't you? Once again, attack the messenger, don't address the actual information contained within because you don't like the conclusion. Modern day science!
EDIT: Did you even bother to read this dude's publications?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Vainshelboim%20B%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=33303303
Seems like a fucking expert on the topic of pulmonary health if I've ever seen one.
I'm fine with the conclusion! I laugh at those who act as though masks are a holy garment. I also don't like inaccurate or false claims though, and I was disappointed when this "peer-reviewed Stanford study" turned out to be a typo-ridden piece authored by a guy whose other papers are all about pulmonary functions and health. It is not peer-reviewed, and does not come from Stanford.
I mean we can't just accept things that we agree with without looking past the headline.
If Texas and Florida have proven anything it's that going outside and getting some sun is far more effective than vaccines or masks.I'm not going to speak for Texas, but Florida has mask use and vaccines alongside getting sun.
The anti-maskers posting here are mostly driven by two intellectual mistakes:
1) confirmation bias, where they lean heavily on studies that were too small to resolve population-wide effects on the order of 10's of %, or were so uncontrolled that it is hard to know whether or what masks were really being worn. Confirmation bias has become a way of life in our politically fractured country, but it is still the mark of a dip shit whose brain doesn't work.
2) failure to recognize that population-scale mitigation of infectious disease is not a one-solution thing; it is more like engineering commercial air travel to be less dangerous - effective solutions come from layering of multiple approaches, each of which only reduces overall negative outcomes by some marginal amount. That doesn't mean each of them is pointless. It means the opposite of that: the only rational approach is to do all of the marginally helpful things you can.
The anti-maskers posting here are mostly driven by two intellectual mistakes:
1) confirmation bias, where they lean heavily on studies that were too small to resolve population-wide effects on the order of 10's of %, or were so uncontrolled that it is hard to know whether or what masks were really being worn. Confirmation bias has become a way of life in our politically fractured country, but it is still the mark of a dip shit whose brain doesn't work.
2) failure to recognize that population-scale mitigation of infectious disease is not a one-solution thing; it is more like engineering commercial air travel to be less dangerous - effective solutions come from layering of multiple approaches, each of which only reduces overall negative outcomes by some marginal amount. That doesn't mean each of them is pointless. It means the opposite of that: the only rational approach is to do all of the marginally helpful things you can.
Speaking of Commercial Flight, have the airplanes been retrofitted with EPA filters capable of filtering out viruses?Doesn't seem necessary, the fairly thorough air filtration they use seems to work. Airlines spread covid, but only the sense that sick people get on, get off, and then spread it to people at their destination. There don't seem to have been any mass infections on an airplane since almost the start of the pandemic.
Speaking of Commercial Flight, have the airplanes been retrofitted with EPA filters capable of filtering out viruses?Doesn't seem necessary, the fairly thorough air filtration they use seems to work. Airlines spread covid, but only the sense that sick people get on, get off, and then spread it to people at their destination. There don't seem to have been any mass infections on an airplane since almost the start of the pandemic.
Nah, airlines actually make contact tracing very easy. You know exactly who, when, where, and who they were in contact with. It would be very easy to figure out if it happened, but airlines simply don't seem to be a place where the disease spreads. If someone sick flies somewhere, they might spread it there, but not to anyone else on the plane.Speaking of Commercial Flight, have the airplanes been retrofitted with EPA filters capable of filtering out viruses?Doesn't seem necessary, the fairly thorough air filtration they use seems to work. Airlines spread covid, but only the sense that sick people get on, get off, and then spread it to people at their destination. There don't seem to have been any mass infections on an airplane since almost the start of the pandemic.
Mainly because the flights were near zero, and because you can't know if a bunch of people comming from the same place got it before or during flight.
Nah, airlines actually make contact tracing very easy. You know exactly who, when, where, and who they were in contact with. It would be very easy to figure out if it happened, but airlines simply don't seem to be a place where the disease spreads. If someone sick flies somewhere, they might spread it there, but not to anyone else on the plane.Speaking of Commercial Flight, have the airplanes been retrofitted with EPA filters capable of filtering out viruses?Doesn't seem necessary, the fairly thorough air filtration they use seems to work. Airlines spread covid, but only the sense that sick people get on, get off, and then spread it to people at their destination. There don't seem to have been any mass infections on an airplane since almost the start of the pandemic.
Mainly because the flights were near zero, and because you can't know if a bunch of people comming from the same place got it before or during flight.
Nah, airlines actually make contact tracing very easy. You know exactly who, when, where, and who they were in contact with. It would be very easy to figure out if it happened, but airlines simply don't seem to be a place where the disease spreads. If someone sick flies somewhere, they might spread it there, but not to anyone else on the plane.Speaking of Commercial Flight, have the airplanes been retrofitted with EPA filters capable of filtering out viruses?Doesn't seem necessary, the fairly thorough air filtration they use seems to work. Airlines spread covid, but only the sense that sick people get on, get off, and then spread it to people at their destination. There don't seem to have been any mass infections on an airplane since almost the start of the pandemic.
Mainly because the flights were near zero, and because you can't know if a bunch of people comming from the same place got it before or during flight.
Weird you can spend hours in a closed space, breathing the same recirculated air with not optimal face masks and have zero transmission...
And each person effectively gets their own ventilation system, because each seat has its own airflow directed at them. That's why it really stands out to me -- like GeekyBugle, my initial reaction was that airlines would be hotbeds of disease. But the evidence was really clear, and once you think about it a little further, it does make sense.
Air flows into the cabin vertically — it enters from overhead vents and is sent downward in a circular motion, exiting at floor level. Once air leaves the cabin, about half is dumped outside, and the rest is sent through HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) filters, similar to those used in hospitals, before being mixed with fresh outside air and entering the cabin again.
Studies before Covid showed air at an airplane seat is incredible pure, relative to almost any other place you will find yourself around other people. It's one of the only places you can go where your seat's air is constantly on and continually filtered for you. You are not in an "enclosed space" in terms of the air, nor are you "breathing the same recirculated air" as it's continually refreshed.
And each person effectively gets their own ventilation system, because each seat has its own airflow directed at them. That's why it really stands out to me -- like GeekyBugle, my initial reaction was that airlines would be hotbeds of disease. But the evidence was really clear, and once you think about it a little further, it does make sense.
Air flows into the cabin vertically — it enters from overhead vents and is sent downward in a circular motion, exiting at floor level. Once air leaves the cabin, about half is dumped outside, and the rest is sent through HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) filters, similar to those used in hospitals, before being mixed with fresh outside air and entering the cabin again.
Studies before Covid showed air at an airplane seat is incredible pure, relative to almost any other place you will find yourself around other people. It's one of the only places you can go where your seat's air is constantly on and continually filtered for you. You are not in an "enclosed space" in terms of the air, nor are you "breathing the same recirculated air" as it's continually refreshed.
Another issue worth mentioning is that, while the usefulness of most cheap masks for preventing the wearer from contracting airborne viral illnesses is probably modest to nil, the evidence is clear that they are more useful at preventing the wearer from spreading disease to others. So, if you are a complete sociopath you might question whether or not you need to wear one, but otherwise it is obvious you should. It's a little like imagining that you could only wear a car seatbelt if someone else puts it on you (kinky...?).Or maybe if you’re that worried about it you should stay the fuck home. What a novel concept!
Air flows into the cabin vertically — it enters from overhead vents and is sent downward in a circular motion, exiting at floor level. Once air leaves the cabin, about half is dumped outside, and the rest is sent through HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) filters, similar to those used in hospitals, before being mixed with fresh outside air and entering the cabin again.And each person effectively gets their own ventilation system, because each seat has its own airflow directed at them. That's why it really stands out to me -- like GeekyBugle, my initial reaction was that airlines would be hotbeds of disease. But the evidence was really clear, and once you think about it a little further, it does make sense.
Studies before Covid showed air at an airplane seat is incredible pure, relative to almost any other place you will find yourself around other people. It's one of the only places you can go where your seat's air is constantly on and continually filtered for you. You are not in an "enclosed space" in terms of the air, nor are you "breathing the same recirculated air" as it's continually refreshed.
So, assuming you're both correct...
What's the pretext to perpetuate the use of masks outside? Are you telling me I'm at more risk at a park than on an airplane?
And it begs the question, what's the reason then for the ban on smoking on airplanes? Those wornderful filters can filter viruses but not the smoke of cigarretes?
I love hearing the idiots say you'll get hypoxia from wearing a mask because it keeps oxygen out and holds carbon dioxide in... Yet both of these molecules are vastly smaller than the COVID-19 virus that these same morons insist pass through the mask with ease. It takes some real Tucker Carlson-level dumb to not see the contradictions in these stances.
Oh, and here is a source if you like. https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths (https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths)
Remember the guy that claimed to have a Stanford study? Read his piece on the harmfulness of masks and you'll see an example of the hypoxia nonsense.I love hearing the idiots say you'll get hypoxia from wearing a mask because it keeps oxygen out and holds carbon dioxide in... Yet both of these molecules are vastly smaller than the COVID-19 virus that these same morons insist pass through the mask with ease. It takes some real Tucker Carlson-level dumb to not see the contradictions in these stances.
Oh, and here is a source if you like. https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths (https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths)
Nice strawman you've got there (unless you can point to someone here that has that position?), you sure you can beat it to death by yourself?
Remember the guy that claimed to have a Stanford study? Read his piece on the harmfulness of masks and you'll see an example of the hypoxia nonsense.I love hearing the idiots say you'll get hypoxia from wearing a mask because it keeps oxygen out and holds carbon dioxide in... Yet both of these molecules are vastly smaller than the COVID-19 virus that these same morons insist pass through the mask with ease. It takes some real Tucker Carlson-level dumb to not see the contradictions in these stances.
Oh, and here is a source if you like. https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths (https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths)
Nice strawman you've got there (unless you can point to someone here that has that position?), you sure you can beat it to death by yourself?
You really are a lazy piece of shit with a short memory aren't you? It's not like we haven't been talking about the study in question for the last two pages of this thread, starting with post #116, but you need to be spoon-fed, don't ya?Remember the guy that claimed to have a Stanford study? Read his piece on the harmfulness of masks and you'll see an example of the hypoxia nonsense.I love hearing the idiots say you'll get hypoxia from wearing a mask because it keeps oxygen out and holds carbon dioxide in... Yet both of these molecules are vastly smaller than the COVID-19 virus that these same morons insist pass through the mask with ease. It takes some real Tucker Carlson-level dumb to not see the contradictions in these stances.
Oh, and here is a source if you like. https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths (https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths)
Nice strawman you've got there (unless you can point to someone here that has that position?), you sure you can beat it to death by yourself?
Totally, I'm gonna go luck for it instead of you providing evidence of your claims.
You really are a lazy piece of shit with a short memory aren't you? It's not like we haven't been talking about the study in question for the last two pages of this thread, starting with post #116, but you need to be spoon-fed, don't ya?Remember the guy that claimed to have a Stanford study? Read his piece on the harmfulness of masks and you'll see an example of the hypoxia nonsense.I love hearing the idiots say you'll get hypoxia from wearing a mask because it keeps oxygen out and holds carbon dioxide in... Yet both of these molecules are vastly smaller than the COVID-19 virus that these same morons insist pass through the mask with ease. It takes some real Tucker Carlson-level dumb to not see the contradictions in these stances.
Oh, and here is a source if you like. https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths (https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths)
Nice strawman you've got there (unless you can point to someone here that has that position?), you sure you can beat it to death by yourself?
Totally, I'm gonna go luck for it instead of you providing evidence of your claims.
What evidence do you offer to support that the claim that you're shitposting?You really are a lazy piece of shit with a short memory aren't you? It's not like we haven't been talking about the study in question for the last two pages of this thread, starting with post #116, but you need to be spoon-fed, don't ya?Remember the guy that claimed to have a Stanford study? Read his piece on the harmfulness of masks and you'll see an example of the hypoxia nonsense.I love hearing the idiots say you'll get hypoxia from wearing a mask because it keeps oxygen out and holds carbon dioxide in... Yet both of these molecules are vastly smaller than the COVID-19 virus that these same morons insist pass through the mask with ease. It takes some real Tucker Carlson-level dumb to not see the contradictions in these stances.
Oh, and here is a source if you like. https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths (https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths)
Nice strawman you've got there (unless you can point to someone here that has that position?), you sure you can beat it to death by yourself?
Totally, I'm gonna go luck for it instead of you providing evidence of your claims.
never provide evidence. not even shitposting (I mean I am shitposting but still). Stop wasting time.
What evidence do you offer to support that the claim that you're shitposting?You really are a lazy piece of shit with a short memory aren't you? It's not like we haven't been talking about the study in question for the last two pages of this thread, starting with post #116, but you need to be spoon-fed, don't ya?Remember the guy that claimed to have a Stanford study? Read his piece on the harmfulness of masks and you'll see an example of the hypoxia nonsense.I love hearing the idiots say you'll get hypoxia from wearing a mask because it keeps oxygen out and holds carbon dioxide in... Yet both of these molecules are vastly smaller than the COVID-19 virus that these same morons insist pass through the mask with ease. It takes some real Tucker Carlson-level dumb to not see the contradictions in these stances.
Oh, and here is a source if you like. https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths (https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths)
Nice strawman you've got there (unless you can point to someone here that has that position?), you sure you can beat it to death by yourself?
Totally, I'm gonna go luck for it instead of you providing evidence of your claims.
never provide evidence. not even shitposting (I mean I am shitposting but still). Stop wasting time.
You really are a lazy piece of shit with a short memory aren't you? It's not like we haven't been talking about the study in question for the last two pages of this thread, starting with post #116, but you need to be spoon-fed, don't ya?Remember the guy that claimed to have a Stanford study? Read his piece on the harmfulness of masks and you'll see an example of the hypoxia nonsense.I love hearing the idiots say you'll get hypoxia from wearing a mask because it keeps oxygen out and holds carbon dioxide in... Yet both of these molecules are vastly smaller than the COVID-19 virus that these same morons insist pass through the mask with ease. It takes some real Tucker Carlson-level dumb to not see the contradictions in these stances.
Oh, and here is a source if you like. https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths (https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths)
Nice strawman you've got there (unless you can point to someone here that has that position?), you sure you can beat it to death by yourself?
Totally, I'm gonna go luck for it instead of you providing evidence of your claims.
Did you somehow believe that I started this line in response to you? If so, that's your mistake. I was making a general response to the thread, not commenting on your particular brand of ignorance. And considering how far gone you are into the crazy-land side of right-wing, being called a leftie by you is hardly an insult.You really are a lazy piece of shit with a short memory aren't you? It's not like we haven't been talking about the study in question for the last two pages of this thread, starting with post #116, but you need to be spoon-fed, don't ya?Remember the guy that claimed to have a Stanford study? Read his piece on the harmfulness of masks and you'll see an example of the hypoxia nonsense.I love hearing the idiots say you'll get hypoxia from wearing a mask because it keeps oxygen out and holds carbon dioxide in... Yet both of these molecules are vastly smaller than the COVID-19 virus that these same morons insist pass through the mask with ease. It takes some real Tucker Carlson-level dumb to not see the contradictions in these stances.
Oh, and here is a source if you like. https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths (https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths)
Nice strawman you've got there (unless you can point to someone here that has that position?), you sure you can beat it to death by yourself?
Totally, I'm gonna go luck for it instead of you providing evidence of your claims.
When have I spoken about that? Also he who makes the claim has the burden of proof. But it's too much to ask of a leftie to stick to logic.
You really are a lazy piece of shit with a short memory aren't you? It's not like we haven't been talking about the study in question for the last two pages of this thread, starting with post #116, but you need to be spoon-fed, don't ya?Remember the guy that claimed to have a Stanford study? Read his piece on the harmfulness of masks and you'll see an example of the hypoxia nonsense.I love hearing the idiots say you'll get hypoxia from wearing a mask because it keeps oxygen out and holds carbon dioxide in... Yet both of these molecules are vastly smaller than the COVID-19 virus that these same morons insist pass through the mask with ease. It takes some real Tucker Carlson-level dumb to not see the contradictions in these stances.
Oh, and here is a source if you like. https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths (https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths)
Nice strawman you've got there (unless you can point to someone here that has that position?), you sure you can beat it to death by yourself?
Totally, I'm gonna go luck for it instead of you providing evidence of your claims.
When have I spoken about that? Also he who makes the claim has the burden of proof. But it's too much to ask of a leftie to stick to logic.
Did you somehow believe that I started this line in response to you? If so, that's your mistake. I was making a general response to the thread, not commenting on your particular brand of ignorance. And considering how far gone you are into the crazy-land side of right-wing, being called a leftie by you is hardly an insult.You really are a lazy piece of shit with a short memory aren't you? It's not like we haven't been talking about the study in question for the last two pages of this thread, starting with post #116, but you need to be spoon-fed, don't ya?Remember the guy that claimed to have a Stanford study? Read his piece on the harmfulness of masks and you'll see an example of the hypoxia nonsense.I love hearing the idiots say you'll get hypoxia from wearing a mask because it keeps oxygen out and holds carbon dioxide in... Yet both of these molecules are vastly smaller than the COVID-19 virus that these same morons insist pass through the mask with ease. It takes some real Tucker Carlson-level dumb to not see the contradictions in these stances.
Oh, and here is a source if you like. https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths (https://news.llu.edu/health-wellness/infectious-disease-physician-breaks-down-coronavirus-mask-myths)
Nice strawman you've got there (unless you can point to someone here that has that position?), you sure you can beat it to death by yourself?
Totally, I'm gonna go luck for it instead of you providing evidence of your claims.
When have I spoken about that? Also he who makes the claim has the burden of proof. But it's too much to ask of a leftie to stick to logic.
And each person effectively gets their own ventilation system, because each seat has its own airflow directed at them. That's why it really stands out to me -- like GeekyBugle, my initial reaction was that airlines would be hotbeds of disease. But the evidence was really clear, and once you think about it a little further, it does make sense.
Air flows into the cabin vertically — it enters from overhead vents and is sent downward in a circular motion, exiting at floor level. Once air leaves the cabin, about half is dumped outside, and the rest is sent through HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) filters, similar to those used in hospitals, before being mixed with fresh outside air and entering the cabin again.
Studies before Covid showed air at an airplane seat is incredible pure, relative to almost any other place you will find yourself around other people. It's one of the only places you can go where your seat's air is constantly on and continually filtered for you. You are not in an "enclosed space" in terms of the air, nor are you "breathing the same recirculated air" as it's continually refreshed.
So, assuming you're both correct...
What's the pretext to perpetuate the use of masks outside? Are you telling me I'm at more risk at a park than on an airplane?
And it begs the question, what's the reason then for the ban on smoking on airplanes? Those wornderful filters can filter viruses but not the smoke of cigarretes?
You are really showing that you don't know shit about my beliefs either and are full of assumptions. I've never said that the vaccines are going to be flawless, nor do I think the lockdowns are without issues. However, I do feel that way too many here are all too eager to assume that both the vaccines and lockdowns are totally without merit.
Yeah you just were generalizing against anyone arguing against you because that's how you roll.
Calling you a leftie isn't an insult nor was it intended as one, is an accurate descriptor.
On the other hand you know jack shit about my political leanings, but are happy to assume.
Think the vaccines were rushed and there might be some sideeffects we're not aware off? Crazy right wing anti-vaxer!
Think the lockdown is causing more harm than good? Crazy right wing antiscience!
Think there were other measures that could have been taken? Crazy loony right wing wants to kill granma!
And yet, even the ONU/OMS said the lockdowns were being used too easily and they would cause lots of deaths due to other causes, like poverty.
But since you can't see those, it won't be you, and the party says otherwise you'll follow lockstep happilly goose stteping their commands.
Yeah you an independent thinker whose conclusions all wind up at the same spot as all the other local independent thinkers.
And each person effectively gets their own ventilation system, because each seat has its own airflow directed at them. That's why it really stands out to me -- like GeekyBugle, my initial reaction was that airlines would be hotbeds of disease. But the evidence was really clear, and once you think about it a little further, it does make sense.
Air flows into the cabin vertically — it enters from overhead vents and is sent downward in a circular motion, exiting at floor level. Once air leaves the cabin, about half is dumped outside, and the rest is sent through HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) filters, similar to those used in hospitals, before being mixed with fresh outside air and entering the cabin again.
Studies before Covid showed air at an airplane seat is incredible pure, relative to almost any other place you will find yourself around other people. It's one of the only places you can go where your seat's air is constantly on and continually filtered for you. You are not in an "enclosed space" in terms of the air, nor are you "breathing the same recirculated air" as it's continually refreshed.
So, assuming you're both correct...
What's the pretext to perpetuate the use of masks outside? Are you telling me I'm at more risk at a park than on an airplane?
And it begs the question, what's the reason then for the ban on smoking on airplanes? Those wornderful filters can filter viruses but not the smoke of cigarretes?
I think the outside mask mandate is mostly silly. I think they went with it because it was easier to do a blanket ban than it was to mandate "if you're in a crowd outside you need a mask."
As for cigarettes...our society is trying to ban them everywhere they can ban them without actually banning their use entirely. So if they can ban them in an indoor setting of any kind, even if it's a safe setting, they will.
You are really showing that you don't know shit about my beliefs either and are full of assumptions. I've never said that the vaccines are going to be flawless, nor do I think the lockdowns are without issues. However, I do feel that way too many here are all too eager to assume that both the vaccines and lockdowns are totally without merit.
Yeah you just were generalizing against anyone arguing against you because that's how you roll.
Calling you a leftie isn't an insult nor was it intended as one, is an accurate descriptor.
On the other hand you know jack shit about my political leanings, but are happy to assume.
Think the vaccines were rushed and there might be some sideeffects we're not aware off? Crazy right wing anti-vaxer!
Think the lockdown is causing more harm than good? Crazy right wing antiscience!
Think there were other measures that could have been taken? Crazy loony right wing wants to kill granma!
And yet, even the ONU/OMS said the lockdowns were being used too easily and they would cause lots of deaths due to other causes, like poverty.
But since you can't see those, it won't be you, and the party says otherwise you'll follow lockstep happilly goose stteping their commands.
And then proceed to channel your inner Greta Thunberg.
You're projecting again. You screech far more loudly and more frequently than many here.You are really showing that you don't know shit about my beliefs either and are full of assumptions. I've never said that the vaccines are going to be flawless, nor do I think the lockdowns are without issues. However, I do feel that way too many here are all too eager to assume that both the vaccines and lockdowns are totally without merit.
Yeah you just were generalizing against anyone arguing against you because that's how you roll.
Calling you a leftie isn't an insult nor was it intended as one, is an accurate descriptor.
On the other hand you know jack shit about my political leanings, but are happy to assume.
Think the vaccines were rushed and there might be some sideeffects we're not aware off? Crazy right wing anti-vaxer!
Think the lockdown is causing more harm than good? Crazy right wing antiscience!
Think there were other measures that could have been taken? Crazy loony right wing wants to kill granma!
And yet, even the ONU/OMS said the lockdowns were being used too easily and they would cause lots of deaths due to other causes, like poverty.
But since you can't see those, it won't be you, and the party says otherwise you'll follow lockstep happilly goose stteping their commands.
Or... More likelly, you assume any and all criticism as saying they lack any merit. And then proceed to channel your inner Greta Thunberg.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/U1aN4HTfJ2SmgB2BBK/giphy.gif)
And each person effectively gets their own ventilation system, because each seat has its own airflow directed at them. That's why it really stands out to me -- like GeekyBugle, my initial reaction was that airlines would be hotbeds of disease. But the evidence was really clear, and once you think about it a little further, it does make sense.
Air flows into the cabin vertically — it enters from overhead vents and is sent downward in a circular motion, exiting at floor level. Once air leaves the cabin, about half is dumped outside, and the rest is sent through HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) filters, similar to those used in hospitals, before being mixed with fresh outside air and entering the cabin again.
Studies before Covid showed air at an airplane seat is incredible pure, relative to almost any other place you will find yourself around other people. It's one of the only places you can go where your seat's air is constantly on and continually filtered for you. You are not in an "enclosed space" in terms of the air, nor are you "breathing the same recirculated air" as it's continually refreshed.
So, assuming you're both correct...
What's the pretext to perpetuate the use of masks outside? Are you telling me I'm at more risk at a park than on an airplane?
And it begs the question, what's the reason then for the ban on smoking on airplanes? Those wornderful filters can filter viruses but not the smoke of cigarretes?
I think the outside mask mandate is mostly silly. I think they went with it because it was easier to do a blanket ban than it was to mandate "if you're in a crowd outside you need a mask."
As for cigarettes...our society is trying to ban them everywhere they can ban them without actually banning their use entirely. So if they can ban them in an indoor setting of any kind, even if it's a safe setting, they will.
As an ex smoker, and you're happy that your government (and mine to a lesser extent) is trying to ban smoking? When has prohibition worked? And furthermore, why does the government have the right to tell you what you can do with your body?
Why can't a bar/restaurant/etc choose to allow indoor smoking? Put a sign and let non-smokers go somewhere else? That's the liberal way, the other is the totalitarian way.
But I see BeijingBiden already wants to prohibit the consumption of red meat... Why aren't all the gringos protesting against this?
So, if you are a complete sociopath you might question whether or not you need to wear one, but otherwise it is obvious you should.I'm not interested in humoring those afflicted with hypochondriasis.
So, if you are a complete sociopath you might question whether or not you need to wear one, but otherwise it is obvious you should.I'm not interested in humoring those afflicted with hypochondriasis.
Two can play diagnose the mental illness game. :-/
So, if you are a complete sociopath you might question whether or not you need to wear one, but otherwise it is obvious you should.I'm not interested in humoring those afflicted with hypochondriasis.
Two can play diagnose the mental illness game. :-/
You are mindless goof if you believe it makes you a hypochondriac to wear a mask around other people after a year in which ~600,000 americans died of a novel virus spread through air droplets.
So, if you are a complete sociopath you might question whether or not you need to wear one, but otherwise it is obvious you should.I'm not interested in humoring those afflicted with hypochondriasis.
Two can play diagnose the mental illness game. :-/
You are mindless goof if you believe it makes you a hypochondriac to wear a mask around other people after a year in which ~600,000 americans died of a novel virus spread through air droplets.
I heard that it was 100 million dead.
So, if you are a complete sociopath you might question whether or not you need to wear one, but otherwise it is obvious you should.I'm not interested in humoring those afflicted with hypochondriasis.
Two can play diagnose the mental illness game. :-/
You are mindless goof if you believe it makes you a hypochondriac to wear a mask around other people after a year in which ~600,000 americans died of a novel virus spread through air droplets.
I heard that it was 100 million dead.
Presumably that's intended as some sort of snarky joke. Assuming that's so, you're engaged in one of the weirder acts of modern performative nihilism. The denial of Covid deaths comes from a different motivation from holocaust denial, but the two share the same intellectual pedigree. They are the realm of people with malignant personality disorders, and dipshits who believe the nonsense they make up.
So, if you are a complete sociopath you might question whether or not you need to wear one, but otherwise it is obvious you should.I'm not interested in humoring those afflicted with hypochondriasis.
Two can play diagnose the mental illness game. :-/
You are mindless goof if you believe it makes you a hypochondriac to wear a mask around other people after a year in which ~600,000 americans died of a novel virus spread through air droplets.
I heard that it was 100 million dead.
Presumably that's intended as some sort of snarky joke.
Presumably that's intended as some sort of snarky joke. Assuming that's so, you're engaged in one of the weirder acts of modern performative nihilism. The denial of Covid deaths comes from a different motivation from holocaust denial, but the two share the same intellectual pedigree. They are the realm of people with malignant personality disorders, and dipshits who believe the nonsense they make up.I did naht zee what you did there.
So you're not only a sociopath if you thinking wearing a mask doesn't do anything, you're also a holocaust denier if you think the Chinavirus death count is inflated.
And I'm supposed to take this line of "reasoning" seriously?
So you're not only a sociopath if you thinking wearing a mask doesn't do anything, you're also a holocaust denier if you think the Chinavirus death count is inflated.
And I'm supposed to take this line of "reasoning" seriously?
But, hey at least the Flu didn't really hit last year... ::)
CDC has now cleared vaccinated people to be outdoors without a mask in non-crowded situations.How nice of our would-be overlords to throw us a bone.
No bones for the anti-vaxxers (that also happen to overlap considerably with the anti-maskers).CDC has now cleared vaccinated people to be outdoors without a mask in non-crowded situations.How nice of our would-be overlords to throw us a bone.
Nisi forte non de serveitute, sed de conditione serviendi, recusandum est a nobis.
No bones for the anti-vaxxers (that also happen to overlap considerably with the anti-maskers).CDC has now cleared vaccinated people to be outdoors without a mask in non-crowded situations.How nice of our would-be overlords to throw us a bone.
Nisi forte non de serveitute, sed de conditione serviendi, recusandum est a nobis.
Did you read the part about vaccinated people being the ones allowed to go maskless?No bones for the anti-vaxxers (that also happen to overlap considerably with the anti-maskers).CDC has now cleared vaccinated people to be outdoors without a mask in non-crowded situations.How nice of our would-be overlords to throw us a bone.
Nisi forte non de serveitute, sed de conditione serviendi, recusandum est a nobis.
Since they are not actually a 'vaccine' what do anti-vaxxers have to do with it?
Did you read the part about vaccinated people being the ones allowed to go maskless?No bones for the anti-vaxxers (that also happen to overlap considerably with the anti-maskers).CDC has now cleared vaccinated people to be outdoors without a mask in non-crowded situations.How nice of our would-be overlords to throw us a bone.
Nisi forte non de serveitute, sed de conditione serviendi, recusandum est a nobis.
Since they are not actually a 'vaccine' what do anti-vaxxers have to do with it?
Did you read the part about vaccinated people being the ones allowed to go maskless?No bones for the anti-vaxxers (that also happen to overlap considerably with the anti-maskers).CDC has now cleared vaccinated people to be outdoors without a mask in non-crowded situations.How nice of our would-be overlords to throw us a bone.
Nisi forte non de serveitute, sed de conditione serviendi, recusandum est a nobis.
Since they are not actually a 'vaccine' what do anti-vaxxers have to do with it?
Which doesn't have anything to do with my question.
Since the jabs being offered are not vaccines (in either the legal or scientific definition) what do anti-vaxxers have to do with the situation?
You are mindless goof if you believe it makes you a hypochondriac to wear a mask around other people after a year in which ~600,000 americans died of a novel virus spread through air droplets.70% of those who caught it wore masks all the time outside their home.
CDC has now cleared vaccinated people to be outdoors without a mask in non-crowded situations.So they CDC has cleared what we've been doing since this thing began even before vaccinations.
Did you read the part about vaccinated people being the ones allowed to go maskless?No bones for the anti-vaxxers (that also happen to overlap considerably with the anti-maskers).CDC has now cleared vaccinated people to be outdoors without a mask in non-crowded situations.How nice of our would-be overlords to throw us a bone.
Nisi forte non de serveitute, sed de conditione serviendi, recusandum est a nobis.
Since they are not actually a 'vaccine' what do anti-vaxxers have to do with it?
Which doesn't have anything to do with my question.
Since the jabs being offered are not vaccines (in either the legal or scientific definition) what do anti-vaxxers have to do with the situation?
Explain how they are not vaccines. In particular, I'd love to hear how the Johnson and Johnson vaccine isn't a vaccine.
[note: There is nothing wrong with gene therapy as such...
Isn't "no gods, no masters" the mantra of the commie totalitarians?CDC has now cleared vaccinated people to be outdoors without a mask in non-crowded situations.How nice of our would-be overlords to throw us a bone.
Nisi forte non de serveitute, sed de conditione serviendi, recusandum est a nobis.
Which is funny, since the god of commie totalitarians is the State. And consistently they devolve into neo-feudalist societies rather than their magical 'equality for all' paradise.Isn't "no gods, no masters" the mantra of the commie totalitarians?CDC has now cleared vaccinated people to be outdoors without a mask in non-crowded situations.How nice of our would-be overlords to throw us a bone.
Nisi forte non de serveitute, sed de conditione serviendi, recusandum est a nobis.
;D
There can always be bad effects. I am just suggesting that the research itself is not inherently bad...
Technically speaking, that is the reason I am not getting a jab. I never get the flu shot because I can count on one hand the number of times I have been sick in the last 40 years. I am better within 24-36 hours, maybe a little tired out to 48. My immune system seems to work exceptionally well, so I prefer not to mess with it. Since the jab alters body chemistry, I prefer to leave mine as is. Adding the possibility of unknown long-term effects just puts more weight on the 'no' side of the scale.
My stepfather is getting/has gotten one of the jabs (don't know which off the top of my head) and considering he is 80 and has had a stroke that is probably the right decision. His health issues mean the harsher symptoms could be a problem and long-term effects are not a big factor at that age.
I am just suggesting that the research itself is not inherently bad...
Technically speaking, that is the reason I am not getting a jab. I never get the flu shot because I can count on one hand the number of times I have been sick in the last 40 years. I am better within 24-36 hours, maybe a little tired out to 48. My immune system seems to work exceptionally well, so I prefer not to mess with it. Since the jab alters body chemistry, I prefer to leave mine as is. Adding the possibility of unknown long-term effects just puts more weight on the 'no' side of the scale.
My stepfather is getting/has gotten one of the jabs (don't know which off the top of my head) and considering he is 80 and has had a stroke that is probably the right decision. His health issues mean the harsher symptoms could be a problem and long-term effects are not a big factor at that age.
I crunched the numbers from Health Canada for my age cohort. 170k in the 40-49 bracket have tested positive. 2.8% ended up hospitalized, 0.3% admitted to ICU, 0.13% died. Granted I'm overweight and out of shape (as a result of WFH and no gyms) and my family has a history of diabetes but I'm still willing to take those odds. I don't imagine my odds are much better driving my daughter and wife to/from their schools each day.
The deal with vaccination, though, is even greater -- because people aren't just risking their own deaths. By carrying the disease, they can infect others who are less healthy and have greater odds of death. For example, for me, my church has lots of 70+ year old members. If I am around them, I could increase their odds - not to mention my parents and other relatives, or just elderly or immune-compromised people in the grocery store.
Quote from: jhkimThe deal with vaccination, though, is even greater -- because people aren't just risking their own deaths. By carrying the disease, they can infect others who are less healthy and have greater odds of death. For example, for me, my church has lots of 70+ year old members. If I am around them, I could increase their odds - not to mention my parents and other relatives, or just elderly or immune-compromised people in the grocery store.
Your position is that COVID-19 vaccines prevent a vaccinated person from carrying the disease.
Are you really sure that's accurate? Even the great and powerful CDC isn't sure at this time.
Table 1b. Effectiveness against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission* 0 days after second dose
Country Population Vaccine Outcome Vaccine effectiveness or risk reduction United States (27) General adult population Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna Asymptomatic infection 80%* United Kingdom (Scotland) (28) Healthcare workers and household members Pfizer-BioNTech or AstraZeneca Household members: SARS-CoV-2 infection 54%** Israel (19) General adult population Pfizer-BioNTech Asymptomatic infection 94%**
** 14 days after second dose
I am just suggesting that the research itself is not inherently bad...
Technically speaking, that is the reason I am not getting a jab. I never get the flu shot because I can count on one hand the number of times I have been sick in the last 40 years. I am better within 24-36 hours, maybe a little tired out to 48. My immune system seems to work exceptionally well, so I prefer not to mess with it. Since the jab alters body chemistry, I prefer to leave mine as is. Adding the possibility of unknown long-term effects just puts more weight on the 'no' side of the scale.
My stepfather is getting/has gotten one of the jabs (don't know which off the top of my head) and considering he is 80 and has had a stroke that is probably the right decision. His health issues mean the harsher symptoms could be a problem and long-term effects are not a big factor at that age.
I crunched the numbers from Health Canada for my age cohort. 170k in the 40-49 bracket have tested positive. 2.8% ended up hospitalized, 0.3% admitted to ICU, 0.13% died. Granted I'm overweight and out of shape (as a result of WFH and no gyms) and my family has a history of diabetes but I'm still willing to take those odds. I don't imagine my odds are much better driving my daughter and wife to/from their schools each day.
Unless you have some particularly death-defying drive to their schools, the odds of a fatal crash are more then ten times lower. In the U.S., the driver fatality rate is around 150 deaths per 10 billion vehicle-miles driven. Say you drive 20 miles to their schools every day, that's around 0.01% per year. cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_State. That's more then ten times less likely than death by covid-19.
Put it another way. The overall death rate in the age cohort of 40-49 is around 300 per 100,000 (ref) (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db355.htm). That's 0.3%. So if someone in that age bracket were to get covid-19 with an 0.13% chance of death, they have a much greater chance of death (+40%).
The deal with vaccination, though, is even greater -- because people aren't just risking their own deaths. By carrying the disease, they can infect others who are less healthy and have greater odds of death. For example, for me, my church has lots of 70+ year old members. If I am around them, I could increase their odds - not to mention my parents and other relatives, or just elderly or immune-compromised people in the grocery store.
Quote from: jhkimThe deal with vaccination, though, is even greater -- because people aren't just risking their own deaths. By carrying the disease, they can infect others who are less healthy and have greater odds of death. For example, for me, my church has lots of 70+ year old members. If I am around them, I could increase their odds - not to mention my parents and other relatives, or just elderly or immune-compromised people in the grocery store.
Your position is that COVID-19 vaccines prevent a vaccinated person from carrying the disease.
Are you really sure that's accurate? Even the great and powerful CDC isn't sure at this time.
I am just suggesting that the research itself is not inherently bad...
Technically speaking, that is the reason I am not getting a jab. I never get the flu shot because I can count on one hand the number of times I have been sick in the last 40 years. I am better within 24-36 hours, maybe a little tired out to 48. My immune system seems to work exceptionally well, so I prefer not to mess with it. Since the jab alters body chemistry, I prefer to leave mine as is. Adding the possibility of unknown long-term effects just puts more weight on the 'no' side of the scale.
My stepfather is getting/has gotten one of the jabs (don't know which off the top of my head) and considering he is 80 and has had a stroke that is probably the right decision. His health issues mean the harsher symptoms could be a problem and long-term effects are not a big factor at that age.
I crunched the numbers from Health Canada for my age cohort. 170k in the 40-49 bracket have tested positive. 2.8% ended up hospitalized, 0.3% admitted to ICU, 0.13% died. Granted I'm overweight and out of shape (as a result of WFH and no gyms) and my family has a history of diabetes but I'm still willing to take those odds. I don't imagine my odds are much better driving my daughter and wife to/from their schools each day.
Unless you have some particularly death-defying drive to their schools, the odds of a fatal crash are more then ten times lower. In the U.S., the driver fatality rate is around 150 deaths per 10 billion vehicle-miles driven. Say you drive 20 miles to their schools every day, that's around 0.01% per year. cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_State. That's more then ten times less likely than death by covid-19.
Put it another way. The overall death rate in the age cohort of 40-49 is around 300 per 100,000 (ref) (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db355.htm). That's 0.3%. So if someone in that age bracket were to get covid-19 with an 0.13% chance of death, they have a much greater chance of death (+40%).
The deal with vaccination, though, is even greater -- because people aren't just risking their own deaths. By carrying the disease, they can infect others who are less healthy and have greater odds of death. For example, for me, my church has lots of 70+ year old members. If I am around them, I could increase their odds - not to mention my parents and other relatives, or just elderly or immune-compromised people in the grocery store.
1) I think he lives in Canada, not the US...
2) Assuming his wife/daughter go to school 5 days a week, he is making that round trip almost everyday...is he being exposed to Covid every day? If not then that has to be taken into account as well
It isn't 100% in efficacy - and it isn't completely proven, but yes, there is good reason to think that vaccination will reduce the chances of transmission. It's been true of other diseases for certain. For covid-19, here's the CDC report on effectiveness studies to date:QuoteTable 1b. Effectiveness against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission* 0 days after second dose
Country Population Vaccine Outcome Vaccine effectiveness or risk reduction United States (27) General adult population Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna Asymptomatic infection 80%* United Kingdom (Scotland) (28) Healthcare workers and household members Pfizer-BioNTech or AstraZeneca Household members: SARS-CoV-2 infection 54%** Israel (19) General adult population Pfizer-BioNTech Asymptomatic infection 94%**
** 14 days after second dose
Source: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html
EDITED TO ADD: And no, the U.S. CDC isn't all-knowing or perfect -- but these are studies at least across three different countries showing an effect. There is variations in results across different countries, but all of them show that covid-19 is a highly infectious, highly deadly disease -- and that the vaccines are largely effective and safe by comparison. For this to all be a hoax, it would require international cooperation on an unprecedented scale.
The MoH analysis was conducted when more than 80% of tested specimens in Israel were variant B.1.1.7, providing real-world evidence of the effectiveness of BNT162b2 for prevention of COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths due to variant B.1.1.7.
I crunched the numbers from Health Canada for my age cohort. 170k in the 40-49 bracket have tested positive. 2.8% ended up hospitalized, 0.3% admitted to ICU, 0.13% died. Granted I'm overweight and out of shape (as a result of WFH and no gyms) and my family has a history of diabetes but I'm still willing to take those odds. I don't imagine my odds are much better driving my daughter and wife to/from their schools each day.
Yup I'm a Canuckistani. Yes I know my chances of death are less than 0.13% from driving but hyperbole aside my greater point is that waking up and operating in society bears non-zero risk of dying. Space junk could land on my head, we could finally have that earthquake they've been threatening my whole life, someone could shoot up either school my family attends, someone could invade my home. Fucking derka derkas could bomb something or China could invade. Life is risk man. I was scared of Kung Flu back in Jan 2019 when it was mostly just China and I started stocking up on food. Since then the numbers show that while deadlier than the 2018 flu its not exactly the fucking Spanish Flu (especially since that one affected both the young and the old not just people near death anyway).
I think assessing relative risks is vital. For example, you compare it to the Spanish Flu that killed anywhere from 17 to 100 million worldwide, as opposed to 3 million so far from covid-19 and maybe 0.5 million from 2018 influenza. But I think that's deceptive. There's a huge difference there in that we have much better medicine and public health today compared to 1918. If we had better medicine and public health and been able to develop vaccines back in 1918, maybe there could have been millions fewer deaths by containing its spread and treating it.World population, 1918: About 1.8 billion.
It seems to me that the lesson from the 1918 Spanish Flu is that we should have taken it more seriously, and made broader efforts to contain its spread.
And how exactly would you propose the people of 1918 treat the Spanish flu, gene therapy?
Did you read the part about vaccinated people being the ones allowed to go maskless?No bones for the anti-vaxxers (that also happen to overlap considerably with the anti-maskers).CDC has now cleared vaccinated people to be outdoors without a mask in non-crowded situations.How nice of our would-be overlords to throw us a bone.
Nisi forte non de serveitute, sed de conditione serviendi, recusandum est a nobis.
Since they are not actually a 'vaccine' what do anti-vaxxers have to do with it?
Which doesn't have anything to do with my question.
Since the jabs being offered are not vaccines (in either the legal or scientific definition) what do anti-vaxxers have to do with the situation?
Explain how they are not vaccines. In particular, I'd love to hear how the Johnson and Johnson vaccine isn't a vaccine.
Did they start allowing J&J again? I wondered why they shut it down when it had far fewer issues than the other two 'offerings'.
The Pfizer and Moderna jabs are not vaccines because a 'vaccine' is specifically an item made from dead or less potent forms of the virus in order to stimulate the bodies immune system to produce antibodies to fight it.
Neither of those two do that. They alter the body to produce an item that will bond in a manner that prevents Covid from being able to cause a high enough virus load in the body. Basically an internally created chemical blocker that prevents Covid from attaching.
This is why
1) During 'Warp Speed', they were talking about immunity from lawsuits for the manufacturers...actual vaccines have been granted civil immunity for the manufacturers since the 80s.
2) The Moderna SEC filing lists it as 'gene therapy' (I have not specifically read the filing for Pfizers, but the biochemistry itself is similar)
[note: There is nothing wrong with gene therapy as such...that is how we'll fix diabetes and a host of other genetic disorders.]
3) The 'experts' say you can still be a carrier or actually catch it...because it is not activating the immune system and you actually can still catch it. It is supposed to keep the virus load low enough to prevent bad results.
Quote from: jhkimThe deal with vaccination, though, is even greater -- because people aren't just risking their own deaths. By carrying the disease, they can infect others who are less healthy and have greater odds of death. For example, for me, my church has lots of 70+ year old members. If I am around them, I could increase their odds - not to mention my parents and other relatives, or just elderly or immune-compromised people in the grocery store.
Your position is that COVID-19 vaccines prevent a vaccinated person from carrying the disease.
Are you really sure that's accurate? Even the great and powerful CDC isn't sure at this time.
Quote from: jhkimThe deal with vaccination, though, is even greater -- because people aren't just risking their own deaths. By carrying the disease, they can infect others who are less healthy and have greater odds of death. For example, for me, my church has lots of 70+ year old members. If I am around them, I could increase their odds - not to mention my parents and other relatives, or just elderly or immune-compromised people in the grocery store.
Your position is that COVID-19 vaccines prevent a vaccinated person from carrying the disease.
Are you really sure that's accurate? Even the great and powerful CDC isn't sure at this time.
They've been saying the opposite. You can still carry and spread, and even get sick, after the vaccination (I thought I saw news reports about some states having more covid deaths among vaccinated now than non-vaccinated? probably misremembering). The best analogy (now that the nanny state requires seat belts) is an Airbag in your car. Me not having an airbag doesn't make you more likely to die or be seriously injured. So why should I have to pay for airbags in my car?
I'm by no means an anti-vaxxer. I've probably had more than the average Canadian because I've travelled to Egypt. I just don't think companies should get to push out experimental therapies nor that being vaccinated should be required at this time. If I were as old as my mom (72, obese, diabetic) I would 100% get the jab. My wife is getting it (which I'm not thrilled about because I'm worried about long term -- but she's just asking for the astrazeneca). I will likely get it next year when we hope to take my girls to Disneyland. I will probably have to be forced at gun point to get my daughters vaccinated at this point however.
Did you read the part about vaccinated people being the ones allowed to go maskless?No bones for the anti-vaxxers (that also happen to overlap considerably with the anti-maskers).CDC has now cleared vaccinated people to be outdoors without a mask in non-crowded situations.
How nice of our would-be overlords to throw us a bone.
Nisi forte non de serveitute, sed de conditione serviendi, recusandum est a nobis.
Since they are not actually a 'vaccine' what do anti-vaxxers have to do with it?
Which doesn't have anything to do with my question.
Since the jabs being offered are not vaccines (in either the legal or scientific definition) what do anti-vaxxers have to do with the situation?
Explain how they are not vaccines. In particular, I'd love to hear how the Johnson and Johnson vaccine isn't a vaccine.
Did they start allowing J&J again? I wondered why they shut it down when it had far fewer issues than the other two 'offerings'.
The Pfizer and Moderna jabs are not vaccines because a 'vaccine' is specifically an item made from dead or less potent forms of the virus in order to stimulate the bodies immune system to produce antibodies to fight it.
Neither of those two do that. They alter the body to produce an item that will bond in a manner that prevents Covid from being able to cause a high enough virus load in the body. Basically an internally created chemical blocker that prevents Covid from attaching.
This is why
1) During 'Warp Speed', they were talking about immunity from lawsuits for the manufacturers...actual vaccines have been granted civil immunity for the manufacturers since the 80s.
2) The Moderna SEC filing lists it as 'gene therapy' (I have not specifically read the filing for Pfizers, but the biochemistry itself is similar)
[note: There is nothing wrong with gene therapy as such...that is how we'll fix diabetes and a host of other genetic disorders.]
3) The 'experts' say you can still be a carrier or actually catch it...because it is not activating the immune system and you actually can still catch it. It is supposed to keep the virus load low enough to prevent bad results.
In particular, I'd love to hear how the Johnson and Johnson vaccine isn't a vaccine. And yes it's back in use. It had a very short pause.
...but all of them show that covid-19 is a highly infectious, highly deadly disease -- and that the vaccines are largely effective and safe by comparison.
Did you read the part about vaccinated people being the ones allowed to go maskless?No bones for the anti-vaxxers (that also happen to overlap considerably with the anti-maskers).CDC has now cleared vaccinated people to be outdoors without a mask in non-crowded situations.
How nice of our would-be overlords to throw us a bone.
Nisi forte non de serveitute, sed de conditione serviendi, recusandum est a nobis.
Since they are not actually a 'vaccine' what do anti-vaxxers have to do with it?
Which doesn't have anything to do with my question.
Since the jabs being offered are not vaccines (in either the legal or scientific definition) what do anti-vaxxers have to do with the situation?
Explain how they are not vaccines. In particular, I'd love to hear how the Johnson and Johnson vaccine isn't a vaccine.
Did they start allowing J&J again? I wondered why they shut it down when it had far fewer issues than the other two 'offerings'.
The Pfizer and Moderna jabs are not vaccines because a 'vaccine' is specifically an item made from dead or less potent forms of the virus in order to stimulate the bodies immune system to produce antibodies to fight it.
Neither of those two do that. They alter the body to produce an item that will bond in a manner that prevents Covid from being able to cause a high enough virus load in the body. Basically an internally created chemical blocker that prevents Covid from attaching.
This is why
1) During 'Warp Speed', they were talking about immunity from lawsuits for the manufacturers...actual vaccines have been granted civil immunity for the manufacturers since the 80s.
2) The Moderna SEC filing lists it as 'gene therapy' (I have not specifically read the filing for Pfizers, but the biochemistry itself is similar)
[note: There is nothing wrong with gene therapy as such...that is how we'll fix diabetes and a host of other genetic disorders.]
3) The 'experts' say you can still be a carrier or actually catch it...because it is not activating the immune system and you actually can still catch it. It is supposed to keep the virus load low enough to prevent bad results.
In particular, I'd love to hear how the Johnson and Johnson vaccine isn't a vaccine. And yes it's back in use. It had a very short pause.
Based on how it functions by using the DNA portion of Covid that creates the particular spike proteins, attaches it to adenovirus, which is done in order to stimulate antibodies to attack spike proteins the J&J jab at least 'functions' in a similar manner to actual vaccines...whether using an adenovirus carrier for a small DNA segment actually qualifies it as a 'technical' vaccine according to the definition is really iffy considering other circumstances.
Did you read the part about vaccinated people being the ones allowed to go maskless?No bones for the anti-vaxxers (that also happen to overlap considerably with the anti-maskers).CDC has now cleared vaccinated people to be outdoors without a mask in non-crowded situations.
How nice of our would-be overlords to throw us a bone.
Nisi forte non de serveitute, sed de conditione serviendi, recusandum est a nobis.
Since they are not actually a 'vaccine' what do anti-vaxxers have to do with it?
Which doesn't have anything to do with my question.
Since the jabs being offered are not vaccines (in either the legal or scientific definition) what do anti-vaxxers have to do with the situation?
Explain how they are not vaccines. In particular, I'd love to hear how the Johnson and Johnson vaccine isn't a vaccine.
Did they start allowing J&J again? I wondered why they shut it down when it had far fewer issues than the other two 'offerings'.
The Pfizer and Moderna jabs are not vaccines because a 'vaccine' is specifically an item made from dead or less potent forms of the virus in order to stimulate the bodies immune system to produce antibodies to fight it.
Neither of those two do that. They alter the body to produce an item that will bond in a manner that prevents Covid from being able to cause a high enough virus load in the body. Basically an internally created chemical blocker that prevents Covid from attaching.
This is why
1) During 'Warp Speed', they were talking about immunity from lawsuits for the manufacturers...actual vaccines have been granted civil immunity for the manufacturers since the 80s.
2) The Moderna SEC filing lists it as 'gene therapy' (I have not specifically read the filing for Pfizers, but the biochemistry itself is similar)
[note: There is nothing wrong with gene therapy as such...that is how we'll fix diabetes and a host of other genetic disorders.]
3) The 'experts' say you can still be a carrier or actually catch it...because it is not activating the immune system and you actually can still catch it. It is supposed to keep the virus load low enough to prevent bad results.
In particular, I'd love to hear how the Johnson and Johnson vaccine isn't a vaccine. And yes it's back in use. It had a very short pause.
Based on how it functions by using the DNA portion of Covid that creates the particular spike proteins, attaches it to adenovirus, which is done in order to stimulate antibodies to attack spike proteins the J&J jab at least 'functions' in a similar manner to actual vaccines...whether using an adenovirus carrier for a small DNA segment actually qualifies it as a 'technical' vaccine according to the definition is really iffy considering other circumstances.
So they are not vaccines except they might be. Gotcha.
...but all of them show that covid-19 is a highly infectious, highly deadly disease -- and that the vaccines are largely effective and safe by comparison.
Do you even read the studies you post? They all say that Covid is a highly-contagious disease. NONE say it is a highly deadly disease, because that would be staggeringly wrong. Covid has a mortality rate less that 1%. There are literally thousands of diseases active world-wide today with a higher mortality rate (ever heard of Ebola? That's deadly... 40% fatality rate). Covid isn't even close to being "deadly". There's a big difference between "can die from it" and "deadly." Either you are so ignorant that you don't know that difference (in which case, why should anyone even listen to your opinion on this matter?), or you are purposely conflating those two ideas so as to try and justify something you know isn't true. So, are you ignorant or mendacious?
Covid's primary danger is that it can spread to a large number of people easily, so that its miniscule mortality rate will still cause a sizable number of deaths among the most vulnerable people. It is NOT a mortal danger to 99+% of the people who get it. So, by all means, we should protect those who are most vulnerable (or, better yet, they should protect themselves). But their risk has no bearing on my own decisions about the risks involved in vaccinating myself against a virus that is highly unlikely to cause me permanent harm. My body, my choice. If that phrase immunizes a woman from having to care about the effects of her choices on the unborn, then it sure as hell means that I am not responsible for you not taking precautions to prevent your own illness.
...but all of them show that covid-19 is a highly infectious, highly deadly disease -- and that the vaccines are largely effective and safe by comparison.
Do you even read the studies you post? They all say that Covid is a highly-contagious disease. NONE say it is a highly deadly disease, because that would be staggeringly wrong. Covid has a mortality rate less that 1%. There are literally thousands of diseases active world-wide today with a higher mortality rate (ever heard of Ebola? That's deadly... 40% fatality rate). Covid isn't even close to being "deadly". There's a big difference between "can die from it" and "deadly." Either you are so ignorant that you don't know that difference (in which case, why should anyone even listen to your opinion on this matter?), or you are purposely conflating those two ideas so as to try and justify something you know isn't true. So, are you ignorant or mendacious?
Covid's primary danger is that it can spread to a large number of people easily, so that its miniscule mortality rate will still cause a sizable number of deaths among the most vulnerable people. It is NOT a mortal danger to 99+% of the people who get it. So, by all means, we should protect those who are most vulnerable (or, better yet, they should protect themselves). But their risk has no bearing on my own decisions about the risks involved in vaccinating myself against a virus that is highly unlikely to cause me permanent harm. My body, my choice. If that phrase immunizes a woman from having to care about the effects of her choices on the unborn, then it sure as hell means that I am not responsible for you not taking precautions to prevent your own illness.
I'd have a lot more faith in the medical community and medical authorities if they hadn't spent the last year misleading people about infection numbers (only now are we seeing recommendations that PCR testing not use extremely high thresholds for diagnostics) and mortality statistics (dying *with* a positive test should never be considered in the same figures as dying from Covid).I already brought up the problems with PCR testing only to be told I was an idiot, didn't understand the science, etc (despite me direct linking to the article regarding it).
I really want to be able to trust doctors and scientists, but where are the doctors and scientists speaking out when the government sends out stormtroopers with guns to physically and psychologically terrorize innocent people?
I'm okay with people being encouraged to wear masks, even if the evidence is weak for their effectiveness. But how can we possibly justify tackling people, breaking their arms, tasing them, and other kinds of direct and immediate violence because someone isn't wearing a mask? -- Keep in mind a person not wearing a mask isn't proven to be infected, isn't proven to be a risk for transmitting the virus to others, and hasn't done anything to harm anyone else. Similar arguments apply to vaccines and the inevitable vaccine passports.
Using violence to enforce this is like sending SWAT teams into forests to kill butterflies because someone produced a computer model that said butterflies flapping their wings might potentially cause a hurricane somewhere. Punishing people for might-happens is completely morally unjustifiable.
The scientific method most certainly does not include using the state, or using the state-backed technology firms, to censor and suppress information. All this stuff does is reduce the credibility of the medical professionals who claim they are just trying to save lives. If saving lives is the goal, then denouncing draconian measures, most of which don't align with the science, is essential to retaining public trust.
I'd have a lot more faith in the medical community and medical authorities if they hadn't spent the last year misleading people about infection numbers (only now are we seeing recommendations that PCR testing not use extremely high thresholds for diagnostics) and mortality statistics (dying *with* a positive test should never be considered in the same figures as dying from Covid).
I really want to be able to trust doctors and scientists, but where are the doctors and scientists speaking out when the government sends out stormtroopers with guns to physically and psychologically terrorize innocent people?
I'm okay with people being encouraged to wear masks, even if the evidence is weak for their effectiveness. But how can we possibly justify tackling people, breaking their arms, tasing them, and other kinds of direct and immediate violence because someone isn't wearing a mask? -- Keep in mind a person not wearing a mask isn't proven to be infected, isn't proven to be a risk for transmitting the virus to others, and hasn't done anything to harm anyone else. Similar arguments apply to vaccines and the inevitable vaccine passports.
Using violence to enforce this is like sending SWAT teams into forests to kill butterflies because someone produced a computer model that said butterflies flapping their wings might potentially cause a hurricane somewhere. Punishing people for might-happens is completely morally unjustifiable.
The scientific method most certainly does not include using the state, or using the state-backed technology firms, to censor and suppress information. All this stuff does is reduce the credibility of the medical professionals who claim they are just trying to save lives. If saving lives is the goal, then denouncing draconian measures, most of which don't align with the science, is essential to retaining public trust.
I already brought up the problems with PCR testing only to be told I was an idiot, didn't understand the science, etc (despite me direct linking to the article regarding it).
Which makes me think certain folks have a vested interest in sustaining the situation.
I don't know where you are that you're seeing people tased over mask wearing, but obviously that's unacceptable.Uhhh, the USA? There was a woman tased at a high school football game about 6-8 months ago, sitting in the stands, outside, ten feet from everyone. When she asked the school resource officer (somewhat brusquely) why she needed to put on a mask in those conditions... zap!
I don't know where you are that you're seeing people tased over mask wearing, but obviously that's unacceptable.Uhhh, the USA? There was a woman tased at a high school football game about 6-8 months ago, sitting in the stands, outside, ten feet from everyone. When she asked the school resource officer (somewhat brusquely) why she needed to put on a mask in those conditions... zap!
I'm sorry you were told you are an idiot, Ghostmaker. I think there's a huge problem in having dialog between the two sides. I feel like I've been called a lot of names here on this forum for my positions, but I also know that plenty liberals often disparage conservatives on this - often from a place of ignorance.
I don't know where you are that you're seeing people tased over mask wearing, but obviously that's unacceptable.
Uhhh, the USA? There was a woman tased at a high school football game about 6-8 months ago, sitting in the stands, outside, ten feet from everyone. When she asked the school resource officer (somewhat brusquely) why she needed to put on a mask in those conditions... zap!
I'm sorry you were told you are an idiot, Ghostmaker. I think there's a huge problem in having dialog between the two sides. I feel like I've been called a lot of names here on this forum for my positions, but I also know that plenty liberals often disparage conservatives on this - often from a place of ignorance.
If you want to see a good microcosm of the problems we face, check this out:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/29/teargas-protest-menstrual-cycles-health-impact
(Yes, I know it's the Guardian, one step up from fish wrap; bear with me)
They are talking about 'science' and a 'study' that utilized an anonymous online poll. Because as one fellow put it, 'online polling is so fucking accurate'.
Congratulations, wokeists. You're relying on the same methodology that 4chan has discredited, repeatedly.
I don't know where you are that you're seeing people tased over mask wearing, but obviously that's unacceptable.
Uhhh, the USA? There was a woman tased at a high school football game about 6-8 months ago, sitting in the stands, outside, ten feet from everyone. When she asked the school resource officer (somewhat brusquely) why she needed to put on a mask in those conditions... zap!
We have a lot of people from different countries, so I thought I'd ask. I think you're talking about the incident in Logan, Ohio - is that your area? I just watched the video for that now - she was asked to put a mask on, then when she refused she was asked to leave, and she still refused, so she was cited for trespassing. The officer tried to handcuff her and she resisted, after which he tased her. I don't think the mask requirement was necessary, and the tasing was certainly not - but at the same time, if she refused to follow the state and school policies and is asked to leave, she should have left peacefully.
There are cases of alleged violence the other way, though - like the Oklahoma City woman who shot McDonald's employees who told her that the dining area was closed for covid (ref) (https://okcfox.com/news/local/okcpd-respond-to-shooting-outside-mcdonalds-in-sw-okc), or the Hutchinson Minnesota man who caught a police officer on his truck after he allegedly assaulted a store employee over a mask requirement (ref) (https://www.newsweek.com/police-hammer-attack-menards-mask-dispute-minnesota-1583807).
I think the problem over incidents like this is similar to the discussion over police shootings of black people. Liberals and conservatives will argue over the specifics of given incidents, and about how much any given incident reflects the general trend. Often because of these differences, it's hard to even get to the point of discussing policy.
There will be disagreements over many covid measures, and I don't think that we should turn to violence over them, and at least here on this forum can discuss based on the issues.
I don't know where you are that you're seeing people tased over mask wearing, but obviously that's unacceptable.Uhhh, the USA? There was a woman tased at a high school football game about 6-8 months ago, sitting in the stands, outside, ten feet from everyone. When she asked the school resource officer (somewhat brusquely) why she needed to put on a mask in those conditions... zap!
There's countless examples of both police and civilians becoming belligerent. It's really concerning because it demonstrates that people aren't thinking rationally about this. We're supposed to be trying to prevent people from getting hurt, aren't we? Yet fear porn and media stoking antagonism leads us down a path where cracking someone's skull with a baton is acceptable against a person walking around outside without a clothing accessory.
This is a lot funnier if you imagine it said with Greta the Autistic Muppet's voice. :DI don't know where you are that you're seeing people tased over mask wearing, but obviously that's unacceptable.Uhhh, the USA? There was a woman tased at a high school football game about 6-8 months ago, sitting in the stands, outside, ten feet from everyone. When she asked the school resource officer (somewhat brusquely) why she needed to put on a mask in those conditions... zap!
There's countless examples of both police and civilians becoming belligerent. It's really concerning because it demonstrates that people aren't thinking rationally about this. We're supposed to be trying to prevent people from getting hurt, aren't we? Yet fear porn and media stoking antagonism leads us down a path where cracking someone's skull with a baton is acceptable against a person walking around outside without a clothing accessory.
Welcome to the morality police, when they tell you they want to abolish the police they are lying, what they want is THEIR brand of Sharia Police, enforcing THEIR morality on you.
How dare you missgender X? Go to jail, do not pass go do not collect $200
How dare you criticize Buy Large Mansions? Go to jail, do not pass go do not collect $200
How dare you speak against the intersectional cult? Go to jail, do not pass go do not collect $200
How dare you!?
I don't know where you are that you're seeing people tased over mask wearing, but obviously that's unacceptable.
Uhhh, the USA? There was a woman tased at a high school football game about 6-8 months ago, sitting in the stands, outside, ten feet from everyone. When she asked the school resource officer (somewhat brusquely) why she needed to put on a mask in those conditions... zap!
We have a lot of people from different countries, so I thought I'd ask. I think you're talking about the incident in Logan, Ohio - is that your area? I just watched the video for that now - she was asked to put a mask on, then when she refused she was asked to leave, and she still refused, so she was cited for trespassing. The officer tried to handcuff her and she resisted, after which he tased her. I don't think the mask requirement was necessary, and the tasing was certainly not - but at the same time, if she refused to follow the state and school policies and is asked to leave, she should have left peacefully.
There are cases of alleged violence the other way, though - like the Oklahoma City woman who shot McDonald's employees who told her that the dining area was closed for covid (ref) (https://okcfox.com/news/local/okcpd-respond-to-shooting-outside-mcdonalds-in-sw-okc), or the Hutchinson Minnesota man who caught a police officer on his truck after he allegedly assaulted a store employee over a mask requirement (ref) (https://www.newsweek.com/police-hammer-attack-menards-mask-dispute-minnesota-1583807).
I think the problem over incidents like this is similar to the discussion over police shootings of black people. Liberals and conservatives will argue over the specifics of given incidents, and about how much any given incident reflects the general trend. Often because of these differences, it's hard to even get to the point of discussing policy.
There will be disagreements over many covid measures, and I don't think that we should turn to violence over them, and at least here on this forum can discuss based on the issues.
So, because the state says so she has to comply or get tased? What about her right to peacefully assemble? What about her fucking rights?
And the excuse that the administrator and police were "just following state orders" sounds eerilly familiar.
And yeah, sometimes non-violent protestors get tased.So you're saying that last summer should have been the Summer of the Taser?
And yeah, sometimes non-violent protestors get tased.So you're saying that last summer should have been the Summer of the Taser?
And yeah, sometimes non-violent protestors get tased.So you're saying that last summer should have been the Summer of the Taser?
No, no, no Pat...
Last summer was ok because it supported the correct overall political objective.
It is only a problem when it opposes your political objective.
i get why people have fun pointing out supposed hypocrisy but consider: we are now an openly politically tribal sociey, so yes it is indeed okay when it hurts them and not us, because it's them and not us.I throw bricks at both sides. And if the second amendment allowed, I'd be throwing nukes. I'm mostly peaceful like that.
i get why people have fun pointing out supposed hypocrisy but consider: we are now an openly politically tribal sociey, so yes it is indeed okay when it hurts them and not us, because it's them and not us.I throw bricks at both sides. And if the second amendment allowed, I'd be throwing nukes. I'm mostly peaceful like that.
And yeah, sometimes non-violent protestors get tased.So you're saying that last summer should have been the Summer of the Taser?
12th century technology to the rescue!i get why people have fun pointing out supposed hypocrisy but consider: we are now an openly politically tribal sociey, so yes it is indeed okay when it hurts them and not us, because it's them and not us.I throw bricks at both sides. And if the second amendment allowed, I'd be throwing nukes. I'm mostly peaceful like that.
it does allow they're just real heavy and hard to throw and it doesn't have any language about planes or launch silos.
that's how Big Nuke gets ya, you buy the war
head and learn you can't get a silo
12th century technology to the rescue!i get why people have fun pointing out supposed hypocrisy but consider: we are now an openly politically tribal sociey, so yes it is indeed okay when it hurts them and not us, because it's them and not us.I throw bricks at both sides. And if the second amendment allowed, I'd be throwing nukes. I'm mostly peaceful like that.
it does allow they're just real heavy and hard to throw and it doesn't have any language about planes or launch silos.
that's how Big Nuke gets ya, you buy the war
head and learn you can't get a silo
https://youtu.be/cs8gamnMIS0?t=50
There's a massive difference between riots in a hundred cities and towns, 30+ dead, 150 federal buildings burned, and billions of dollars of damage. And prosecutors are dropping most of the felony charges, including violence against cops that was caught on camera.And yeah, sometimes non-violent protestors get tased.So you're saying that last summer should have been the Summer of the Taser?
I think there's a problem of people looking only at the news headlines of their chosen politics, and get differently-biased views of policing.
To liberal people watching only liberal media, then there are dozens of cases of police abuse or killing of non-white people and peaceful protesters -- and white conservatives acting violent and are arrested peacefully or even let go.
To conservative people watching only conservative media, then there are dozens of cases of police abuse of white people acting peacefully -- and non-white people acting violent and being arrested peacefully or even let go.
I think judging from the generality of police behavior from a handful of cases isn't accurate. The police aren't one-sidedly either stereotype, and it's difficult to judge the spectrum of their behavior - but I also don't think it's necessary. One can say that it's wrong for the police to abuse and offer violence to people peacefully breaking the law regardless of their politics. We can talk about how police use of force independent of political side.
And anthrax!12th century technology to the rescue!i get why people have fun pointing out supposed hypocrisy but consider: we are now an openly politically tribal sociey, so yes it is indeed okay when it hurts them and not us, because it's them and not us.I throw bricks at both sides. And if the second amendment allowed, I'd be throwing nukes. I'm mostly peaceful like that.
it does allow they're just real heavy and hard to throw and it doesn't have any language about planes or launch silos.
that's how Big Nuke gets ya, you buy the war
head and learn you can't get a silo
https://youtu.be/cs8gamnMIS0?t=50
Remember...close counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and thermonuclear weapons!
Doesn't that depend on how far the trebuchet can throw the sheep?And anthrax!12th century technology to the rescue!i get why people have fun pointing out supposed hypocrisy but consider: we are now an openly politically tribal sociey, so yes it is indeed okay when it hurts them and not us, because it's them and not us.I throw bricks at both sides. And if the second amendment allowed, I'd be throwing nukes. I'm mostly peaceful like that.
it does allow they're just real heavy and hard to throw and it doesn't have any language about planes or launch silos.
that's how Big Nuke gets ya, you buy the war
head and learn you can't get a silo
https://youtu.be/cs8gamnMIS0?t=50
Remember...close counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and thermonuclear weapons!
There's a massive difference between riots in a hundred cities and towns, 30+ dead, 150 federal buildings burned, and billions of dollars of damage. And prosecutors are dropping most of the felony charges, including violence against cops that was caught on camera.And yeah, sometimes non-violent protestors get tased.So you're saying that last summer should have been the Summer of the Taser?
I think there's a problem of people looking only at the news headlines of their chosen politics, and get differently-biased views of policing.
To liberal people watching only liberal media, then there are dozens of cases of police abuse or killing of non-white people and peaceful protesters -- and white conservatives acting violent and are arrested peacefully or even let go.
To conservative people watching only conservative media, then there are dozens of cases of police abuse of white people acting peacefully -- and non-white people acting violent and being arrested peacefully or even let go.
I think judging from the generality of police behavior from a handful of cases isn't accurate. The police aren't one-sidedly either stereotype, and it's difficult to judge the spectrum of their behavior - but I also don't think it's necessary. One can say that it's wrong for the police to abuse and offer violence to people peacefully breaking the law regardless of their politics. We can talk about how police use of force independent of political side.
Versus an "insurrection" where the cops pulled aside the barricades and invited people in, who stayed behind the ropes, and didn't smash the statues. And yes, a small contingent broke down some doors, took pictures of themselves muddying the desks of important nobles, and maybe swiped some stuff like laptops. And 1 got shot by a cop (the other 4 deaths are now known to be just unfortunate medical emergencies). And who are now being hunted down like terrorists.
You're making a false equivalence. Yes, there have been bad actors on both sides, but one side has been far worse, yet it's the other side who are being demonized by the press and hounded by the law out of proportion to their actions. Mostly, because of partisan politics. But significantly, because the protest was against the people in power, at their seat of power, and the reaction of the power-elite was a clear-fuck-no-we-can't-allow-this, based on a sense of noble privilege, and expressed as outrage at these common plebs who dared to intrude on their sacred place and defile their precious property with grubby hands.
The latter in particular pisses me off. Fuck partisanship and bias, sure. They suck. But the Capitol is not the palace of the oligarchy. It's supposed to be the place where the voice of all people are heard. If we are going to protect the right to protest anywhere, it should be there. But the response of the entitled on both sides, like Schumer and McConnell, shows they think they're the kings and queens and how dare we.
I think judging from the generality of police behavior from a handful of cases isn't accurate. The police aren't one-sidedly either stereotype, and it's difficult to judge the spectrum of their behavior - but I also don't think it's necessary. One can say that it's wrong for the police to abuse and offer violence to people peacefully breaking the law regardless of their politics. We can talk about how police use of force independent of political side.
There's a massive difference between riots in a hundred cities and towns, 30+ dead, 150 federal buildings burned, and billions of dollars of damage. And prosecutors are dropping most of the felony charges, including violence against cops that was caught on camera.
Versus an "insurrection" where the cops pulled aside the barricades and invited people in, who stayed behind the ropes, and didn't smash the statues. And yes, a small contingent broke down some doors, took pictures of themselves muddying the desks of important nobles, and maybe swiped some stuff like laptops. And 1 got shot by a cop (the other 4 deaths are now known to be just unfortunate medical emergencies). And who are now being hunted down like terrorists.
You're making a false equivalence.
12th century technology to the rescue!i get why people have fun pointing out supposed hypocrisy but consider: we are now an openly politically tribal sociey, so yes it is indeed okay when it hurts them and not us, because it's them and not us.I throw bricks at both sides. And if the second amendment allowed, I'd be throwing nukes. I'm mostly peaceful like that.
it does allow they're just real heavy and hard to throw and it doesn't have any language about planes or launch silos.
that's how Big Nuke gets ya, you buy the war
head and learn you can't get a silo
https://youtu.be/cs8gamnMIS0?t=50
Pat - you're talking about Black Lives Matter versus the Capitol riot -- but political protest hasn't been the subject of the thread, and I certainly never mentioned them. We had been talking about covid, and most recently about police enforcement of masks. Zelen characterized this as the government sending out "stormtroopers with guns to physically and psychologically terrorize innocent people" - and we noted the Logan Ohio tasing incident.It's not a bait and switch. You were talking about police killing protestors, and people on the other side doing the same and being let go; and vice versa. I did bring in new elements, but you had already broadened the discussion beyond masks.
This is a bait and switch - claiming that I'm drawing an equivalence between BLM and the Capitol riot when I never mentioned either, or about political protests at all in this thread.
And yeah, sometimes non-violent protestors get tased.So you're saying that last summer should have been the Summer of the Taser?
No, no, no Pat...
Last summer was ok because it supported the correct overall political objective.
It is only a problem when it opposes your political objective.
Fuck that. Some of what happened in Portland definitely could have used some tasing. And not one of you fuckers would have objected to it either. Look, you want to protest on your own property, cool. You want to protest of public property without interfering with others, also cool. But you don't get to protest on someone else's private property, trespass and refuse to leave, without consequences. Getting your ass tased is one of those possible consequences. I know you all get that, when it's not some cause you agree with.<tases Mistwell>
It's been pretty well known for over a year that risk of transmission outdoors, as long as you're not right up on top of other people, is so miniscule that there's no rational reason to argue for restriction on outdoor activities. People ought to be encouraged to go outdoors because getting sunlight and physical activity is way more beneficial to your overall health (& specific defense against the-deadliest-virus-ever) than the risks you face by not locking yourself in and cowering.
And yeah, sometimes non-violent protestors get tased.So you're saying that last summer should have been the Summer of the Taser?
No, no, no Pat...
Last summer was ok because it supported the correct overall political objective.
It is only a problem when it opposes your political objective.
Fuck that. Some of what happened in Portland definitely could have used some tasing. And not one of you fuckers would have objected to it either. Look, you want to protest on your own property, cool. You want to protest of public property without interfering with others, also cool. But you don't get to protest on someone else's property like the Logan Stadium, trespass and refuse to leave, without consequences. Getting your ass tased is one of those possible consequences. I know you all get that, when it's not some cause you agree with. This wasn't the sidewalk or some public square this was a ticketed event at Logan Stadium and she refused to follow the stadium rules and refused to leave. So yeah, she go her ass tased. Every one of you would have been fine if this were some BLM protestor at Logan Stadium.
And yeah, sometimes non-violent protestors get tased.So you're saying that last summer should have been the Summer of the Taser?
No, no, no Pat...
Last summer was ok because it supported the correct overall political objective.
It is only a problem when it opposes your political objective.
Fuck that. Some of what happened in Portland definitely could have used some tasing. And not one of you fuckers would have objected to it either. Look, you want to protest on your own property, cool. You want to protest of public property without interfering with others, also cool. But you don't get to protest on someone else's property like the Logan Stadium, trespass and refuse to leave, without consequences. Getting your ass tased is one of those possible consequences. I know you all get that, when it's not some cause you agree with. This wasn't the sidewalk or some public square this was a ticketed event at Logan Stadium and she refused to follow the stadium rules and refused to leave. So yeah, she go her ass tased. Every one of you would have been fine if this were some BLM protestor at Logan Stadium.
Fuck that.
Go ahead and show me where I ever supported the Capitol 'breach' of Jan. 6th. Since there are at least 2 threads about it I'll make it easier for you...It will be quicker to find where I said both groups should be held to the same standard concerning enforcement of the laws.
And yeah, sometimes non-violent protestors get tased.So you're saying that last summer should have been the Summer of the Taser?
No, no, no Pat...
Last summer was ok because it supported the correct overall political objective.
It is only a problem when it opposes your political objective.
Fuck that. Some of what happened in Portland definitely could have used some tasing. And not one of you fuckers would have objected to it either. Look, you want to protest on your own property, cool. You want to protest of public property without interfering with others, also cool. But you don't get to protest on someone else's property like the Logan Stadium, trespass and refuse to leave, without consequences. Getting your ass tased is one of those possible consequences. I know you all get that, when it's not some cause you agree with. This wasn't the sidewalk or some public square this was a ticketed event at Logan Stadium and she refused to follow the stadium rules and refused to leave. So yeah, she go her ass tased. Every one of you would have been fine if this were some BLM protestor at Logan Stadium.
Fuck that.
Go ahead and show me where I ever supported the Capitol 'breach' of Jan. 6th. Since there are at least 2 threads about it I'll make it easier for you...It will be quicker to find where I said both groups should be held to the same standard concerning enforcement of the laws.
Fuck that. Some of what happened in Portland definitely could have used some tasing. And not one of you fuckers would have objected to it either. Look, you want to protest on your own property, cool. You want to protest of public property without interfering with others, also cool. But you don't get to protest on someone else's private property, trespass and refuse to leave, without consequences. Getting your ass tased is one of those possible consequences. I know you all get that, when it's not some cause you agree with.<tastes Mistwell>
And yeah, sometimes non-violent protestors get tased.So you're saying that last summer should have been the Summer of the Taser?
No, no, no Pat...
Last summer was ok because it supported the correct overall political objective.
It is only a problem when it opposes your political objective.
Fuck that. Some of what happened in Portland definitely could have used some tasing. And not one of you fuckers would have objected to it either. Look, you want to protest on your own property, cool. You want to protest of public property without interfering with others, also cool. But you don't get to protest on someone else's property like the Logan Stadium, trespass and refuse to leave, without consequences. Getting your ass tased is one of those possible consequences. I know you all get that, when it's not some cause you agree with. This wasn't the sidewalk or some public square this was a ticketed event at Logan Stadium and she refused to follow the stadium rules and refused to leave. So yeah, she go her ass tased. Every one of you would have been fine if this were some BLM protestor at Logan Stadium.
Fuck that.
Go ahead and show me where I ever supported the Capitol 'breach' of Jan. 6th. Since there are at least 2 threads about it I'll make it easier for you...It will be quicker to find where I said both groups should be held to the same standard concerning enforcement of the laws.
When did I mention the capitol shit? I mentioned Portland, and I mentioned the mask tasing at the stadium. Both are justified tasings (though they did not tase in Portland...they should have). You trespass and refuse to leave private areas and break their rules, you can be tased by the cops. It's one reasonable, potential ramification for your actions.
<tases Shasarak>Fuck that. Some of what happened in Portland definitely could have used some tasing. And not one of you fuckers would have objected to it either. Look, you want to protest on your own property, cool. You want to protest of public property without interfering with others, also cool. But you don't get to protest on someone else's private property, trespass and refuse to leave, without consequences. Getting your ass tased is one of those possible consequences. I know you all get that, when it's not some cause you agree with.<tases Mistwell>
That could have gone wrong [tases/tastes] so easily.
So...the Pikachu?<tases Shasarak>Fuck that. Some of what happened in Portland definitely could have used some tasing. And not one of you fuckers would have objected to it either. Look, you want to protest on your own property, cool. You want to protest of public property without interfering with others, also cool. But you don't get to protest on someone else's private property, trespass and refuse to leave, without consequences. Getting your ass tased is one of those possible consequences. I know you all get that, when it's not some cause you agree with.<tases Mistwell>
That could have gone wrong [tases/tastes] so easily.
<rearranges Mistwell and Shasarak's spasming bodies into an inappropriate position>
Anybody following the latest Fauci scandal? Fauci admitted that prior to the pandemic, his team indirectly provided funding to the Wuhan lab for gain of function research on bat coronaviruses, i.e. making them more contagious, even though that use of the money was specifically prohibited. Combined with the complete lack of evidence in favor of the wet market theory that's been promoted by public health and the mainstream media, and the growing amount of circumstantial evidence that covid-19 was the result of a lab leak in Wuhan, the public face of public health may have been directly responsible for 600,000 American deaths.
Entertainingly, a bill to remove him from his position is named the F.i.R.E.D. Act, for Fauci Incompetence Requires Early Dismissal.
Anybody following the latest Fauci scandal?
Anybody following the latest Fauci scandal? Fauci admitted that prior to the pandemic, his team indirectly provided funding to the Wuhan lab for gain of function research on bat coronaviruses, i.e. making them more contagious, even though that use of the money was specifically prohibited. Combined with the complete lack of evidence in favor of the wet market theory that's been promoted by public health and the mainstream media, and the growing amount of circumstantial evidence that covid-19 was the result of a lab leak in Wuhan, the public face of public health may have been directly responsible for 600,000 American deaths.
Entertainingly, a bill to remove him from his position is named the F.i.R.E.D. Act, for Fauci Incompetence Requires Early Dismissal.
Anyone seen those Fraudci emails floating around? Tell me again how this shit isn't 100% a CCP bioweapon.
Why is anything in these emails redacted? I get phone numbers and stuff like that. There should be no block redactions.People probably scrambling for shelter (metaphorically if not literally).
Fauci must have some serious dirt on people. Or people have dirt on him and are happy to keep him where he's at. At his age he should be in Florida arguing with neighbors about trees on his property line.
are happy to keep him where he's at
Because both CHY-NA and Trump were right at the same time? American funded research created the Kung Flu which in typical sloppy Chinese methods got released into the wild.
Hey, it was TOTALLY worth it to stop the Mean Tweets! (/sarc)Because both CHY-NA and Trump were right at the same time? American funded research created the Kung Flu which in typical sloppy Chinese methods got released into the wild.
There's an email with the subject line, "Coronovirus bioweapon production method." So it's 100% a CCP bioweapon. And looks like Fraudci and Gates and all the rest of these deep state fucks actually did fund it. But of course, no one cares...because Trump isn't on Twiiter anymore.
But the emails where Fauci says masks dont do shit, and then making a pivot shortly after getting an email from a chinese doctor (which sure looks like it was a way to make some $weet ca$h for Chinese mask makers) telling him to tell people to wear masks. That fucking guy is dirty, and always has been.
But the emails where Fauci says masks dont do shit, and then making a pivot shortly after getting an email from a chinese doctor (which sure looks like it was a way to make some $weet ca$h for Chinese mask makers) telling him to tell people to wear masks. That fucking guy is dirty, and always has been.
Wasn't about our health to begin with. It was always about money and control.
Yup. Fauci was a fucking liar.
Sadly, I doubt he'll ever face repercussions.
And then he'd be a martyr, and it would be an excuse to take away more basic rights.Yup. Fauci was a fucking liar.
Sadly, I doubt he'll ever face repercussions.
His bad calls destroyed people's lives. I have a feeling he may have had an effect on some nut on the edge of going postal. Perhaps they will go postal on him.
And then he'd be a martyr, and it would be an excuse to take away more basic rights.Yup. Fauci was a fucking liar.
Sadly, I doubt he'll ever face repercussions.
His bad calls destroyed people's lives. I have a feeling he may have had an effect on some nut on the edge of going postal. Perhaps they will go postal on him.
And then he'd be a martyr, and it would be an excuse to take away more basic rights.
Keep in mind that the violence of 2020 was aided and abetted by government institutions.
We've seen how the mandarins react to 'unapproved' protests, after all.
There is that, yes.Keep in mind that the violence of 2020 was aided and abetted by government institutions.
We've seen how the mandarins react to 'unapproved' protests, after all.
Doesn't matter if they all get haircuts at Chez Guillotine. "Just a little off the top good sir!"
Passivity and comfort will win out over internet hyperbole.And then he'd be a martyr, and it would be an excuse to take away more basic rights.
You make it sound like that crap is going to work again...we're at the point now that either politicians get into their fucking lanes or bullets will start flying. And that isn't just hyperbole; where I live anyone with a brain is ready to do whatever it takes to oust tyranny.
Until it doesn't.Passivity and comfort will win out over internet hyperbole.And then he'd be a martyr, and it would be an excuse to take away more basic rights.
You make it sound like that crap is going to work again...we're at the point now that either politicians get into their fucking lanes or bullets will start flying. And that isn't just hyperbole; where I live anyone with a brain is ready to do whatever it takes to oust tyranny.
And that'll be used to stoke more outrage, take away more rights, and most people will passively accept it all.Until it doesn't.Passivity and comfort will win out over internet hyperbole.And then he'd be a martyr, and it would be an excuse to take away more basic rights.
You make it sound like that crap is going to work again...we're at the point now that either politicians get into their fucking lanes or bullets will start flying. And that isn't just hyperbole; where I live anyone with a brain is ready to do whatever it takes to oust tyranny.
Playing with the switch labeled 'off' and 'shoot fucking everyone' strikes me as a poor decision. But hey, I could be wrong.
Until nobody cares what some mandarin in D.C. thinks and just straight up ignores them.And that'll be used to stoke more outrage, take away more rights, and most people will passively accept it all.Until it doesn't.Passivity and comfort will win out over internet hyperbole.And then he'd be a martyr, and it would be an excuse to take away more basic rights.
You make it sound like that crap is going to work again...we're at the point now that either politicians get into their fucking lanes or bullets will start flying. And that isn't just hyperbole; where I live anyone with a brain is ready to do whatever it takes to oust tyranny.
Playing with the switch labeled 'off' and 'shoot fucking everyone' strikes me as a poor decision. But hey, I could be wrong.
Look, the little bitch is back to praising those that would take up arms against their fellows. What a pathetic piece of shit Brad is.And then he'd be a martyr, and it would be an excuse to take away more basic rights.
You make it sound like that crap is going to work again...we're at the point now that either politicians get into their fucking lanes or bullets will start flying. And that isn't just hyperbole; where I live anyone with a brain is ready to do whatever it takes to oust tyranny.
Look, the little bitch is back to praising those that would take up arms against their fellows. What a pathetic piece of shit Brad is.And then he'd be a martyr, and it would be an excuse to take away more basic rights.
You make it sound like that crap is going to work again...we're at the point now that either politicians get into their fucking lanes or bullets will start flying. And that isn't just hyperbole; where I live anyone with a brain is ready to do whatever it takes to oust tyranny.
This is about as well thought and likely to succeed as the Hong Kong protests of last year and the year before. What happened to the brave resistance? Oh, right. They're all dead or in jail. Exactly as everyone with any common sense predicted.Until nobody cares what some mandarin in D.C. thinks and just straight up ignores them.And that'll be used to stoke more outrage, take away more rights, and most people will passively accept it all.Until it doesn't.Passivity and comfort will win out over internet hyperbole.And then he'd be a martyr, and it would be an excuse to take away more basic rights.
You make it sound like that crap is going to work again...we're at the point now that either politicians get into their fucking lanes or bullets will start flying. And that isn't just hyperbole; where I live anyone with a brain is ready to do whatever it takes to oust tyranny.
Playing with the switch labeled 'off' and 'shoot fucking everyone' strikes me as a poor decision. But hey, I could be wrong.
I'm sure the British thought the colonists would just lie down and take it too -- until they didn't.
Passivity and comfort will win out over internet hyperbole.
He's whistling past the graveyard.Passivity and comfort will win out over internet hyperbole.
Did you actually read what I wrote? A lot of us are done with this whole "comfort over liberty" bullshit. You're in for a rude awakening.
I read what you wrote. You're just wrong. Minor, scattered resistance that's consistently been spun as terrorism across essentially all mainstream media outlets != a major uprising or a public ground swell. Especially since the mask restrictions have been effectively lifted, most people have gone back to not caring. Vaccine passports could potentially change that, but except for very leftist places like NYC where it's got broad support, it doesn't seem to be more than an idea. An idea which will be used to slowly chip away people's resistance, like everything covid- or peaceful-but-fiery-related.Passivity and comfort will win out over internet hyperbole.
Did you actually read what I wrote? A lot of us are done with this whole "comfort over liberty" bullshit. You're in for a rude awakening.
Did you read what I actually wrote?Passivity and comfort will win out over internet hyperbole.
Did you actually read what I wrote? A lot of us are done with this whole "comfort over liberty" bullshit. You're in for a rude awakening.
And I can see by your subsequent posts in this thread what you really think...would you have been one of the dudes looking the other way when the Nazis were rounding up the Jews?
Hate to break it to you but we're living in the devaluation of the U.S. dollar right now.Did you read what I actually wrote?Passivity and comfort will win out over internet hyperbole.
Did you actually read what I wrote? A lot of us are done with this whole "comfort over liberty" bullshit. You're in for a rude awakening.
And I can see by your subsequent posts in this thread what you really think...would you have been one of the dudes looking the other way when the Nazis were rounding up the Jews?
No, you didn't. You just made up shit, because you're another one of those posters who reads shit into other people's posts.
I think this is appalling. I've consistently been one of the strongest advocates for basic human rights on this board. But I warned that the Hong Kong protesters were going to get squashed, and they were. Similarly, in the US, there are zero signs of a mass uprising, and hoping for one is idiotic. The people taking away our rights keep pushing the boundaries, and have been for more than year, and the populace has mostly just rolled over and accepted it. Just consider how many rights we took for granted 18 months ago, which have been erased. The few times when there's been some minor resistance, they stop pushing quite as hard, people settle down, and the window keeps moving and moving.
There will be no mass uprising. The battle on the national stage is lost, and it's lost because the people who support freedom were blind. This has been a generation-long campaign, where they've developed critical theories, then slowly taken over key institutions like academia, the media, big tech, and lower education, and driven out all other points of view. With control over what people see and the upbringing of the next generation, they've solidified their hold, and now control nearly the entire government bureaucracy and even big business.
Hoping for some miraculous revolution is futile. The only way to resist this is at lower levels. States that ignore federal dictates. Local municipalities that ignore states. Your own local school board. Succession movements, maybe, though since the Civil War that idea is so toxic it's probably a non-starter. Decentralization, local politics, and resisting the further accumulation of power by centralized autocrats.
And work on theory and ideas, not out of any hope that they'll be adopted any time in the near future, but because having a solid conceptual framework creates an opportunity when the conditions are ripe. The next time there's a major crisis, say devaluation of the US dollar and hyperinflation, people will look for answers, and may side with those who can provide them.
But there's zero chance of some sudden reversal right now.
Hate to break it to you but we're living in the devaluation of the U.S. dollar right now.
I read what you wrote. You're just wrong. Minor, scattered resistance that's consistently been spun as terrorism across essentially all mainstream media outlets != a major uprising or a public ground swell. Especially since the mask restrictions have been effectively lifted, most people have gone back to not caring. Vaccine passports could potentially change that, but except for very leftist places like NYC where it's got broad support, it doesn't seem to be more than an idea. An idea which will be used to slowly chip away people's resistance, like everything covid- or peaceful-but-fiery-related.
There will be no mass uprising.
Hate to break it to you, but that's why I mentioned it. The boom in home prices, and the stock market. Crypto. Rise in beef and other essentials. It hasn't impacted the CPI massively yet, but we're probably looking at 2-digit inflation if we count the entire economy (including the capital markets).
Hate to break it to you but we're living in the devaluation of the U.S. dollar right now.
How exactly does any of what I said match up with the mainstream media?I read what you wrote. You're just wrong. Minor, scattered resistance that's consistently been spun as terrorism across essentially all mainstream media outlets != a major uprising or a public ground swell. Especially since the mask restrictions have been effectively lifted, most people have gone back to not caring. Vaccine passports could potentially change that, but except for very leftist places like NYC where it's got broad support, it doesn't seem to be more than an idea. An idea which will be used to slowly chip away people's resistance, like everything covid- or peaceful-but-fiery-related.
Again, rude awakening...but that's okay, go ahead and believe the MSM.There will be no mass uprising.
Only if 100% grade A faggots like yourself keep pretending there aren't a lot of people out here fed up with the current bullshit. Seriously, maybe like go outside or something and talk to people? I dunno...maybe you live in some liberal shithole. Out in the sticks things are quite a bit different, and we have a lot of firearms with the ability to use them.
That was relatively high inflation, but it wasn't hyperinflation. Hyperinflation isn't 10% per year, it's thousands of percent per year. Think Venezuela or the Wiemar Republic. High inflation is damaging, but hyperinflation completely destroys the monetary base and takes the economy with it. The problem is there isn't a clear transition between the two. There's no threshold for when high inflation suddenly gets out of control and people start using bills as tinder in their fireplaces. It's largely a psychological event, which makes it very hard to predict. That's why all this monetary manipulation is dangerous.
Inflation is at around 2.6%, which is also about average of what it has been for the past 25 years, and well below the peak of 3.8% in 2008, and nothing like the hyper-inflation we saw around 1980.
This is about as well thought and likely to succeed as the Hong Kong protests of last year and the year before. What happened to the brave resistance? Oh, right. They're all dead or in jail. Exactly as everyone with any common sense predicted.Until nobody cares what some mandarin in D.C. thinks and just straight up ignores them.And that'll be used to stoke more outrage, take away more rights, and most people will passively accept it all.Until it doesn't.Passivity and comfort will win out over internet hyperbole.And then he'd be a martyr, and it would be an excuse to take away more basic rights.
You make it sound like that crap is going to work again...we're at the point now that either politicians get into their fucking lanes or bullets will start flying. And that isn't just hyperbole; where I live anyone with a brain is ready to do whatever it takes to oust tyranny.
Playing with the switch labeled 'off' and 'shoot fucking everyone' strikes me as a poor decision. But hey, I could be wrong.
I'm sure the British thought the colonists would just lie down and take it too -- until they didn't.
Most people don't even seem to realize that the "protests" of last year were violent riots that involved attacks on 150 federal buildings, more than 30 deaths, and billions of dollars in damage. Only the January 6th "insurrection" matters. The propaganda war is well and thoroughly lost. Hoping for some mass uprising is underpants gnome thinking.
How exactly does any of what I said match up with the mainstream media?
Oh, it doesn't.
You're just a piece of shit.
Wow. Pat and I agree on something.How exactly does any of what I said match up with the mainstream media?I read what you wrote. You're just wrong. Minor, scattered resistance that's consistently been spun as terrorism across essentially all mainstream media outlets != a major uprising or a public ground swell. Especially since the mask restrictions have been effectively lifted, most people have gone back to not caring. Vaccine passports could potentially change that, but except for very leftist places like NYC where it's got broad support, it doesn't seem to be more than an idea. An idea which will be used to slowly chip away people's resistance, like everything covid- or peaceful-but-fiery-related.
Again, rude awakening...but that's okay, go ahead and believe the MSM.There will be no mass uprising.
Only if 100% grade A faggots like yourself keep pretending there aren't a lot of people out here fed up with the current bullshit. Seriously, maybe like go outside or something and talk to people? I dunno...maybe you live in some liberal shithole. Out in the sticks things are quite a bit different, and we have a lot of firearms with the ability to use them.
Oh, it doesn't.
You're just a piece of shit.
I think apathy would be a good alternative. Stop treating stalemates as existential threats that ruin everything. Learn to let it go, and stop trying to force one set of rules on everyone. Let people do their own things.Do you have young kids?
I think apathy would be a good alternative. Stop treating stalemates as existential threats that ruin everything. Learn to let it go, and stop trying to force one set of rules on everyone. Let people do their own things.
That wasn't a general statement about the relative position of different sides. I'm referring to attitude and tactics. The modern tendency to treat a failure to get your way as an existential threat.I think apathy would be a good alternative. Stop treating stalemates as existential threats that ruin everything. Learn to let it go, and stop trying to force one set of rules on everyone. Let people do their own things.
Except the current situation is not a stalemate.
The biggest thing is to stop being complacent.I'll take complacency over your delusions anytime.
A lot of people are happy to keep buying products from Woke creators & vendors, even though the Woke ideology is actively anti-White, actively bigoted against all races that don't parrot Woke-ism, actively pro-violence to achieve its ends, it's actively pro-psychological abuse, pro-sexual abuse, and pro-Totalitarian control over every word, act, or thought.
Spending money, or more importantly time and attention, on products that are openly funding or promoting violent & abusive behavior is wrong, and complacency now is going to be a very real cost in blood (whether for you or your children) later.
The biggest thing is to stop being complacent.I'll take complacency over your delusions anytime.
A lot of people are happy to keep buying products from Woke creators & vendors, even though the Woke ideology is actively anti-White, actively bigoted against all races that don't parrot Woke-ism, actively pro-violence to achieve its ends, it's actively pro-psychological abuse, pro-sexual abuse, and pro-Totalitarian control over every word, act, or thought.
Spending money, or more importantly time and attention, on products that are openly funding or promoting violent & abusive behavior is wrong, and complacency now is going to be a very real cost in blood (whether for you or your children) later.
I'll take complacency over your delusions anytime.
The biggest thing is to stop being complacent.
A lot of people are happy to keep buying products from Woke creators & vendors, even though the Woke ideology is actively anti-White, actively bigoted against all races that don't parrot Woke-ism, actively pro-violence to achieve its ends, it's actively pro-psychological abuse, pro-sexual abuse, and pro-Totalitarian control over every word, act, or thought.
Spending money, or more importantly time and attention, on products that are openly funding or promoting violent & abusive behavior is wrong, and complacency now is going to be a very real cost in blood (whether for you or your children) later.
Please point out anyone that is advocating violence, imprisonment, or enslavement of you or your children. No, don't point it out to me; point it out to the police (unless your delusion is that the police are the instruments of the violence, imprisonment, or enslavement you speak of). If you have some evidence to back up what you're saying, they'll take care of it the right way. OTOH, if it's just your delusions, make sure to tell them you're looking at lashing out at those you feel are against you so that you can get the help you need for your mental illness.I'll take complacency over your delusions anytime.
What's delusional? Woke people openly advocate for violence, imprisonment and enslavement of people they don't like and abusing their children. Is it delusional to see that rhetoric and believe that people mean what they say?
We don't even have to operate in a hypothetical future world here. It's all happening now. I'd love it if reasonable voices prevailed, but reasonable voices are already intimidated into silence & inaction.
On a fun note:
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
What's delusional? Woke people openly advocate for violence, imprisonment and enslavement of people they don't like and abusing their children. Is it delusional to see that rhetoric and believe that people mean what they say?
We don't even have to operate in a hypothetical future world here. It's all happening now. I'd love it if reasonable voices prevailed, but reasonable voices are already intimidated into silence & inaction.
I think the good news is I think it would be hard to run into a person on the street that is as aggressively woke as some loud people on the internet. The bad news is some of these sorts seem to be finding their way into places where they can actually make policy. Expecting trouble down the road with the tone as it is now... constantly amplifying; I do not think is a reach.
What's delusional? Woke people openly advocate for violence, imprisonment and enslavement of people they don't like and abusing their children. Is it delusional to see that rhetoric and believe that people mean what they say?
We don't even have to operate in a hypothetical future world here. It's all happening now. I'd love it if reasonable voices prevailed, but reasonable voices are already intimidated into silence & inaction.I think the good news is I think it would be hard to run into a person on the street that is as aggressively woke as some loud people on the internet. The bad news is some of these sorts seem to be finding their way into places where they can actually make policy. Expecting trouble down the road with the tone as it is now... constantly amplifying; I do not think is a reach.
Are we talking about online rhetoric?
People say extreme shit online all the time. That long predates current trends. SHARK regularly talks about how Marxists are all scum who need to be bashed in the head, for example.
I agree that it could potentially get worse, but I also think that the vast majority of online shit-stirrers have zero interest in actual physical violence.
Putting boys in girl's locker rooms is pretty frigging extreme.
Putting boys in girl's locker rooms is pretty frigging extreme.
As the father of two daughters this is where we're getting into blood eagle territory. Women need a safe space away from men. Always have always will.
Not just that.Putting boys in girl's locker rooms is pretty frigging extreme.
As the father of two daughters this is where we're getting into blood eagle territory. Women need a safe space away from men. Always have always will.
This is where Trans activism is starting to butt up against primal human instincts to protect the wimminfolk. While I'm empathetic to Trans issues, I also think that not considering how this will push certain social/biological buttons is foolish and short sighted.
Putting boys in girl's locker rooms is pretty frigging extreme.
As the father of two daughters this is where we're getting into blood eagle territory. Women need a safe space away from men. Always have always will.
This is where Trans activism is starting to butt up against primal human instincts to protect the wimminfolk. While I'm empathetic to Trans issues, I also think that not considering how this will push certain social/biological buttons is foolish and short sighted.
Please point out anyone that is advocating violence, imprisonment, or enslavement of you or your children. No, don't point it out to me; point it out to the police (unless your delusion is that the police are the instruments of the violence, imprisonment, or enslavement you speak of). If you have some evidence to back up what you're saying, they'll take care of it the right way. OTOH, if it's just your delusions, make sure to tell them you're looking at lashing out at those you feel are against you so that you can get the help you need for your mental illness.I'll take complacency over your delusions anytime.
What's delusional? Woke people openly advocate for violence, imprisonment and enslavement of people they don't like and abusing their children. Is it delusional to see that rhetoric and believe that people mean what they say?
We don't even have to operate in a hypothetical future world here. It's all happening now. I'd love it if reasonable voices prevailed, but reasonable voices are already intimidated into silence & inaction.
On a fun note:
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
If you believe that they are genuinely threatening, please report them to the police. Tell us how that goes.Please point out anyone that is advocating violence, imprisonment, or enslavement of you or your children. No, don't point it out to me; point it out to the police (unless your delusion is that the police are the instruments of the violence, imprisonment, or enslavement you speak of). If you have some evidence to back up what you're saying, they'll take care of it the right way. OTOH, if it's just your delusions, make sure to tell them you're looking at lashing out at those you feel are against you so that you can get the help you need for your mental illness.I'll take complacency over your delusions anytime.
What's delusional? Woke people openly advocate for violence, imprisonment and enslavement of people they don't like and abusing their children. Is it delusional to see that rhetoric and believe that people mean what they say?
We don't even have to operate in a hypothetical future world here. It's all happening now. I'd love it if reasonable voices prevailed, but reasonable voices are already intimidated into silence & inaction.
On a fun note:
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
You ever heard of Professor George Ciccariello-Maher - "All I want for Christmas is white genocide" or Professor Tommy Curry? It's happening, and has been for some time, you may want to pull your head out of the sand.
Hey Happyderp, what do you do when the police do nothing? You know, like they do in Portland or Seattle?When they do nothing about what? Be more specific.
What then?
Hey Happyderp, what do you do when the police do nothing? You know, like they do in Portland or Seattle?
What then?
The schtick HappyDaze is playing is just tediously dishonest. Yes, it's totally normal and not alarming at all when activists, bureaucrats, politicians, professors, and other assorted individuals who are in the most powerful institutions in the world, engage in, fund, and tolerate extremist rhetoric that encourages violence & abuse.Yes, the tired-ass tactic of the little bitches on RPGsite to call someone they don't agree with dishonest. Couldn't have seen that one coming.
Meanwhile the violent mobs these people openly endorse continue on. Nothing to see here, move along.
The schtick HappyDaze is playing is just tediously dishonest. Yes, it's totally normal and not alarming at all when activists, bureaucrats, politicians, professors, and other assorted individuals who are in the most powerful institutions in the world, engage in, fund, and tolerate extremist rhetoric that encourages violence & abuse.
Meanwhile the violent mobs these people openly endorse continue on. Nothing to see here, move along.
If you believe that they are genuinely threatening, please report them to the police. Tell us how that goes.Please point out anyone that is advocating violence, imprisonment, or enslavement of you or your children. No, don't point it out to me; point it out to the police (unless your delusion is that the police are the instruments of the violence, imprisonment, or enslavement you speak of). If you have some evidence to back up what you're saying, they'll take care of it the right way. OTOH, if it's just your delusions, make sure to tell them you're looking at lashing out at those you feel are against you so that you can get the help you need for your mental illness.I'll take complacency over your delusions anytime.
What's delusional? Woke people openly advocate for violence, imprisonment and enslavement of people they don't like and abusing their children. Is it delusional to see that rhetoric and believe that people mean what they say?
We don't even have to operate in a hypothetical future world here. It's all happening now. I'd love it if reasonable voices prevailed, but reasonable voices are already intimidated into silence & inaction.
On a fun note:
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
You ever heard of Professor George Ciccariello-Maher - "All I want for Christmas is white genocide" or Professor Tommy Curry? It's happening, and has been for some time, you may want to pull your head out of the sand.
They are always shocked that we treat their words at face value.If you believe that they are genuinely threatening, please report them to the police. Tell us how that goes.Please point out anyone that is advocating violence, imprisonment, or enslavement of you or your children. No, don't point it out to me; point it out to the police (unless your delusion is that the police are the instruments of the violence, imprisonment, or enslavement you speak of). If you have some evidence to back up what you're saying, they'll take care of it the right way. OTOH, if it's just your delusions, make sure to tell them you're looking at lashing out at those you feel are against you so that you can get the help you need for your mental illness.I'll take complacency over your delusions anytime.
What's delusional? Woke people openly advocate for violence, imprisonment and enslavement of people they don't like and abusing their children. Is it delusional to see that rhetoric and believe that people mean what they say?
We don't even have to operate in a hypothetical future world here. It's all happening now. I'd love it if reasonable voices prevailed, but reasonable voices are already intimidated into silence & inaction.
On a fun note:
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
You ever heard of Professor George Ciccariello-Maher - "All I want for Christmas is white genocide" or Professor Tommy Curry? It's happening, and has been for some time, you may want to pull your head out of the sand.
So, only if the police do something is it a concern? You knob, they are writing academic papers on why violence against whites is not only acceptable but encouraged. This is their process of normalization. You know it and choose to ignore it. Fine, but I take these abominable bigots at their word and have no intent of going gently into that good night.
All I can say is fuck around with middle class white men and find out.What exactly are you suggesting?
Why? Do you find it genuinely threatening? Call the police and tell us how that goes.All I can say is fuck around with middle class white men and find out.What exactly are you suggesting?
I didn't say I found it threatening. I asked him to clarify his statement. Why so adversarial?Why? Do you find it genuinely threatening? Call the police and tell us how that goes.All I can say is fuck around with middle class white men and find out.What exactly are you suggesting?
I didn't say I found it threatening. I asked him to clarify his statement. Why so adversarial?Why? Do you find it genuinely threatening? Call the police and tell us how that goes.All I can say is fuck around with middle class white men and find out.What exactly are you suggesting?
You assume he is thinking, as opposed to being a spastic threadshitter.I didn't say I found it threatening. I asked him to clarify his statement. Why so adversarial?Why? Do you find it genuinely threatening? Call the police and tell us how that goes.All I can say is fuck around with middle class white men and find out.What exactly are you suggesting?
You think being asked to call the police is adversarial?
Coming from you, that description is meaningless.You assume he is thinking, as opposed to being a spastic threadshitter.I didn't say I found it threatening. I asked him to clarify his statement. Why so adversarial?Why? Do you find it genuinely threatening? Call the police and tell us how that goes.All I can say is fuck around with middle class white men and find out.What exactly are you suggesting?
You think being asked to call the police is adversarial?
As a middle class straight white conservative man, I think he's suggesting we'll all make lots of angry posts on the interwebs.All I can say is fuck around with middle class white men and find out.What exactly are you suggesting?
Gotcha. No real escalation then, just more of the same old.As a middle class straight white conservative man, I think he's suggesting we'll all make lots of angry posts on the interwebs.All I can say is fuck around with middle class white men and find out.What exactly are you suggesting?
I mean that's what I do.
As a middle class straight white conservative man, I think he's suggesting we'll all make lots of angry posts on the interwebs.All I can say is fuck around with middle class white men and find out.What exactly are you suggesting?
I mean that's what I do.
As a middle class straight white conservative man, I think he's suggesting we'll all make lots of angry posts on the interwebs.All I can say is fuck around with middle class white men and find out.What exactly are you suggesting?
I mean that's what I do.
Did everyone who dismissed the lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory either fund or work with the Wuhan lab?In a sane world that motherfucker would have some 'splainin' to do. He was involved up to his eyeballs right along with Fauci.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9712997/Google-funded-research-carried-Wuhan-linked-scientist-Peter-Daszaks-charity.html
Gotcha. No real escalation then, just more of the same old.As a middle class straight white conservative man, I think he's suggesting we'll all make lots of angry posts on the interwebs.All I can say is fuck around with middle class white men and find out.What exactly are you suggesting?
I mean that's what I do.
It's not JUST 'some people'. Whole states are bucking the feds at this point. Arizona told AG Garland if he tried to interfere with their audit, he'd be tossed in a cell. Missouri declared itself a 2A sanctuary state and told the DOJ to go fuck themselves. Texas and Florida are needling the Biden misadministration endlessly.Gotcha. No real escalation then, just more of the same old.As a middle class straight white conservative man, I think he's suggesting we'll all make lots of angry posts on the interwebs.All I can say is fuck around with middle class white men and find out.What exactly are you suggesting?
I mean that's what I do.
The only people who will overtly push a real escalation, especially with strangers around, are fucking Feds. Now, what some people may be gathering and talking about as they run their courses in the woods and bring in combat vets to work with them on their fitness and shooting, who knows?
It's not JUST 'some people'. Whole states are bucking the feds at this point. Arizona told AG Garland if he tried to interfere with their audit, he'd be tossed in a cell. Missouri declared itself a 2A sanctuary state and told the DOJ to go fuck themselves. Texas and Florida are needling the Biden misadministration endlessly.Gotcha. No real escalation then, just more of the same old.As a middle class straight white conservative man, I think he's suggesting we'll all make lots of angry posts on the interwebs.All I can say is fuck around with middle class white men and find out.What exactly are you suggesting?
I mean that's what I do.
The only people who will overtly push a real escalation, especially with strangers around, are fucking Feds. Now, what some people may be gathering and talking about as they run their courses in the woods and bring in combat vets to work with them on their fitness and shooting, who knows?
It's one thing to bag one guy, or a group of yahoos in a cabin or compound. It is entirely another to try to fuck with a recalcitrant state, especially as the retard left stupidly set the precedent when they wouldn't let Trump bring 'immigration sanctuary' cities to heel. Oops.
All I can say is fuck around with middle class white men and find out.
I think I am going to let that public trial play out before me or the kids take that shot. 3 years and we can make a call.Have you seen Bret Weinstein's "How to Save the World in Three Easy Steps"? He's an evolutionary biologist, and he has an extensive (3 hour) talk with Robert Malone, the inventor mRNA vaccines (and another guy Kirsch who won't stop interrupting). They go into the negative effects of the vaccines in extensive and very technical detail. The video was banned by YouTube because being the creator of the thing you're talking about apparently doesn't make you more of an authority than anonymous Google employees. While it has been banned, people keep uploading it again, so you should be able to find it if you look.
If a man calls for my ruination and/or death, expect me to be very interested in him.
To quote Doc Holliday in Tombstone, 'I'm your huckleberry'.If a man calls for my ruination and/or death, expect me to be very interested in him.
Enjoy. For diversity, this time it's a woman...named Spectre.
To quote Doc Holliday in Tombstone, 'I'm your huckleberry'.If a man calls for my ruination and/or death, expect me to be very interested in him.
Enjoy. For diversity, this time it's a woman...named Spectre.
Stupid bitch should spend some time in a non-Western society, see how she's treated.
Revenge rape-porn. Charming.
I think I am going to let that public trial play out before me or the kids take that shot. 3 years and we can make a call.Have you seen Bret Weinstein's "How to Save the World in Three Easy Steps"? He's an evolutionary biologist, and he has an extensive (3 hour) talk with Robert Malone, the inventor mRNA vaccines (and another guy Kirsch who won't stop interrupting). They go into the negative effects of the vaccines in extensive and very technical detail. The video was banned by YouTube because being the creator of the thing you're talking about apparently doesn't make you more of an authority than anonymous Google employees. While it has been banned, people keep uploading it again, so you should be able to find it if you look.
Revenge rape-porn. Charming.He's not wrong. Women are seen as chattel in many non-Western societies.
Took me a couple tries to get through it, because of Kirsch's complete lack of self-awareness. Malone comes across as a class act, though.I think I am going to let that public trial play out before me or the kids take that shot. 3 years and we can make a call.Have you seen Bret Weinstein's "How to Save the World in Three Easy Steps"? He's an evolutionary biologist, and he has an extensive (3 hour) talk with Robert Malone, the inventor mRNA vaccines (and another guy Kirsch who won't stop interrupting). They go into the negative effects of the vaccines in extensive and very technical detail. The video was banned by YouTube because being the creator of the thing you're talking about apparently doesn't make you more of an authority than anonymous Google employees. While it has been banned, people keep uploading it again, so you should be able to find it if you look.
Yeah, I really wanted to watch that whole thing, but Kirsch just keeps talking over everyone and the complaining that people are talking over him. I'd love for Brett to have Dr Malone back on without Skwaky McWakwak.
All I can say is fuck around with middle class white men and find out.
They did fuck around! And they found out middle class white men do nothing.
Stole an election too. Trump voters response? Grumpy grumbles online.
Lots of scaremongering over the "Delta" variant is going around, simultaneous with more mainstream acceptance of things we've known for over a year now (e.g. Covid was created in a lab, population-wide lockdowns don't work, masks don't work).
Are people going to accept being locked down again in the face of a virus that's mutating (as they all do) to be less deadly? In the face of strong evidence that the measures that are being imposed do nothing & have net negative effects?
Worthwhile read: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-war-on-reality-gutentag
Lots of scaremongering over the "Delta" variant is going around, simultaneous with more mainstream acceptance of things we've known for over a year now (e.g. Covid was created in a lab, population-wide lockdowns don't work, masks don't work).
Are people going to accept being locked down again in the face of a virus that's mutating (as they all do) to be less deadly? In the face of strong evidence that the measures that are being imposed do nothing & have net negative effects?
Worthwhile read: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-war-on-reality-gutentag
Of course they'll accept it, along with a vocal minority who will cheer their own oppression. The people are cowardly sheep, as they've proven time and again, and their masks are their cherished symbol of their oppression.
The Delta variant is doing what all viruses do - become more contagious, but less deadly. With one exception - it remains just as deadly for people who've been "vaccinated", likely because of antibody dependent enhancement. Watch deaths amongst the vaccinated surge in the autumn when the normal respiratory bugs come knocking.
Look out for them trying to blame the unvaccinated, somehow, for making people who allowed themselves to be subjected to experimental gene therapy get ill.
You sound exactly like the nutty anti-vaxxer mother at my kids school. Pre-covid that is.
You sound exactly like the nutty anti-vaxxer mother at my kids school. Pre-covid that is.
People thought Alex Jones was nuts till he was proven right multiple times.
Look do I expect mass deaths? No. Do I expect long term consequences from a vaccine that hasn't gone through years of rigorous testing to prove it is safe? Yes I do. I am on wait and see mode because of that reason.
I'm going to ask for your sources that show the above.
People thought Alex Jones was nuts till he was proven right multiple times.
I'm going to ask for your sources that show the above.
People thought Alex Jones was nuts till he was proven right multiple times.
No, only that of the fool that thinks he can find evidence of Alex Jones being proven right multiple times. The rest of us know better.I'm going to ask for your sources that show the above.
People thought Alex Jones was nuts till he was proven right multiple times.
Why? That would just waste everyones time.
No, only that of the fool that thinks he can find evidence of Alex Jones being proven right multiple times. The rest of us know better.I'm going to ask for your sources that show the above.
People thought Alex Jones was nuts till he was proven right multiple times.
Why? That would just waste everyones time.
You sound exactly like the nutty anti-vaxxer mother at my kids school. Pre-covid that is.
So much for 'my body, my choice'. Open that door to eugenics, motherfuckers. You've set the precedent to apply medical procedures to people even if they object.Decent parody:
This is the UK's Yellow Card system for vaccination (equivalent to VAERS in the US): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting
They're an under-estimate of events, because only about 10% of people even bother reporting them. Even with all the deliberate obfuscation to avoid attributing deaths to covid jabs, there have been 1440 so far, which equates to 1 death per 31,153 people vaccinated. There are 309,272 Yellow Cards (Adverse Reaction reports) raised, 1 per 145 people vaccinated. Though it tends to be clustered with people reporting multiple events.
Based on age-stratified all-cause mortality in England and Wales taken from the Office for National Statistics death registrations, several thousand deaths are expected to have occurred, naturally, within 7 days of the many millions of doses of vaccines administered so far, mostly in the elderly.
The MHRA has received 450 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 960 reports for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, six for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 24 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified. The majority of these reports were in elderly people or people with underlying illness. Usage of the vaccines has increased over the course of the campaigns and as such, so has reporting of fatal events with a temporal association with vaccination however, this does not indicate a link between vaccination and the fatalities reported. Review of individual reports and patterns of reporting does not suggest the vaccines played a role in these deaths.
I note that medical doctors are choosing to take the vaccine at a higher rate than the rest of the population.I wouldn't read too much into that. Frontline medical workers typically take vaccines at a much higher rate than the overall population, because they're at higher risk and at the front of the queue. And they take them much earlier as well, so more would have taken the shot before the negative side effects were widely reported. Plus, with the widespread rejection of informed choice by the government and hospital systems, many didn't have a choice if they wanted to continue working.
You're also looking at the VAERS and Yellow Card reports the wrong way. While you're correct that it doesn't prove a causal link, it's absolutely vital to assume there's a causal link until proven otherwise. When there are reports of widespread deaths correlated with a vaccine, it gets pulled (except for the covid-19 vaccines), because it's not the time or place to wait for definitive proof. It's also an essential assumption when investigating the reports -- the goal is not to prove the vaccine caused the side effect, but to start with the assumption that the vaccine did cause the side effect, and then try to rule it out. The burden of proof was set up this way for what should be very obvious reasons.
I note that medical doctors are choosing to take the vaccine at a higher rate than the rest of the population.I wouldn't read too much into that. Frontline medical workers typically take vaccines at a much higher rate than the overall population, because they're at higher risk and at the front of the queue. And they take them much earlier as well, so more would have taken the shot before the negative side effects were widely reported. Plus, with the widespread rejection of informed choice by the government and hospital systems, many didn't have a choice if they wanted to continue working.
*Every* vaccine that is widely distributed also has widespread deaths that are correlated with it. That's inherent in distributing to hundreds of millions of people -- some people are going to die after receiving it, because some people *always* die at any given time -- especially the elderly. The vast majority of deaths do not have detailed autopsies, so there is no definite cause of death.
The proof is statistical, not by absolute proof of cause. If the death rate under vaccinations is roughly the same as the death rate otherwise, then the vaccine is considered safe. It is even accepted that there will always be some level of adverse reactions including a few genuinely fatal ones, as long as it is under a given level.
Nonsense, I neither said nor implied any such thing. I simply pointed out that doctors are natural outliers, and that a simplistic comparison of their vaccination rates compared to the vaccination rates of the general public is completely useless and tells us absolutely nothing. Once again, you're claiming I said something I didn't because you can't argue against my point honestly.I note that medical doctors are choosing to take the vaccine at a higher rate than the rest of the population.I wouldn't read too much into that. Frontline medical workers typically take vaccines at a much higher rate than the overall population, because they're at higher risk and at the front of the queue. And they take them much earlier as well, so more would have taken the shot before the negative side effects were widely reported. Plus, with the widespread rejection of informed choice by the government and hospital systems, many didn't have a choice if they wanted to continue working.
This seems like a general argument to not pay attention to doctors, because they have to bow to the system. I think the system may create some bias, but in general, I think it's good to listen to one's doctor and follow their advice - including about vaccines. (I just got back from my first endoscopy yesterday, so this seems relevant to me.) Doctors have pushed back against the system in many countries, in cases where the government was pursuing unhealthy policies.
*Every* vaccine that is widely distributed also has widespread deaths that are correlated with it. That's inherent in distributing to hundreds of millions of people -- some people are going to die after receiving it, because some people *always* die at any given time -- especially the elderly. The vast majority of deaths do not have detailed autopsies, so there is no definite cause of death.
The proof is statistical, not by absolute proof of cause. If the death rate under vaccinations is roughly the same as the death rate otherwise, then the vaccine is considered safe. It is even accepted that there will always be some level of adverse reactions including a few genuinely fatal ones, as long as it is under a given level.
(https://swprs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/openvaers-deaths-july-2-2021.png)
In a normal year, mass vaccinations are mainly to children. In 2021, we've distributed millions of vaccines in a short time to primarily elderly people. That's inherently going to produce a sharp increase in correlated deaths.You mean like your claim of correlation without causation, re: the rate at which doctors take the vaccines? Funny how it's fine if you do it, but if anyone else does it in response to you doing it, it's fear mongering.
The question is -- is the increase greater than the increase that would be expected just from the demographics of vaccine distribution? That's the important question, and just showing graphs that are clearly correlation is just fear-mongering.
DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.
^ And for reference, that clause exempts Pharma companies from Phase 4, which is supposed to reveal long time side effects of vaccines. This has never been done before. And it's a flat exemption. They're not scaling back Phase 4 to a manageable size, because too many jabs were distributed to track. Nobody is collecting the data.Perhaps the usual suspects are not, but I can tell you at least one place that is doing so: the FDOC prisons in Florida. They have the advantages of having long-term access for follow-up monitoring. If they start seeing trends, they have a path to report them up. So, there is at least a process with a semi-controlled population. Unfortunately, I have zero faith in the ability of Centurion (the state's for-profit contracted heath care provider) to put much effort into working this process as it's not going to bring in any extra money.
^ And for reference, that clause exempts Pharma companies from Phase 4, which is supposed to reveal long time side effects of vaccines. This has never been done before. And it's a flat exemption. They're not scaling back Phase 4 to a manageable size, because too many jabs were distributed to track. Nobody is collecting the data.
This is wide enough scale that there will a lot of information out there. The problem is it will be scattered, hard to collate, and not necessarily representative. That means the conclusions they draw will be more provisional or limited.^ And for reference, that clause exempts Pharma companies from Phase 4, which is supposed to reveal long time side effects of vaccines. This has never been done before. And it's a flat exemption. They're not scaling back Phase 4 to a manageable size, because too many jabs were distributed to track. Nobody is collecting the data.Perhaps the usual suspects are not, but I can tell you at least one place that is doing so: the FDOC prisons in Florida. They have the advantages of having long-term access for follow-up monitoring. If they start seeing trends, they have a path to report them up. So, there is at least a process with a semi-controlled population. Unfortunately, I have zero faith in the ability of Centurion (the state's for-profit contracted heath care provider) to put much effort into working this process as it's not going to bring in any extra money.
If anyone is honestly interested in the topic, see one of the interviews with Robert Malone. He lays out how the rate of adverse side-effects for the covid-19 vaccines is exceptional, and would have resulted in any other vaccine being pulled. And he's slightly more qualified than John H. Kim, since he's a physician who is the creator of the mRNA vaccine technology, has worked on all pandemics since the 1980s, has worked for both major pharma companies and the government, serves as advisor for and has very highly placed contacts in both, and is taking a great personal risk to speak out since any controversy could risk his chance at a Nobel. He also talks about why he got the jab himself (Moderna), and his reservations based on the data that's come out since (he got his shot very early).
My whole point was to listen to doctors and other experts in vaccine and infectious disease. Pat - you're not a medical doctor any more than I am, so I don't see how my credentials are any more relevant than yours. I'm happy to debate logical points here on this forum, but I would again urge for any actual medical decisions about one's own body - talk to your actual doctor. If you don't trust your doctor, get a different doctor.You never said anything about listening to the doctors. That claim is false. What happened is you started this conversation by comparing vaccination rates in different groups. I was the one who referenced a doctor to poke holes in your theories, not you.
I would urge *against* is looking up a video from a doctor based on Internet search or forum recommendation for making one's medical decisions. There are hundreds of thousands of MDs in the world, and even hundreds who are long-time specialists in any given subject like vaccines.
Also, and this is trivial in comparison, I do have more credentials than you do, in this very specific field. I've never mentioned them before, because I don't make arguments from a position of authority, they're relatively minor, and they're out of date. But you're wrong again.
I can't seen any way to interpret any of these as honest mistakes. You're being deliberately deceptive, disingenuous, and making attacks on my character. In doing so, you've had to contort your arguments so far that you're not only contradicting yourself in subsequent posts, but between paragraphs.
Also, and this is trivial in comparison, I do have more credentials than you do, in this very specific field. I've never mentioned them before, because I don't make arguments from a position of authority, they're relatively minor, and they're out of date. But you're wrong again.
I can't seen any way to interpret any of these as honest mistakes. You're being deliberately deceptive, disingenuous, and making attacks on my character. In doing so, you've had to contort your arguments so far that you're not only contradicting yourself in subsequent posts, but between paragraphs.
Pat, the only thing I said about you personally was that you're no more of a medical doctor than me -- but I have now learned that is not true and you have some medical credentials. I apologize for assuming otherwise, though to be fair, you've never mentioned these after years of discussion. I do not think you are lying, and do not mean to attack your character.
I hope you're doing well in life in general.
Pat, the only thing I said about you personally was that you're no more of a medical doctor than me -- but I have now learned that is not true and you have some medical credentials. I apologize for assuming otherwise, though to be fair, you've never mentioned these after years of discussion. I do not think you are lying, and do not mean to attack your character.No, you also implied I was telling people to ignore their doctors. I did not.
No, only that of the fool that thinks he can find evidence of Alex Jones being proven right multiple times. The rest of us know better.I'm going to ask for your sources that show the above.
People thought Alex Jones was nuts till he was proven right multiple times.
Why? That would just waste everyones time.
OK, do you believe the Gulf of Tonkin incident starting the Vietnam war is an Alex Jones conspiracy theory?
Do you believe that the US knowing about the Pearl Harbour attacks before they happened is an Alex Jones conspiracy theory?
Or, the most popular one, do you believe that chemicals turning frogs gay is a conspiracy theory?
No, only that of the fool that thinks he can find evidence of Alex Jones being proven right multiple times. The rest of us know better.I'm going to ask for your sources that show the above.
People thought Alex Jones was nuts till he was proven right multiple times.
Why? That would just waste everyones time.
OK, do you believe the Gulf of Tonkin incident starting the Vietnam war is an Alex Jones conspiracy theory?
Do you believe that the US knowing about the Pearl Harbour attacks before they happened is an Alex Jones conspiracy theory?
Or, the most popular one, do you believe that chemicals turning frogs gay is a conspiracy theory?
Ah, I love a good told ya so.
No, only that of the fool that thinks he can find evidence of Alex Jones being proven right multiple times. The rest of us know better.I'm going to ask for your sources that show the above.
People thought Alex Jones was nuts till he was proven right multiple times.
Why? That would just waste everyones time.
OK, do you believe the Gulf of Tonkin incident starting the Vietnam war is an Alex Jones conspiracy theory?
Do you believe that the US knowing about the Pearl Harbour attacks before they happened is an Alex Jones conspiracy theory?
Or, the most popular one, do you believe that chemicals turning frogs gay is a conspiracy theory?
Ah, I love a good told ya so.
You did forget about Bohemian Grove which Alex Jones did say it exists. A lot of people didn't believe on that.
Follow these important hurricane preparedness tips from CDC:This is getting ridiculous.
- Prepare for a hurricane: Take basic steps now to ensure your safety should a storm hit.
- Get a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as you can. COVID-19 vaccines help protect you from getting sick or severely ill with COVID-19 and may also help protect people around you.
- Get emergency supplies: Stock your home and your car with supplies. Give yourself more time than usual to prepare your emergency food, water, and medicine supplies.
- Home delivery is the safest choice for buying disaster supplies; however, that may not be an option for everyone. If in-person shopping is your only choice, take steps to protect your and others’ health when running essential errands.
- Make a plan: Create a family disaster plan.
- Prepare to evacuate: Never ignore an evacuation order. Pay attention to local guidance about updated plans for evacuations and shelters, including shelters for your pets.
- Protect older adults: Understand older adult health and medical concerns.
- Protect your pets: Ensure your pet’s safety before, during, and after a hurricane.
- When you check on neighbors and friends, be sure to follow social distancing recommendations (staying at least 6 feet from others) and other CDC recommendations to protect yourself and others.
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/features/hurricanepreparedness/index.htmlThey left out 'buy firearms to repel looters in the event of complete breakdown in order', but then again, these days it's a stone bitch to buy a gun and ammo.Quote from: CDCFollow these important hurricane preparedness tips from CDC:This is getting ridiculous.
- Prepare for a hurricane: Take basic steps now to ensure your safety should a storm hit.
- Get a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as you can. COVID-19 vaccines help protect you from getting sick or severely ill with COVID-19 and may also help protect people around you.
- Get emergency supplies: Stock your home and your car with supplies. Give yourself more time than usual to prepare your emergency food, water, and medicine supplies.
- Home delivery is the safest choice for buying disaster supplies; however, that may not be an option for everyone. If in-person shopping is your only choice, take steps to protect your and others’ health when running essential errands.
- Make a plan: Create a family disaster plan.
- Prepare to evacuate: Never ignore an evacuation order. Pay attention to local guidance about updated plans for evacuations and shelters, including shelters for your pets.
- Protect older adults: Understand older adult health and medical concerns.
- Protect your pets: Ensure your pet’s safety before, during, and after a hurricane.
- When you check on neighbors and friends, be sure to follow social distancing recommendations (staying at least 6 feet from others) and other CDC recommendations to protect yourself and others.
Of course in circumstances like this I would always say speak to your doctor or another medical professional if you have any concerns. Vaccination centres here have people who will take you through the risks and your GP should have your best interests at heart.
Of course in circumstances like this I would always say speak to your doctor or another medical professional if you have any concerns. Vaccination centres here have people who will take you through the risks and your GP should have your best interests at heart.
Vaccination centres are revenue earners for the practises who designate themselves as such. They get paid for every jab they deliver.
Yes, I'm going to trust the people profiting from the procedure they are delivering...
I hope you never need to use the emergency department. They charge you for every procedure too.Of course in circumstances like this I would always say speak to your doctor or another medical professional if you have any concerns. Vaccination centres here have people who will take you through the risks and your GP should have your best interests at heart.
Vaccination centres are revenue earners for the practises who designate themselves as such. They get paid for every jab they deliver.
Yes, I'm going to trust the people profiting from the procedure they are delivering...
Of course in circumstances like this I would always say speak to your doctor or another medical professional if you have any concerns. Vaccination centres here have people who will take you through the risks and your GP should have your best interests at heart.
Vaccination centres are revenue earners for the practises who designate themselves as such. They get paid for every jab they deliver.
Yes, I'm going to trust the people profiting from the procedure they are delivering...
Interesting. Do you trust the trained professionals that you are paying to look after you or do you trust the random internet stranger posting from their mothers basement?
Of course in circumstances like this I would always say speak to your doctor or another medical professional if you have any concerns. Vaccination centres here have people who will take you through the risks and your GP should have your best interests at heart.
Vaccination centres are revenue earners for the practises who designate themselves as such. They get paid for every jab they deliver.
Yes, I'm going to trust the people profiting from the procedure they are delivering...
Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages.
(https://media.patriots.win/post/UUldFVGx.png)
It's a photoshop, and true to form, you missed the point.(https://media.patriots.win/post/UUldFVGx.png)
What's the source on this? Is the grandmother OK?
SMS messages are handled by regulated network and are supposed to be private (though they are often transmitted plain text and are not secure). So I'd be interested in any further information on what's happening here. (Unless it is just created as a graphic rather than a screenshot of a real conversation.) I do note that there are voluntary apps that one can install to filter SMS messages to reduce spam. Here's an article on covid-19 scam filtering, for example:
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/new-text-blocking-app-protects-against-covid-19-scams-060920.html
"Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages. The goal is to ensure that people who may have difficulty getting a vaccination because of issues like transportation see those barriers lessened or removed entirely."
It's a photoshop, and true to form, you missed the point.
Exactly where does the government get the right to interfere with private discourse?
Its a joking reference to this...Quote"Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages. The goal is to ensure that people who may have difficulty getting a vaccination because of issues like transportation see those barriers lessened or removed entirely."
Here is the full article
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278 (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278)
That's because 'dispel misinformation' is a dog whistle for 'spread bullshit when we get called out on falsehoods'.It's a photoshop, and true to form, you missed the point.
Exactly where does the government get the right to interfere with private discourse?
The government doesn't have the right to interfere with private discourse as implied by the picture.
However, you just said the picture is a fake. So as far as I know, the government is not intercepting and blocking SMS messages about covid as is implied by the picture.
If there is evidence that the government is doing so, then I would be interested. Otherwise, this seems like furor over manufactured evidence.
EDITED TO ADD:Its a joking reference to this...Quote"Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages. The goal is to ensure that people who may have difficulty getting a vaccination because of issues like transportation see those barriers lessened or removed entirely."
Here is the full article
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278 (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278)
So people are interpreting "dispel misinformation" as that the DNC and other groups will start intercepting and blocking SMS messages about covid. That seems like a stretch to me, and the more straightforward interpretation of this is that the DNC will be posting fact checks and sending out information on vaccine availability and transportation.
What's the source on this? Is the grandmother OK?It's obviously fake.
SMS messages are handled by regulated network and are supposed to be private (though they are often transmitted plain text and are not secure). So I'd be interested in any further information on what's happening here. (Unless it is just created as a graphic rather than a screenshot of a real conversation.) I do note that there are voluntary apps that one can install to filter SMS messages to reduce spam. Here's an article on covid-19 scam filtering, for example:
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/new-text-blocking-app-protects-against-covid-19-scams-060920.html
It's a photoshop, and true to form, you missed the point.
Exactly where does the government get the right to interfere with private discourse?
The government doesn't have the right to interfere with private discourse as implied by the picture.
However, you just said the picture is a fake. So as far as I know, the government is not intercepting and blocking SMS messages about covid as is implied by the picture.
If there is evidence that the government is doing so, then I would be interested. Otherwise, this seems like furor over manufactured evidence.
EDITED TO ADD:Its a joking reference to this...Quote"Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages. The goal is to ensure that people who may have difficulty getting a vaccination because of issues like transportation see those barriers lessened or removed entirely."
Here is the full article
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278 (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278)
So people are interpreting "dispel misinformation" as that the DNC and other groups will start intercepting and blocking SMS messages about covid. That seems like a stretch to me, and the more straightforward interpretation of this is that the DNC will be posting fact checks and sending out information on vaccine availability and transportation.
I've read the article a couple times, searching for all references to SMS, and it's all horribly vague. One of the examples they give of what they intend to counter is Turning Point sent out SMSes encouraging people to sign a petition against "medical raids". But you normally can't just blast out SMSes. It requires explicit consent. The people Turning Point is contacted had to opt-in. It wasn't a blast spam to some targeted demographic.
Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages."
If they are planning to 'dispel info' about the vaccine that someone sends in a text message that means they obviously have to 'intercept' it at some point...
It's a photoshop, and true to form, you missed the point.
Exactly where does the government get the right to interfere with private discourse?
The government doesn't have the right to interfere with private discourse as implied by the picture.
However, you just said the picture is a fake. So as far as I know, the government is not intercepting and blocking SMS messages about covid as is implied by the picture.
If there is evidence that the government is doing so, then I would be interested. Otherwise, this seems like furor over manufactured evidence.
EDITED TO ADD:Its a joking reference to this...Quote"Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages. The goal is to ensure that people who may have difficulty getting a vaccination because of issues like transportation see those barriers lessened or removed entirely."
Here is the full article
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278 (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/12/biden-covid-vaccination-campaign-499278)
So people are interpreting "dispel misinformation" as that the DNC and other groups will start intercepting and blocking SMS messages about covid. That seems like a stretch to me, and the more straightforward interpretation of this is that the DNC will be posting fact checks and sending out information on vaccine availability and transportation.
I've read the article a couple times, searching for all references to SMS, and it's all horribly vague. One of the examples they give of what they intend to counter is Turning Point sent out SMSes encouraging people to sign a petition against "medical raids". But you normally can't just blast out SMSes. It requires explicit consent. The people Turning Point is contacted had to opt-in. It wasn't a blast spam to some targeted demographic.
Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee, are also planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages."
If they are planning to 'dispel info' about the vaccine that someone sends in a text message that means they obviously have to 'intercept' it at some point...
They talk about contacting "carriers". The simplest reading is they're contacting the companies that manage the flow of SMS (i.e. mostly telecom companies), but it could also be a reference to various third party services that manage bulk SMSes. It could imply interception, but it could also be requesting copies of bulk texts sent by companies like Turning Point. I.e. reading them at the point of origin, instead of compromising the network. Even more simply, they could just be using the carriers to send out of their messages, to their own opted-in lists. There are some massive legal and technical barriers for the more intrusive versions, so the default should be skepticism without more information, which the article does not provide.
The person writing the article probably isn't very knowledgeable about the technical aspects, and only makes a few vague statements which are hard to interpret. So both sides are drawing conclusions that are too strong based on the evidence. It's most likely on the benign side, but there are some worrisome hints/possible interpretations, and especially given the perfidy and legally unjustifiably overreach of the government over everything covid-related, it's also perfectly reasonable to demand more clarification.
The details here are pretty vague, but we can know a couple of things. One is that whatever they're planning on doing, it's highly illegal. The second is that they will go ahead and do it regardless because the courts are too cowardly/corrupt to stop it.
I honestly hope this is as draconian and intrusive as possible. I'd much rather this boiling point is reached BEFORE we get to the mandatory vaccination & mandatory passport-to-leave-your-house point.
I hope you never need to use the emergency department. They charge you for every procedure too.
How does that apply to money making from the vaccines in your country?I hope you never need to use the emergency department. They charge you for every procedure too.
I'm not American, you fuckwit. I only pay for healthcare through taxation (and my private care through a voluntary contribution from my salary).
Government is now overtly using Facebook to control (dis)information about Covid.Beat me to it.
I'm not clear on what we're talking about here.
I am hugely opposed to a lot of government privacy-invading practices that I know have gone on -- like the NSA phone metadata tapping revealed by Edward Snowden, or the warrantless pulls of phone geolocation data revealed in the Supreme Court decision on Carpenter, or just the millions of warrants passed through en masse, and lots of other privacy invasions and interceptions. I agree that both federal and state governments have done a ton of this and are likely to continue.
But that doesn't mean that I will automatically believe any claim made about governments - particularly if the claim is vague and has no cited evidence.
How does that apply to money making from the vaccines in your country?I hope you never need to use the emergency department. They charge you for every procedure too.
I'm not American, you fuckwit. I only pay for healthcare through taxation (and my private care through a voluntary contribution from my salary).
I'd avoid the word treason. It's not thrown around as much as fascism, but it's thrown around far to frequently. And unlike the ever-more-nebulous definitions of fascism, treason has a very specific meaning within this context. It's the only crime that is clearly defined, and requires a uniquely difficult standard of evidence prove, in the US Constitution. And the reason it's written that way is to oppose the loose definition you're using. The Founding Fathers were fully cognizant of the many cases in England where a simple but rancorous partisan dispute led to the capital charge of treason, and they wanted to forestall that kind of abuse in the US.I'm not clear on what we're talking about here.
I am hugely opposed to a lot of government privacy-invading practices that I know have gone on -- like the NSA phone metadata tapping revealed by Edward Snowden, or the warrantless pulls of phone geolocation data revealed in the Supreme Court decision on Carpenter, or just the millions of warrants passed through en masse, and lots of other privacy invasions and interceptions. I agree that both federal and state governments have done a ton of this and are likely to continue.
But that doesn't mean that I will automatically believe any claim made about governments - particularly if the claim is vague and has no cited evidence.
Yes, I agree it's unclear. I think people who follow politics know the government has been engaging in spying on US citizens communications in a way that was always fishy, and has been shown to be illegal for many years. In theory that abuse was limited in scope, although that assumption isn't based on evidence and "the Right" collectively was wrong to downplay the potential for abuse.
We don't know the solid details of what this report suggests is happening. However, presumably this isn't a continuation of existing programs, which wouldn't be noteworthy. The report suggests a dramatic, national-scale expansion of surveillance efforts, and also suggests other methods (unspecified) of intervention. Any intervention at all on this scale is simply treason.
I'm not clear on what we're talking about here.
I am hugely opposed to a lot of government privacy-invading practices that I know have gone on -- like the NSA phone metadata tapping revealed by Edward Snowden, or the warrantless pulls of phone geolocation data revealed in the Supreme Court decision on Carpenter, or just the millions of warrants passed through en masse, and lots of other privacy invasions and interceptions. I agree that both federal and state governments have done a ton of this and are likely to continue.
But that doesn't mean that I will automatically believe any claim made about governments - particularly if the claim is vague and has no cited evidence.
Yes, I agree it's unclear. I think people who follow politics know the government has been engaging in spying on US citizens communications in a way that was always fishy, and has been shown to be illegal for many years. In theory that abuse was limited in scope, although that assumption isn't based on evidence and "the Right" collectively was wrong to downplay the potential for abuse.
We don't know the solid details of what this report suggests is happening. However, presumably this isn't a continuation of existing programs, which wouldn't be noteworthy. The report suggests a dramatic, national-scale expansion of surveillance efforts, and also suggests other methods (unspecified) of intervention. Any intervention at all on this scale is simply treason.
Ok, I'll go first.How does that apply to money making from the vaccines in your country?I hope you never need to use the emergency department. They charge you for every procedure too.
I'm not American, you fuckwit. I only pay for healthcare through taxation (and my private care through a voluntary contribution from my salary).
How does getting an emergency procedure apply to getting a vaccine?
Ok, I'll go first.How does that apply to money making from the vaccines in your country?I hope you never need to use the emergency department. They charge you for every procedure too.
I'm not American, you fuckwit. I only pay for healthcare through taxation (and my private care through a voluntary contribution from my salary).
How does getting an emergency procedure apply to getting a vaccine?
You were saying you didn't trust people to provide medical treatment if they stand to profit from it. I used the example of emergency services because they too are a medical treatment.
Now it's your turn to answer the question asked.
Oh just fuck off already. You can go back and see where I replied to your post, you stupid shitbag, but you don't want a conversation. You just want an argument.Ok, I'll go first.How does that apply to money making from the vaccines in your country?I hope you never need to use the emergency department. They charge you for every procedure too.
I'm not American, you fuckwit. I only pay for healthcare through taxation (and my private care through a voluntary contribution from my salary).
How does getting an emergency procedure apply to getting a vaccine?
You were saying you didn't trust people to provide medical treatment if they stand to profit from it. I used the example of emergency services because they too are a medical treatment.
Now it's your turn to answer the question asked.
You got a quote where I said that?
You're confusing two different posters.
Oh just fuck off already. You can go back and see where I replied to your post, you stupid shitbag, but you don't want a conversation. You just want an argument.
Oh just fuck off already. You can go back and see where I replied to your post, you stupid shitbag, but you don't want a conversation. You just want an argument.Ok, I'll go first.How does that apply to money making from the vaccines in your country?I hope you never need to use the emergency department. They charge you for every procedure too.
I'm not American, you fuckwit. I only pay for healthcare through taxation (and my private care through a voluntary contribution from my salary).
How does getting an emergency procedure apply to getting a vaccine?
You were saying you didn't trust people to provide medical treatment if they stand to profit from it. I used the example of emergency services because they too are a medical treatment.
Now it's your turn to answer the question asked.
You got a quote where I said that?
You're confusing two different posters.
Oh just fuck off already. You can go back and see where I replied to your post, you stupid shitbag, but you don't want a conversation. You just want an argument.
You're right. Missed that. Between computers right now (my last one just passed away this week at the age of 6) and posting from my phone.You're confusing two different posters.
Oh just fuck off already. You can go back and see where I replied to your post, you stupid shitbag, but you don't want a conversation. You just want an argument.
Looks like this started about a month ago. Heads up for anyone living in the Centennial state...So they call or text people? The horror...
https://covid19.colorado.gov/press-release/state-begins-outbound-phone-campaign-to-encourage-vaccination (https://covid19.colorado.gov/press-release/state-begins-outbound-phone-campaign-to-encourage-vaccination)
Looks like this started about a month ago. Heads up for anyone living in the Centennial state...So they call or text people? The horror...
https://covid19.colorado.gov/press-release/state-begins-outbound-phone-campaign-to-encourage-vaccination (https://covid19.colorado.gov/press-release/state-begins-outbound-phone-campaign-to-encourage-vaccination)
Show me a time they've done this for a flu/pneumonia/meningitis vaccine. Having my name, phone number and presumably address in a database, controlled by the state government, simply because I have refused to do something? That doesn't bother you?
I think people who follow politics know the government has been engaging in spying on US citizens communications in a way that was always fishy, and has been shown to be illegal for many years. In theory that abuse was limited in scope, although that assumption isn't based on evidence and "the Right" collectively was wrong to downplay the potential for abuse.
We don't know the solid details of what this report suggests is happening. However, presumably this isn't a continuation of existing programs, which wouldn't be noteworthy. The report suggests a dramatic, national-scale expansion of surveillance efforts, and also suggests other methods (unspecified) of intervention. Any intervention at all on this scale is simply treason.
Show me a time they've done this for a flu/pneumonia/meningitis vaccine. Having my name, phone number and presumably address in a database, controlled by the state government, simply because I have refused to do something? That doesn't bother you?
State governments already have names, phone numbers, and addresses in a database for a huge number of purposes - for jury summons, voter registration, state taxes, as well as tons of other purposes ranging to car registration, pet registration, amber alerts, and so forth.
But the data collected by the state and federal governments pales compared to how much information is collected by private companies. There are massive databases that track all purchases, Internet activity, geolocation data, and so forth. I favor greater privacy laws in general, and I don't see it as a new issue with covid.
How does that apply to money making from the vaccines in your country?
I have never been pursued in this way for any other medical intervention in my life. I get offered the useless flu jab every year, it's a single text. This has been five different attempts to contact me, and I suspect if they had a working landline they'd be calling that frequently as well.
What's so important about this vaccine that it merits a treatment never used for anything else before?
Reminds me of the people that want me to install solar on my house. I cant tell them no often enough, and they seem to ignore no soliciting signs like they aren't even there.How does that apply to money making from the vaccines in your country?
They are given special, additional, exceptional payments for each jab they deliver. They aren't paid off for any other vaccine delivery.
I have never been pursued in this way for any other medical intervention in my life. I get offered the useless flu jab every year, it's a single text. This has been five different attempts to contact me, and I suspect if they had a working landline they'd be calling that frequently as well.
What's so important about this vaccine that it merits a treatment never used for anything else before?
Your tinfoil hat needs to be loosened.I have never been pursued in this way for any other medical intervention in my life. I get offered the useless flu jab every year, it's a single text. This has been five different attempts to contact me, and I suspect if they had a working landline they'd be calling that frequently as well.
What's so important about this vaccine that it merits a treatment never used for anything else before?
Because the intent has never been about protecting people, the it's always been to create a global social credit & surveillance network. The vaccine passports are essential to that, because they give 100% ID authentication and location tracking. The fact that it involves forcibly violating your own bodily integrity just helps break down your psychological resistance, since once you submit to arbitrary invasive demands you're going to subconsciously become more compliant to other demands.
Your tinfoil hat needs to be loosened.
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.
Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant.
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
- James Madison
Because the intent has never been about protecting people, the it's always been to create a global social credit & surveillance network. The vaccine passports are essential to that, because they give 100% ID authentication and location tracking. The fact that it involves forcibly violating your own bodily integrity just helps break down your psychological resistance, since once you submit to arbitrary invasive demands you're going to subconsciously become more compliant to other demands.
Your tinfoil hat needs to be loosened.
Show me a time they've done this for a flu/pneumonia/meningitis vaccine. Having my name, phone number and presumably address in a database, controlled by the state government, simply because I have refused to do something? That doesn't bother you?
State governments already have names, phone numbers, and addresses in a database for a huge number of purposes - for jury summons, voter registration, state taxes, as well as tons of other purposes ranging to car registration, pet registration, amber alerts, and so forth.
But the data collected by the state and federal governments pales compared to how much information is collected by private companies. There are massive databases that track all purchases, Internet activity, geolocation data, and so forth. I favor greater privacy laws in general, and I don't see it as a new issue with covid.
The vaccines do not alter the DNA of those that take it. That's the kind of bullshit disinformation that hurts people.Because the intent has never been about protecting people, the it's always been to create a global social credit & surveillance network. The vaccine passports are essential to that, because they give 100% ID authentication and location tracking. The fact that it involves forcibly violating your own bodily integrity just helps break down your psychological resistance, since once you submit to arbitrary invasive demands you're going to subconsciously become more compliant to other demands.
Quite. It was never about public health, because coronaviruses are trivial to the majority.Your tinfoil hat needs to be loosened.
You really are a special brand of stupid and servile, aren't you? Oh, and my "tinfoil hat" comes off easily if I change my mind. Shame about your permanently and irreversibly altered DNA if you've been jabbed.
I saw lots of your ilk out today. Our mask mandate has finally ended (not that I ever wore one), and most of the sheep are still dutifully wearing their muzzles.
I saw lots of your ilk out today. Our mask mandate has finally ended (not that I ever wore one), and most of the sheep are still dutifully wearing their muzzles.
The vaccines do not alter the DNA of those that take it. That's the kind of bullshit disinformation that hurts people.Because the intent has never been about protecting people, the it's always been to create a global social credit & surveillance network. The vaccine passports are essential to that, because they give 100% ID authentication and location tracking. The fact that it involves forcibly violating your own bodily integrity just helps break down your psychological resistance, since once you submit to arbitrary invasive demands you're going to subconsciously become more compliant to other demands.
Quite. It was never about public health, because coronaviruses are trivial to the majority.Your tinfoil hat needs to be loosened.
You really are a special brand of stupid and servile, aren't you? Oh, and my "tinfoil hat" comes off easily if I change my mind. Shame about your permanently and irreversibly altered DNA if you've been jabbed.
I saw lots of your ilk out today. Our mask mandate has finally ended (not that I ever wore one), and most of the sheep are still dutifully wearing their muzzles.
I saw lots of your ilk out today. Our mask mandate has finally ended (not that I ever wore one), and most of the sheep are still dutifully wearing their muzzles.
It's funny, us "sheep" only need to wear masks to protect knobs like you who won't get vaccinated!
You really are a special brand of stupid and servile, aren't you? Oh, and my "tinfoil hat" comes off easily if I change my mind. Shame about your permanently and irreversibly altered DNA if you've been jabbed.
I saw lots of your ilk out today. Our mask mandate has finally ended (not that I ever wore one), and most of the sheep are still dutifully wearing their muzzles.
The vaccines do not alter the DNA of those that take it. That's the kind of bullshit disinformation that hurts people.Because the intent has never been about protecting people, the it's always been to create a global social credit & surveillance network. The vaccine passports are essential to that, because they give 100% ID authentication and location tracking. The fact that it involves forcibly violating your own bodily integrity just helps break down your psychological resistance, since once you submit to arbitrary invasive demands you're going to subconsciously become more compliant to other demands.
Quite. It was never about public health, because coronaviruses are trivial to the majority.Your tinfoil hat needs to be loosened.
You really are a special brand of stupid and servile, aren't you? Oh, and my "tinfoil hat" comes off easily if I change my mind. Shame about your permanently and irreversibly altered DNA if you've been jabbed.
I saw lots of your ilk out today. Our mask mandate has finally ended (not that I ever wore one), and most of the sheep are still dutifully wearing their muzzles.
If medical experts like yourself would have been forthright and upfront from the beginning, you could have prevented people conflating a change in body chemistry and the term mRNA to create that kind of disinfo...
,,,but nope, you guys were too busy suppressing information and playing politics.I saw lots of your ilk out today. Our mask mandate has finally ended (not that I ever wore one), and most of the sheep are still dutifully wearing their muzzles.
It's funny, us "sheep" only need to wear masks to protect knobs like you who won't get vaccinated!
Leave your mask at home. I never asked for, needed, or wanted you to 'protect' me. I'll live with my choices.
Can somebody break down the conspiracy to produce a global social credit & surveillance network? Who is behind it, why they want to do it and most importantly how are they coordinating it through all the different countries involved. It just sounds so unlikely on so many levels compared to there being an actual pandemic that actually managed to kill people and badly affect health services that were already near capacity.
I mean Utopia was fun, the original series I'm not so keen on the US remake, but also completely unbelievable. What are the details?
Can somebody break down the conspiracy to produce a global social credit & surveillance network? Who is behind it, why they want to do it and most importantly how are they coordinating it through all the different countries involved. It just sounds so unlikely on so many levels compared to there being an actual pandemic that actually managed to kill people and badly affect health services that were already near capacity.
Yeah, Moonsweeper! I bet if every one of the medical "experts" and government officials that were lying through their teeth all of this time, if they would be singing a different tune if they were being beaten for their lying with a lead pipe? And heavily fined for their gross deception and collusion? Beat them over and over again.
Can somebody break down the conspiracy to produce a global social credit & surveillance network? Who is behind it, why they want to do it and most importantly how are they coordinating it through all the different countries involved. It just sounds so unlikely on so many levels compared to there being an actual pandemic that actually managed to kill people and badly affect health services that were already near capacity.
The view that I've often seen is that the Chinese have not only made the World Health Organization into their puppet, but also the U.S. CDC. That theory starts to get thin when they have to say that China also controls the health officials of essentially every other country in the world, from Chile to Israel to South Korea to India to Australia.
There are a huge number of countries who have all agreed that covid-19 is a deadly pandemic; enforced measures like social distancing, lockdowns, and/or masking; and also engaged in vaccination campaigns. There are minor variations in each government's approach, but none of them fit the narrative of the pandemic or vaccination being a massive lie.
Pretty much every western European government, plus the US, Canada, and Australia have floated the idea of mandatory vaccination and vaccine passports. It's going to happen unless it's stopped. Every single one of these countries is in bed with the big tech companies that are eager to roll this out and all of our societies are dependent upon global capital that has its own objectives that are far removed from us remaining free and sovereign.
Pretty much every western European government, plus the US, Canada, and Australia have floated the idea of mandatory vaccination and vaccine passports. It's going to happen unless it's stopped. Every single one of these countries is in bed with the big tech companies that are eager to roll this out and all of our societies are dependent upon global capital that has its own objectives that are far removed from us remaining free and sovereign.
A large number of countries have had mandatory vaccination policies since before covid-19. Below is a map of countries with various mandatory childhood vaccinations, as an illustration.
(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/img/mandatory-childhood-vaccination.png)
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/childhood-vaccination-policies
cf. also https://www.moms.com/countries-vaccinating-mandatory/
This doesn't disprove that it's a conspiracy, of course. One could say that all these mandatory vaccinations were a pre-existing plot to take away people's freedom, and that the plot just continued under covid.
Pretty much every western European government, plus the US, Canada, and Australia have floated the idea of mandatory vaccination and vaccine passports. It's going to happen unless it's stopped. Every single one of these countries is in bed with the big tech companies that are eager to roll this out and all of our societies are dependent upon global capital that has its own objectives that are far removed from us remaining free and sovereign.
A large number of countries have had mandatory vaccination policies since before covid-19. Below is a map of countries with various mandatory childhood vaccinations, as an illustration.
(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/img/mandatory-childhood-vaccination.png)
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/childhood-vaccination-policies
cf. also https://www.moms.com/countries-vaccinating-mandatory/
This doesn't disprove that it's a conspiracy, of course. One could say that all these mandatory vaccinations were a pre-existing plot to take away people's freedom, and that the plot just continued under covid.
Can somebody break down the conspiracy to produce a global social credit & surveillance network? Who is behind it, why they want to do it and most importantly how are they coordinating it through all the different countries involved. It just sounds so unlikely on so many levels compared to there being an actual pandemic that actually managed to kill people and badly affect health services that were already near capacity.
The view that I've often seen is that the Chinese have not only made the World Health Organization into their puppet, but also the U.S. CDC. That theory starts to get thin when they have to say that China also controls the health officials of essentially every other country in the world, from Chile to Israel to South Korea to India to Australia.
There are a huge number of countries who have all agreed that covid-19 is a deadly pandemic; enforced measures like social distancing, lockdowns, and/or masking; and also engaged in vaccination campaigns. There are minor variations in each government's approach, but none of them fit the narrative of the pandemic or vaccination being a massive lie.
Come one, lets walk this "conspiracy theory" back a little here. There is no evidence that just because the US funded the Wuhan Virus Research Laboratory in direct violation of the Senates ban on Gain of function research that the top US health officials have any reason at all to collude with either China and or the WHO.
Frankly I expected better from you mr jhkim.
Dr Grady, 68, is a nurse-bioethicist who is currently Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center.
Yeah, Moonsweeper! I bet if every one of the medical "experts" and government officials that were lying through their teeth all of this time, if they would be singing a different tune if they were being beaten for their lying with a lead pipe? And heavily fined for their gross deception and collusion? Beat them over and over again.
Yes, because beating people with lead pipes is a good way to get to the truth. ::)
Pretty much every western European government, plus the US, Canada, and Australia have floated the idea of mandatory vaccination and vaccine passports. It's going to happen unless it's stopped. Every single one of these countries is in bed with the big tech companies that are eager to roll this out and all of our societies are dependent upon global capital that has its own objectives that are far removed from us remaining free and sovereign.
A large number of countries have had mandatory vaccination policies since before covid-19. Below is a map of countries with various mandatory childhood vaccinations, as an illustration.
(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/img/mandatory-childhood-vaccination.png)
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/childhood-vaccination-policies
cf. also https://www.moms.com/countries-vaccinating-mandatory/
This doesn't disprove that it's a conspiracy, of course. One could say that all these mandatory vaccinations were a pre-existing plot to take away people's freedom, and that the plot just continued under covid.
How many of those mandatory childhood vaccinations are only authorized for emergency use? And how many of the makers of those vaccines have been made immune from lawsuits related to vaccine side effects?
Just because some people believe in a Cobra Commander-esque conspiracy theory, doesn't mean that powerful people and organizations aren't manipulating events for their own ends.
Pretty much every western European government, plus the US, Canada, and Australia have floated the idea of mandatory vaccination and vaccine passports. It's going to happen unless it's stopped. Every single one of these countries is in bed with the big tech companies that are eager to roll this out and all of our societies are dependent upon global capital that has its own objectives that are far removed from us remaining free and sovereign.
No one disputes that vaccines have been mandatory before. But we've never seen a response like this before, particularly if you compare Covid to illnesses with similar threat profile.
The vaccines do not alter the DNA of those that take it. That's the kind of bullshit disinformation that hurts people.
It's funny, us "sheep" only need to wear masks to protect knobs like you who won't get vaccinated!
There should be a term for the inverse of the Motte and Bailey fallacy.
You'll be very glad of us unvaccinated in the autumn when your compromised immune system causes you to get seriously ill from whatever new strains of respiratory virus arise.
Or, more likely, we'll be cursing you as selfish c***ts when a new, more deadly variant has developed in the unvaccinated and is wiping out the whole of humanity! Still, if that's the case you probably won't be around to hear it, as you'll be long dead!
I am neither ignorant nor a liar. You, however, do not appear to have any understanding of how the vaccines and spike proteins actually work. You really should educate yourself, but by all means, just go on showing what a dipshit conspiracy theorist you really are.The vaccines do not alter the DNA of those that take it. That's the kind of bullshit disinformation that hurts people.
Are you a liar or ignorant? They cause the recipient to manufacture spike proteins. Forever.
No one is being hurt if they avoid this completely unnecessary intervention for a harmless virus.It's funny, us "sheep" only need to wear masks to protect knobs like you who won't get vaccinated!
Uh, no, I don't need any "protection" thanks, my immune system works. Never mind that masks do fuck all.
You'll be very glad of us unvaccinated in the autumn when your compromised immune system causes you to get seriously ill from whatever new strains of respiratory virus arise.
Are you a liar or ignorant? They cause the recipient to manufacture spike proteins. Forever.Actually, you are the liar or ignorant or both, as the spike proteins are only created when the vaccine is administered: then your immune system reacts to them and destroys them all within a few weeks. Your immune system then remembers this intrusion and reacts appropriately when you catch the real thing.
You'll be very glad of us unvaccinated in the autumn when your compromised immune system causes you to get seriously ill from whatever new strains of respiratory virus arise.
Or, more likely, we'll be cursing you as selfish c***ts when a new, more deadly variant has developed in the unvaccinated and is wiping out the whole of humanity! Still, if that's the case you probably won't be around to hear it, as you'll be long dead!
No, they can't. "Science" is simple an authority to appeal to when it provides support for what they want, and something to ignore when it can't be warped to their purposes.You'll be very glad of us unvaccinated in the autumn when your compromised immune system causes you to get seriously ill from whatever new strains of respiratory virus arise.
Or, more likely, we'll be cursing you as selfish c***ts when a new, more deadly variant has developed in the unvaccinated and is wiping out the whole of humanity! Still, if that's the case you probably won't be around to hear it, as you'll be long dead!
Can you at least pretend to follow the science?
I am neither ignorant nor a liar. You, however, do not appear to have any understanding of how the vaccines and spike proteins actually work. You really should educate yourself, but by all means, just go on showing what a dipshit conspiracy theorist you really are.
You'd believe this man..? Fact checked:
https://www.logically.ai/articles/who-is-dr.-robert-malone
You'd believe this man..? Fact checked:
https://www.logically.ai/articles/who-is-dr.-robert-malone
More like crap fact checked. Take this one:
https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/18ec6dcd
I am neither ignorant nor a liar. You, however, do not appear to have any understanding of how the vaccines and spike proteins actually work. You really should educate yourself, but by all means, just go on showing what a dipshit conspiracy theorist you really are.
Actually, you are the liar or ignorant or both, as the spike proteins are only created when the vaccine is administered: then your immune system reacts to them and destroys them all within a few weeks. Your immune system then remembers this intrusion and reacts appropriately when you catch the real thing.
Spike proteins and mRNA do not alter your DNA as they never reach the nucleus (where DNA is stored) of the affected cells only working in the cytoplasm (the gelatinous liquid that fills the inside of a cell). The nucleus itself is separated from the cytoplasm by a protective membrane.
You'd believe this man..? Fact checked:
https://www.logically.ai/articles/who-is-dr.-robert-malone
Can you at least pretend to follow the science?
basically i wonder how the future epidemics are going to be different from covid. makes me think of eclipse phase which has all the concomitant ideas about what the future is really gonna be like. never read asimov but the idea of tech interacting with bio is pretty interesting but further than a neuromancer comparison. basically i think the wipes smell a little better than the hand sanitizer but the epidemics are gonna keep happening like ice ages. it's interesting that covid was the first major one but then again we don't live in the past so you never know how medievals treated protocol in the aftermath or beginning of the Black Death.
Don't think I haven't noticed your mysterious appearance a few days ago, and the fact that the only thread you've posted in is this one.
Well, I've only been registered on this forum for EIGHT months, true... and I did post back in May in 'Other Games': so who made a dipshit like you God and gave you the right to insinuate or presume anything about me?
In your own way, you're as bad as those SJW twats on TBP who only allow people to speak if they think the prescribed "right thoughts"! I thought this forum was the last gaming bastion of anti-woke freedom, not the gathering place for every anti-vax extremist who rolled a die to twist facts and dictate how the rest of the world should think!
I've seen plenty of bad actors around places like this and social media. Strange that you aren't really interested in roleplaying games, but suddenly took a great interest in this one topic...
I got this kind of treatment on TBP for supporting Brexit, I expected better from people on this site! :)Why? Dogpiling, ascribing people an entire edifice of beliefs based on a single objection, and assuming bad faith are the modi operandi of this site.
I got this kind of treatment on TBP for supporting Brexit, I expected better from people on this site! :)
Dude. You just went for the "You're just as bad as the SJWs!" nonsense. Get off your high horse.
Though being accused, indirectly or otherwise, of being some kind of woke sock-puppet because I don't post much would wind anyone up!I got this kind of treatment on TBP for supporting Brexit, I expected better from people on this site! :)Why? Dogpiling, ascribing people an entire edifice of beliefs based on a single objection, and assuming bad faith are the modi operandi of this site.
Though being accused, indirectly or otherwise, of being some kind of woke sock-puppet because I don't post much would wind anyone up!
NOW, I understand it can happen to anyone! 😁
Though being accused, indirectly or otherwise, of being some kind of woke sock-puppet because I don't post much would wind anyone up!
NOW, I understand it can happen to anyone! 😁
I wasn't accusing you of being a woke sock-puppet. I was accusing you of being a paid shill. There are plenty of them about.
basically i wonder how the future epidemics are going to be different from covid. makes me think of eclipse phase which has all the concomitant ideas about what the future is really gonna be like. never read asimov but the idea of tech interacting with bio is pretty interesting but further than a neuromancer comparison. basically i think the wipes smell a little better than the hand sanitizer but the epidemics are gonna keep happening like ice ages. it's interesting that covid was the first major one but then again we don't live in the past so you never know how medievals treated protocol in the aftermath or beginning of the Black Death.
Covid wasn't a major epidemic. It was a nothing burger compared to the real sort, which is why they had to do their utmost to artificially inflate the apparent death figures and constantly advertise the "threat".
The only thing I find frightening is that governments have now learned just how spineless and pliant the majority are, that they can make them do pretty much what they want and they will offer no resistance whatsoever.
'I'm sorry but it's too late' - unvaccinated patients beg for shot; (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/07/21/covid-vaccine-delta-variant-mask-cdc-hospitalizations/8035920002/)Exactly what good is a goddamn vaccine going to do for someone who's terminal as she describes?
An Alabama physician glumly says she is making "a lot of progress" in encouraging people to vaccinate – as she struggles to keep them alive.
Dr. Brytney Cobia, a hospitalist at Grandview Medical Center in Birmingham, wrote in a recent Facebook post she is treating a lot of young, otherwise healthy people for serious coronavirus infections.
"One of the last things they do before they're intubated is beg me for the vaccine," she wrote. "I hold their hand and tell them that I'm sorry, but it's too late."
In her post, Cobia wrote that, when the patient dies, she hugs their family members and urges them to get vaccinated. She said they cry and tell her they thought the pandemic was a "hoax," or "political," or targeting some other age group or skin color.
"They wish they could go back. But they can't," Cobia wrote. "So they thank me and they go get the vaccine. And I go back to my office, write their death note, and say a small prayer that this loss will save more lives."
Exactly what good is a goddamn vaccine going to do for someone who's terminal as she describes?
'I'm sorry but it's too late' - unvaccinated patients beg for shot; (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/07/21/covid-vaccine-delta-variant-mask-cdc-hospitalizations/8035920002/)
An Alabama physician glumly says she is making "a lot of progress" in encouraging people to vaccinate – as she struggles to keep them alive.
Dr. Brytney Cobia, a hospitalist at Grandview Medical Center in Birmingham, wrote in a recent Facebook post she is treating a lot of young, otherwise healthy people for serious coronavirus infections.
"One of the last things they do before they're intubated is beg me for the vaccine," she wrote. "I hold their hand and tell them that I'm sorry, but it's too late."
In her post, Cobia wrote that, when the patient dies, she hugs their family members and urges them to get vaccinated. She said they cry and tell her they thought the pandemic was a "hoax," or "political," or targeting some other age group or skin color.
"They wish they could go back. But they can't," Cobia wrote. "So they thank me and they go get the vaccine. And I go back to my office, write their death note, and say a small prayer that this loss will save more lives."
My understanding of your point was that making the covid vaccine mandatory was itself taking away people's freedom and sovereignty -- i.e. that it's totalitarian control. The point becomes a lot less forceful if you're saying "Totalitarian control is fine as long as it's for the right reasons with established vaccines, but it's not justified in the case of the covid."
That sounds a lot like "Totalitarian control is OK as long as the government only goes after the bad people."
That's the root of the question. Is it totalitarian overreach for the government to require a vaccine? If you're OK with imposition of other vaccines, then your problem isn't with the government totalitarian control - it's just that you disagree with their decision. Personally, I'm against vaccines being completely mandatory, but I think it's OK for there to be broad restrictions on unvaccinated people like "you can't work as a doctor or teacher without being vaccinated".
I got this kind of treatment on TBP for supporting Brexit, I expected better from people on this site! :)Why? Dogpiling, ascribing people an entire edifice of beliefs based on a single objection, and assuming bad faith are the modi operandi of this site.
Though being accused, indirectly or otherwise, of being some kind of woke sock-puppet because I don't post much would wind anyone up!
NOW, I understand it can happen to anyone! 😁
I wasn't accusing you of being a woke sock-puppet. I was accusing you of being a paid shill. There are plenty of them about.
You'd believe this man..? Fact checked:
https://www.logically.ai/articles/who-is-dr.-robert-malone
Wait, there are people being paid to do this?
Wait, there are people being paid to do this?
Yes. In fact a few people here admitted they make money off from the covid.
The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.
So, immediately with the fake news. Highest mortality rate since WW2, and you immediately go to claiming it was artificially inflated death figures. Facts will not get in the way of your beliefs.
Oh look, a CDC whistleblower says the vax death count is 45,000 in a new lawsuitThat's roughly consistent with earlier estimates. Back when the number of deaths reported to VAERS was about 4K, some experts were estimating the real number of death was about 20K. Since the number of VAERS deaths has recently spiked, the 45K could be a projection based on anywhere from 8K to more than 11K reported deaths. It's important to realize these aren't solid numbers, though. They're guesses based on a voluntary self-reporting system. Since they're not tracking every case, we don't know. Though if anything, they're probably lowballing it. For most vaccines, they typically assume only about 1 in 100 deaths are reported to VAERs. This is more in the 5:1 range.
https://freedomfirstnetwork.com/2021/07/lawsuit-filed-today-accusing-government-of-hiding-more-than-45000-dead-americans-from-the-jab (https://freedomfirstnetwork.com/2021/07/lawsuit-filed-today-accusing-government-of-hiding-more-than-45000-dead-americans-from-the-jab)
Although 45k is rookie numbers. The experimental gene therapy might become a real hoot in the medium and long term if the previous animal tests of mRNA have any bearing on the future.
Though being accused, indirectly or otherwise, of being some kind of woke sock-puppet because I don't post much would wind anyone up!
NOW, I understand it can happen to anyone! 😁
I wasn't accusing you of being a woke sock-puppet. I was accusing you of being a paid shill. There are plenty of them about.
So, immediately with the fake news. Highest mortality rate since WW2, and you immediately go to claiming it was artificially inflated death figures. Facts will not get in the way of your beliefs.
(If you want to argue that ivermectin/HCQ could help, that's a different angle.)
This runs deep with you if you think he's being paid to post about this shit on an obscure message board of an obscure hobby.
OTOH you're a great person for explaining the actual conspiracy to me. We're both in the UK so we've both watched the shambolic reaction to covid-19. There's been fuck all consistency in any messaging, desperate last minute reactions and loads of tory political infighting. Cummings was on the telly just the other night getting the knife in on his former boss.
To be fair the grift has been big on this one but that strikes me as normal opportunism from our ruling party.
So given the initial denying of the problem, the panicked lockdown, the swift reopenings before more panicked lockdown where is the organised conspiracy to subjugate the population? How is Boris working with all these other countries in the great plan? People are right in saying that just because something sounds nuts it doesn't mean it isn't true but let's have a narrative here that's approaching convincing. Go nuts, or more nuts, with bullet points and stuff.
The possible dangers of the vaccines is a dead end for this BTW. I disagree with you based on the evidence I've seen and talking to medical professionals but even if I agreed I'd go with the panicked and shambolic reaction to a pandemic as a reason.
Bonus points if you can avoid calling anybody a cunt. You're overusing it, it's a spice not a main ingredient.
Be a good boy, Garry, and go fuck yourself, you smug twat.
You'd believe this man..? Fact checked:
https://www.logically.ai/articles/who-is-dr.-robert-malone
More like crap fact checked. Take this one:
https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/18ec6dcd
It completely ignores the crux of the argument of children and adolescents not needing to get vaccinated because few die and most only suffer mild symptoms, and that hence, it can be argued that the unknown, long-risk of an experimental vaccine outweighs its benefit. Especially as the government has absolved itself and the pharma companies from any responsibility if taking the vaccine goes tits-up for you. If you are going to play the "for the greater good" argument, then those that are negatively impacted should be compensated by the rest of us.
Rather, it scare-mongers by highlighting the low-probability/high-consequence tail of the distribution. I do agree that if a child suffers from at-risk underlying conditions, then the risk/reward balance can change, and ought to be factored into the vaccination decision.
Also, their argument regarding vaccination and spreading is specious:
"Adolescents can also transmit the virus to other people, even if they have mild symptoms or do not feel ill. If children and adolescents get vaccinated, it will prevent severe symptoms and dramatically decrease their chances of transmitting the virus."
This ignores that the risk of spread from children is minimal. Spread is notionally correlated with degree of symptoms, which in the vast majority of children are mild to none, which in turn is notionally correlated with viral load. This is the same way that the risk of spread is reduced from people that have gotten natural immunity (by having had and recovered from COVID) or been vaccinated. So once again, for the vast majority of children, there is little "reward" to justify the (albeit unknown) long-term risk of an experimental vaccine.
If it weren't bad enough that there are all these side effects of the "vaccines", they don't fucking work. Latest Public Health England report showed 62.9% of all patients hospitalised with covid were double-jabbed (higher than their proportion of the population). In Israel that number is 84%.
Given these therapeutics were sold as "reducing symptoms" (because they don't provide actual immunity like real vaccines do), looks like they can't even do that.
If it weren't bad enough that there are all these side effects of the "vaccines", they don't fucking work. Latest Public Health England report showed 62.9% of all patients hospitalised with covid were double-jabbed (higher than their proportion of the population). In Israel that number is 84%.
Given these therapeutics were sold as "reducing symptoms" (because they don't provide actual immunity like real vaccines do), looks like they can't even do that.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-vallance-corrects-mistake-to-say-60-of-people-being-admitted-to-hospital-with-coronavirus-are-unvaccinated-12359317
Try keeping up to date.
It will be interesting to see the difference in Wuhan virus infections between England and Scotland with the recent lifting of mandatory mask wearing in England after freedom day.Agreed, it will give everyone a benchmark to work from.
And on this day, Pat and I are in full agreement (on this one specific point).I got this kind of treatment on TBP for supporting Brexit, I expected better from people on this site! :)Why? Dogpiling, ascribing people an entire edifice of beliefs based on a single objection, and assuming bad faith are the modi operandi of this site.
The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.
So, immediately with the fake news. Highest mortality rate since WW2, and you immediately go to claiming it was artificially inflated death figures. Facts will not get in the way of your beliefs.
The most accurate statement is that covid-19 is much less dangerous than the 1918 pandemic, but so far is roughly equivalent to the next tier of pandemics that occurred in the 20th century.
Are you confusing me with another poster? You made a false claim about the mortality rate, I pointed out you were wrong, and explained why. I didn't say a thing about the overall reduction in lifespans. That's a different topic.The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.
So, immediately with the fake news. Highest mortality rate since WW2, and you immediately go to claiming it was artificially inflated death figures. Facts will not get in the way of your beliefs.
The most accurate statement is that covid-19 is much less dangerous than the 1918 pandemic, but so far is roughly equivalent to the next tier of pandemics that occurred in the 20th century.
It's a US number not a worldwide number (I have no idea how it compares to the worldwide numbers) and it's accurate.
Since you won't simply click on the article here it is:
U.S. life expectancy ....
Are you confusing me with another poster? You made a false claim about the mortality rate, I pointed out you were wrong, and explained why. I didn't say a thing about the overall reduction in lifespans. That's a different topic.The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.
So, immediately with the fake news. Highest mortality rate since WW2, and you immediately go to claiming it was artificially inflated death figures. Facts will not get in the way of your beliefs.
The most accurate statement is that covid-19 is much less dangerous than the 1918 pandemic, but so far is roughly equivalent to the next tier of pandemics that occurred in the 20th century.
It's a US number not a worldwide number (I have no idea how it compares to the worldwide numbers) and it's accurate.
Since you won't simply click on the article here it is:
U.S. life expectancy ....
Are you confusing me with another poster? You made a false claim about the mortality rate, I pointed out you were wrong, and explained why. I didn't say a thing about the overall reduction in lifespans. That's a different topic.The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.
So, immediately with the fake news. Highest mortality rate since WW2, and you immediately go to claiming it was artificially inflated death figures. Facts will not get in the way of your beliefs.
The most accurate statement is that covid-19 is much less dangerous than the 1918 pandemic, but so far is roughly equivalent to the next tier of pandemics that occurred in the 20th century.
It's a US number not a worldwide number (I have no idea how it compares to the worldwide numbers) and it's accurate.
Since you won't simply click on the article here it is:
U.S. life expectancy ....
Are you confusing me with another poster? You made a false claim about the mortality rate, I pointed out you were wrong, and explained why. I didn't say a thing about the overall reduction in lifespans. That's a different topic.The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.
So, immediately with the fake news. Highest mortality rate since WW2, and you immediately go to claiming it was artificially inflated death figures. Facts will not get in the way of your beliefs.
The most accurate statement is that covid-19 is much less dangerous than the 1918 pandemic, but so far is roughly equivalent to the next tier of pandemics that occurred in the 20th century.
It's a US number not a worldwide number (I have no idea how it compares to the worldwide numbers) and it's accurate.
Since you won't simply click on the article here it is:
U.S. life expectancy ....
It is difficult to understand the difference between % rate and total number so dont be too hard.
The shamdemic will only end when the people stop it.
Preferably in blood.
And punish not just the politicians and the press who spread the WuFlu bullshit and the fear, but for every fucking loser with an ounce of power to force children to suffer with masks and panic that will cost them so dearly in mental and emotional damage for the rest of their lives.
But definitely go get your experimental vax so you can win your most deserved place in the VAERS lottery.
Oh look, a CDC whistleblower says the vax death count is 45,000 in a new lawsuit
https://freedomfirstnetwork.com/2021/07/lawsuit-filed-today-accusing-government-of-hiding-more-than-45000-dead-americans-from-the-jab (https://freedomfirstnetwork.com/2021/07/lawsuit-filed-today-accusing-government-of-hiding-more-than-45000-dead-americans-from-the-jab)
Although 45k is rookie numbers. The experimental gene therapy might become a real hoot in the medium and long term if the previous animal tests of mRNA have any bearing on the future.
But don't expect a drop of sympathy from us in the "control group".
Mortality rate does reduce lifespan. But they're two different topics, and you were still wrong about the mortality rate.Are you confusing me with another poster? You made a false claim about the mortality rate, I pointed out you were wrong, and explained why. I didn't say a thing about the overall reduction in lifespans. That's a different topic.The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.
So, immediately with the fake news. Highest mortality rate since WW2, and you immediately go to claiming it was artificially inflated death figures. Facts will not get in the way of your beliefs.
The most accurate statement is that covid-19 is much less dangerous than the 1918 pandemic, but so far is roughly equivalent to the next tier of pandemics that occurred in the 20th century.
It's a US number not a worldwide number (I have no idea how it compares to the worldwide numbers) and it's accurate.
Since you won't simply click on the article here it is:
U.S. life expectancy ....
It's the same topic. Mortality rate increases reduce lifespans. That's what the article is talking about.
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-vallance-corrects-mistake-to-say-60-of-people-being-admitted-to-hospital-with-coronavirus-are-unvaccinated-12359317
Try keeping up to date.
It will be interesting to see the difference in Wuhan virus infections between England and Scotland with the recent lifting of mandatory mask wearing in England after freedom day.
It will be interesting to see the difference in Wuhan virus infections between England and Scotland with the recent lifting of mandatory mask wearing in England after freedom day.
Infections or "cases"? Because cases are total bullshit.
Vallance is a liar who accidentally told the truth about double-jabbed being most of the patients in hospital with covid. Public Health England released the data before the conference, that's exactly what it says. The only "correction" he had any business making was admitting it was closed to 63% rather than his sloppily rounded 60.
I'm laughing my arse off at the "pingdemic" going on at the moment. What kind of brain-dead muppet would install government spyware that tells them to lock themselves up in the first place?https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-vallance-corrects-mistake-to-say-60-of-people-being-admitted-to-hospital-with-coronavirus-are-unvaccinated-12359317
Try keeping up to date.
Sly Views? You're having a laugh, aren't you? Like I believe any of the shite pumped out of there.
Vallance is a liar who accidentally told the truth about double-jabbed being most of the patients in hospital with covid. Public Health England released the data before the conference, that's exactly what it says. The only "correction" he had any business making was admitting it was closed to 63% rather than his sloppily rounded 60.
Almost like the jabs are useless. Or worse still the narrow and highly specific form of "immunity" they offer has already been overcome by a mutation of the virus. Whereas those of us who are unjabbed, but had covid and recovered still have broad spectrum immunity to all the manifestations of the virus.
I've had worse cases of flu than the so-called Delta variant.It will be interesting to see the difference in Wuhan virus infections between England and Scotland with the recent lifting of mandatory mask wearing in England after freedom day.
Infections or "cases"? Because cases are total bullshit.
My system still tests everyone preoperative and with suggestive s/s regardless of patient's vaccination status. Within the facilities, everyone masks regardless of vaccination status. Respirators and face shields are used when when working with r/o or confirmed cases, regardless of employee's vaccination status.I'm laughing my arse off at the "pingdemic" going on at the moment. What kind of brain-dead muppet would install government spyware that tells them to lock themselves up in the first place?https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-vallance-corrects-mistake-to-say-60-of-people-being-admitted-to-hospital-with-coronavirus-are-unvaccinated-12359317
Try keeping up to date.
Sly Views? You're having a laugh, aren't you? Like I believe any of the shite pumped out of there.
Vallance is a liar who accidentally told the truth about double-jabbed being most of the patients in hospital with covid. Public Health England released the data before the conference, that's exactly what it says. The only "correction" he had any business making was admitting it was closed to 63% rather than his sloppily rounded 60.
Almost like the jabs are useless. Or worse still the narrow and highly specific form of "immunity" they offer has already been overcome by a mutation of the virus. Whereas those of us who are unjabbed, but had covid and recovered still have broad spectrum immunity to all the manifestations of the virus.
I've had worse cases of flu than the so-called Delta variant.It will be interesting to see the difference in Wuhan virus infections between England and Scotland with the recent lifting of mandatory mask wearing in England after freedom day.
Infections or "cases"? Because cases are total bullshit.
Have they started testing differently for Covid between the "people with the jab" vs "people without the jab" yet?
That's the stunt the CDC is pulling over here...
Figured it might be worth dropping this here
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
Figured it might be worth dropping this here
https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/
This is, of course, self selecting only the stuff which backs up their view, and excluding anything which does not support their view. Making it intentionally deceptive at best. Tons of studies conclude otherwise, but none are on that page. Gosh I wonder why.
Here is a very small smattering of the very many studies which go the other way, none of which happened to be on that page by some "mysterious" reason:
(https://i.ibb.co/4fPV66p/image.png)
Here is a very small smattering of the very many studies which go the other way, none of which happened to be on that page by some "mysterious" reason:
Much of theHere is a very small smattering of the very many studies which go the other way, none of which happened to be on that page by some "mysterious" reason:
Thanks for posting that, it's actually important to be familiar with both sides of these arguments. I've seen some criticism of many of the studies here which leads me to not have confidence in their results.
For example, most of these are not controlled studies. Wang et al, is one of the stronger studies demonstrating compelling results for mask-wearing. However its focus is on individuals who wear masks in their own home -- Most people do not do this. Are the "~80%" protective effects stated actually a result of mask wearing, or is it because we have a self-selected group of people with abnormal personal & social habits (or other confounding factors)?
FWIW I have no personal objection to wearing masks if masks are actually effective. I just don't think we have strong evidence that they are effective, or that the positive effects of mask wearing are worth sacrificing personal liberty or other negative health impacts that result from mask mandates. For example, when I see people freaking out or police officers assaulting people who aren't wearing masks -- At what threshold of effectiveness are we okay with inflicting physical violence on people who don't wear masks?
There can be ripple effects that extend well beyond your own body. Worst case scenario, your sickness (and those of others) can contribute to backing up the EMs and ED systems once inpatient (including ICU) beds are filled. Thankfully, this hasn't happened in the US recently or for any prolonged period, but it's among the worst case scenarios that has to be considered. Vaccination is an easy preventative step by reducing both the numbers that get sick and their resulting severity of illness. Of course the usual dipshits here will argue that because it hasn't happened yet, it's proof it can't happen, but that's nonsense.Much of theHere is a very small smattering of the very many studies which go the other way, none of which happened to be on that page by some "mysterious" reason:
Thanks for posting that, it's actually important to be familiar with both sides of these arguments. I've seen some criticism of many of the studies here which leads me to not have confidence in their results.
For example, most of these are not controlled studies. Wang et al, is one of the stronger studies demonstrating compelling results for mask-wearing. However its focus is on individuals who wear masks in their own home -- Most people do not do this. Are the "~80%" protective effects stated actually a result of mask wearing, or is it because we have a self-selected group of people with abnormal personal & social habits (or other confounding factors)?
FWIW I have no personal objection to wearing masks if masks are actually effective. I just don't think we have strong evidence that they are effective, or that the positive effects of mask wearing are worth sacrificing personal liberty or other negative health impacts that result from mask mandates. For example, when I see people freaking out or police officers assaulting people who aren't wearing masks -- At what threshold of effectiveness are we okay with inflicting physical violence on people who don't wear masks?
Seems like a my body my choice sort of thing. If a person is so worried about getting sick the sight of an unmasked person drives them to feel the force of law needs to be applied, perhaps they just need to stay shut in.
Literally anything can be justified using that logic.Seems like a my body my choice sort of thing. If a person is so worried about getting sick the sight of an unmasked person drives them to feel the force of law needs to be applied, perhaps they just need to stay shut in.There can be ripple effects that extend well beyond your own body. Worst case scenario, your sickness (and those of others) can contribute to backing up the EMs and ED systems once inpatient (including ICU) beds are filled. Thankfully, this hasn't happened in the US recently or for any prolonged period, but it's among the worst case scenarios that has to be considered. Vaccination is an easy preventative step by reducing both the numbers that get sick and their resulting severity of illness. Of course the usual dipshits here will argue that because it hasn't happened yet, it's proof it can't happen, but that's nonsense.
Can you post a link to the released data please, or we'll have to presume you're talking shit. All Public Health England documents are available on-site, so it should be easy for you to find a link... 🤷♂️
There can be ripple effects that extend well beyond your own body. Worst case scenario, your sickness (and those of others) can contribute to backing up the EMs and ED systems once inpatient (including ICU) beds are filled. Thankfully, this hasn't happened in the US recently or for any prolonged period, but it's among the worst case scenarios that has to be considered. Vaccination is an easy preventative step by reducing both the numbers that get sick and their resulting severity of illness. Of course the usual dipshits here will argue that because it hasn't happened yet, it's proof it can't happen, but that's nonsense.
There can be ripple effects that extend well beyond your own body. Worst case scenario, your sickness (and those of others) can contribute to backing up the EMs and ED systems once inpatient (including ICU) beds are filled. Thankfully, this hasn't happened in the US recently or for any prolonged period, but it's among the worst case scenarios that has to be considered. Vaccination is an easy preventative step by reducing both the numbers that get sick and their resulting severity of illness. Of course the usual dipshits here will argue that because it hasn't happened yet, it's proof it can't happen, but that's nonsense.Much of theHere is a very small smattering of the very many studies which go the other way, none of which happened to be on that page by some "mysterious" reason:
Thanks for posting that, it's actually important to be familiar with both sides of these arguments. I've seen some criticism of many of the studies here which leads me to not have confidence in their results.
For example, most of these are not controlled studies. Wang et al, is one of the stronger studies demonstrating compelling results for mask-wearing. However its focus is on individuals who wear masks in their own home -- Most people do not do this. Are the "~80%" protective effects stated actually a result of mask wearing, or is it because we have a self-selected group of people with abnormal personal & social habits (or other confounding factors)?
FWIW I have no personal objection to wearing masks if masks are actually effective. I just don't think we have strong evidence that they are effective, or that the positive effects of mask wearing are worth sacrificing personal liberty or other negative health impacts that result from mask mandates. For example, when I see people freaking out or police officers assaulting people who aren't wearing masks -- At what threshold of effectiveness are we okay with inflicting physical violence on people who don't wear masks?
Seems like a my body my choice sort of thing. If a person is so worried about getting sick the sight of an unmasked person drives them to feel the force of law needs to be applied, perhaps they just need to stay shut in.
There are laws and messages pushing the wearing of seatbelts to reduce the incidence and sensor injuries in motor vehicle collisios. Some people argue that those too are an affront to their freedom, but sensible people just buckle up, while idiots ride motorcycles and just hope for the best.There can be ripple effects that extend well beyond your own body. Worst case scenario, your sickness (and those of others) can contribute to backing up the EMs and ED systems once inpatient (including ICU) beds are filled. Thankfully, this hasn't happened in the US recently or for any prolonged period, but it's among the worst case scenarios that has to be considered. Vaccination is an easy preventative step by reducing both the numbers that get sick and their resulting severity of illness. Of course the usual dipshits here will argue that because it hasn't happened yet, it's proof it can't happen, but that's nonsense.Much of theHere is a very small smattering of the very many studies which go the other way, none of which happened to be on that page by some "mysterious" reason:
Thanks for posting that, it's actually important to be familiar with both sides of these arguments. I've seen some criticism of many of the studies here which leads me to not have confidence in their results.
For example, most of these are not controlled studies. Wang et al, is one of the stronger studies demonstrating compelling results for mask-wearing. However its focus is on individuals who wear masks in their own home -- Most people do not do this. Are the "~80%" protective effects stated actually a result of mask wearing, or is it because we have a self-selected group of people with abnormal personal & social habits (or other confounding factors)?
FWIW I have no personal objection to wearing masks if masks are actually effective. I just don't think we have strong evidence that they are effective, or that the positive effects of mask wearing are worth sacrificing personal liberty or other negative health impacts that result from mask mandates. For example, when I see people freaking out or police officers assaulting people who aren't wearing masks -- At what threshold of effectiveness are we okay with inflicting physical violence on people who don't wear masks?
Seems like a my body my choice sort of thing. If a person is so worried about getting sick the sight of an unmasked person drives them to feel the force of law needs to be applied, perhaps they just need to stay shut in.
Walking out of your door, and getting into your car and getting on the highway can cause a 100 car pile up and kill a score of people. If someone is that worried about catching a virus, get a respirator or gas mask, not a dab of clothe with no hard numbers supporting its effectiveness. If you are wearing a gas mask or respirator, you do not have to worry about catching a virus for the most part. Vaccinations are wonderful, I prefer the finished product. If people want to take the global clinical trial, have at it.
There are laws and messages pushing the wearing of seatbelts to reduce the incidence and sensor injuries in motor vehicle collisios. Some people argue that those too are an affront to their freedom, but sensible people just buckle up, while idiots ride motorcycles and just hope for the best.It is sensible to wear a seat belt. It's also true that seat belt laws are an affront to freedom, and the former does not justify the latter.
There are laws and messages pushing the wearing of seatbelts to reduce the incidence and sensor injuries in motor vehicle collisios. Some people argue that those too are an affront to their freedom, but sensible people just buckle up, while idiots ride motorcycles and just hope for the best.There can be ripple effects that extend well beyond your own body. Worst case scenario, your sickness (and those of others) can contribute to backing up the EMs and ED systems once inpatient (including ICU) beds are filled. Thankfully, this hasn't happened in the US recently or for any prolonged period, but it's among the worst case scenarios that has to be considered. Vaccination is an easy preventative step by reducing both the numbers that get sick and their resulting severity of illness. Of course the usual dipshits here will argue that because it hasn't happened yet, it's proof it can't happen, but that's nonsense.Much of theHere is a very small smattering of the very many studies which go the other way, none of which happened to be on that page by some "mysterious" reason:
Thanks for posting that, it's actually important to be familiar with both sides of these arguments. I've seen some criticism of many of the studies here which leads me to not have confidence in their results.
For example, most of these are not controlled studies. Wang et al, is one of the stronger studies demonstrating compelling results for mask-wearing. However its focus is on individuals who wear masks in their own home -- Most people do not do this. Are the "~80%" protective effects stated actually a result of mask wearing, or is it because we have a self-selected group of people with abnormal personal & social habits (or other confounding factors)?
FWIW I have no personal objection to wearing masks if masks are actually effective. I just don't think we have strong evidence that they are effective, or that the positive effects of mask wearing are worth sacrificing personal liberty or other negative health impacts that result from mask mandates. For example, when I see people freaking out or police officers assaulting people who aren't wearing masks -- At what threshold of effectiveness are we okay with inflicting physical violence on people who don't wear masks?
Seems like a my body my choice sort of thing. If a person is so worried about getting sick the sight of an unmasked person drives them to feel the force of law needs to be applied, perhaps they just need to stay shut in.
Walking out of your door, and getting into your car and getting on the highway can cause a 100 car pile up and kill a score of people. If someone is that worried about catching a virus, get a respirator or gas mask, not a dab of clothe with no hard numbers supporting its effectiveness. If you are wearing a gas mask or respirator, you do not have to worry about catching a virus for the most part. Vaccinations are wonderful, I prefer the finished product. If people want to take the global clinical trial, have at it.
There are laws and messages pushing the wearing of seatbelts to reduce the incidence and sensor injuries in motor vehicle collisios. Some people argue that those too are an affront to their freedom, but sensible people just buckle up, while idiots ride motorcycles and just hope for the best.
Keep on lying to people.There are laws and messages pushing the wearing of seatbelts to reduce the incidence and sensor injuries in motor vehicle collisios. Some people argue that those too are an affront to their freedom, but sensible people just buckle up, while idiots ride motorcycles and just hope for the best.
Seatbelts provide actual protection. These "vaccines" do not.
Keep on lying to people.
Table 5 in this report (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005517/Technical_Briefing_19.pdf) is the one the scum media seem to be desperately trying to spin at the moment. Claiming there's no problem with the majority of those dying being fully vaccinated.
Deaths are heavily concentrated in the >=50 age group without regard to vaccines or COVID-19; that's pretty unsurprising. It seems the rate of vaccination among that age group exceeds 90%, according to the Office for National Statistics (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthinequalities/datasets/covid19vaccinationratesandoddsratiosbysociodemographicgroup). So why would you not expect deaths among the vaccinated to be a higher count?
Perhaps you should wonder why the number of deaths is not nine or more times higher for that age group.
In all the other categories, unvaccinated account for more than half of the totals under "All cases"; perhaps you should wonder why that is so in a country with greater than 50% vaccination rate in general.
There can be ripple effects that extend well beyond your own body. Worst case scenario, your sickness (and those of others) can contribute to backing up the EMs and ED systems once inpatient (including ICU) beds are filled. Thankfully, this hasn't happened in the US recently or for any prolonged period, but it's among the worst case scenarios that has to be considered. Vaccination is an easy preventative step by reducing both the numbers that get sick and their resulting severity of illness. Of course the usual dipshits here will argue that because it hasn't happened yet, it's proof it can't happen, but that's nonsense.
^ You do realize the number of vaccine-related deaths reported to VAERS is over 11,000? And for most vaccines, the estimate is VAERS only captures 1 in 100 deaths? 45,000 is a conservative estimate.
Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 339 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,207 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.
It is correct. "11,405 COVID Vaccine Related Deaths"^ You do realize the number of vaccine-related deaths reported to VAERS is over 11,000? And for most vaccines, the estimate is VAERS only captures 1 in 100 deaths? 45,000 is a conservative estimate.
That does not seem correct.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.htmlQuoteReports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 339 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,207 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.
So you're exaggerating the number of reports of death (unless there was a sudden 4000+ reports in the last few days before your post) and suggesting that there are tens of thousands of deaths after vaccination that were either unnoticed by every healthcare provider or where the healthcare providers blew off the FDA requirement.
You could easily find fact checks that rebut your claims, if you were actually motivated by an interest in facts.
The China vaccine for Wuhan flu, Sinovac, is a real vaccine that contains inactive virus.There can be ripple effects that extend well beyond your own body. Worst case scenario, your sickness (and those of others) can contribute to backing up the EMs and ED systems once inpatient (including ICU) beds are filled. Thankfully, this hasn't happened in the US recently or for any prolonged period, but it's among the worst case scenarios that has to be considered. Vaccination is an easy preventative step by reducing both the numbers that get sick and their resulting severity of illness. Of course the usual dipshits here will argue that because it hasn't happened yet, it's proof it can't happen, but that's nonsense.
That's only true when the "vaccine" in question actually works. Funny, people were vaccinated against measles, for the most part measles disappeared. Because that's a real vaccine.
Not the case with flu or covid, because those aren't real vaccines.
So you're exaggerating the number of reports of death (unless there was a sudden 4000+ reports in the last few days before your post) and suggesting that there are tens of thousands of deaths after vaccination that were either unnoticed by every healthcare provider or where the healthcare providers blew off the FDA requirement.
You could easily find fact checks that rebut your claims, if you were actually motivated by an interest in facts.
Either way it's definitely true that VAERS is a very poor system for actually tracking vaccine side effects. From a scientific standpoint it's honestly very disappointing there isn't a more rigorous system for tracking side effects from vaccines. It seems clear to me this process is purposefully designed to be insufficient to protect pharmaceutical companies from liability.There is. Phase 4 testing, which happens after the vaccine has been released to the general public, is traditionally called "post marketing surveillance" for a reason. It involves checking whether there's any difference in results between a controlled clinical environment and the real world, and looks for any long-term or particularly rare side effects. Companies are required to follow up with everyone who has been injected. This is mandatory, and required for every vaccine.
This is actually one of the weird things that is happening regarding the reporting of VAERS data. The CDC published an update a few days ago with the ~12,000 figure, and then later edited the page again reverting it to the previous version. There's a lot of speculation about why that happened. I haven't heard/seen a definitive explanation.Hadn't seen that, but I found a Wayback machine copy (https://web.archive.org/web/20210720210229/http://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html) of the same CDC webpage that Rawma linked (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html), except the July 20th version showed 12,313 deaths, while the July 25th version shows 6,207 deaths.
The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.
The most accurate statement is that covid-19 is much less dangerous than the 1918 pandemic, but so far is roughly equivalent to the next tier of pandemics that occurred in the 20th century.
It is correct. "11,405 COVID Vaccine Related Deaths"^ You do realize the number of vaccine-related deaths reported to VAERS is over 11,000? And for most vaccines, the estimate is VAERS only captures 1 in 100 deaths? 45,000 is a conservative estimate.
That does not seem correct.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.htmlQuoteReports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 339 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,207 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.
So you're exaggerating the number of reports of death (unless there was a sudden 4000+ reports in the last few days before your post) and suggesting that there are tens of thousands of deaths after vaccination that were either unnoticed by every healthcare provider or where the healthcare providers blew off the FDA requirement.
You could easily find fact checks that rebut your claims, if you were actually motivated by an interest in facts.
https://www.openvaers.com/
This is pulled directly from the VAERS database on the HHS website, except it's much easier to use.
If you had any interest in actual facts instead of falsely projecting your failings on other people, it would have been trivial to discover that information, trivial to figure out why it differs from the CDC's numbers (hint: they're using different criteria), and slightly less trivial to figure out why the larger number is a better baseline (hint: look at the historical data). You can also review the website and see why the part you bolded is technically correct but misleading (hint: look at the graphs showing the time between getting the vaccine and death).
OpenVAERS is a project developed by a small team of people with vaccine injuries or have children with vaccine injuries.
This is actually one of the weird things that is happening regarding the reporting of VAERS data. The CDC published an update a few days ago with the ~12,000 figure, and then later edited the page again reverting it to the previous version. There's a lot of speculation about why that happened. I haven't heard/seen a definitive explanation.
Either way it's definitely true that VAERS is a very poor system for actually tracking vaccine side effects. From a scientific standpoint it's honestly very disappointing there isn't a more rigorous system for tracking side effects from vaccines. It seems clear to me this process is purposefully designed to be insufficient to protect pharmaceutical companies from liability.
Phase 4 testing, which happens after the vaccine has been released to the general public, is traditionally called "post marketing surveillance" for a reason. It involves checking whether there's any difference in results between a controlled clinical environment and the real world, and looks for any long-term or particularly rare side effects. Companies are required to follow up with everyone who has been injected. This is mandatory, and required for every vaccine.
Until now. The covid vaccines are exempt from this requirement. They haven't just scaled back phase 4, which would be reasonable because so many people have been jabbed that it would be difficult to follow up with them all. Instead, they've completely gotten rid of it, and they're not doing any formal phase 4 follow up at all. The best tool we have for seeing what happens after a vaccine has been released into the wild has been blinded.
Deaths are heavily concentrated in the >=50 age group without regard to vaccines or COVID-19; that's pretty unsurprising. It seems the rate of vaccination among that age group exceeds 90%, according to the Office for National Statistics (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthinequalities/datasets/covid19vaccinationratesandoddsratiosbysociodemographicgroup). So why would you not expect deaths among the vaccinated to be a higher count?
Perhaps you should wonder why the number of deaths is not nine or more times higher for that age group.
In all the other categories, unvaccinated account for more than half of the totals under "All cases"; perhaps you should wonder why that is so in a country with greater than 50% vaccination rate in general.
The tortorous "logic" you have to engage in is hilarious. These "vaccines" were sold as reducing the likelihood of hospitalisation or death. They're not doing anything of the sort.
Magical thinking about "it could have been higher" is as risible as the people claiming that they would be dead if they hadn't been vaccinated, whilst suffering from covid again.
You just cited the CDC as an authoritative source, and now you're relying on a financial paper named after a Democratic presidential candidate that says the CDC can't be trusted? Nice level of consistency.The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.
The most accurate statement is that covid-19 is much less dangerous than the 1918 pandemic, but so far is roughly equivalent to the next tier of pandemics that occurred in the 20th century.
TL;DR: Here's a link that seems exactly on point to rebut you.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-11/covid-19-was-far-deadlier-than-the-1957-and-1968-flu-pandemics
I was alive in 1968; the reaction in the US to that pandemic, even after the fact, was never what we had for COVID-19, because it wasn't as deadly as you would like to pretend.The alternate explanation, of course, is that the CDC is a better source than a random journalist, and the reaction to the 1968 pandemic wasn't as severe because they didn't overreact.
From the OpenVAERS FAQ:It's literally a mirror of the HHS website. You can verify anything you want on the OpenVAERS website with the HHS website. You just have to agree you've read the same disclaimer multiple times, and deal with a truly antiquated format. But I know that, because I've used that website. Which you clearly haven't.QuoteOpenVAERS is a project developed by a small team of people with vaccine injuries or have children with vaccine injuries.
So you got your information from what may be an anti-vaxxer website; it's not surprising for a right-winger like Pat to go for easy incorrect numbers that support his preferences. I got my number from the CDC website. Maybe you should explain how the requirement to report such deaths will still manage to miss the vast majority (not that something reported to VAERS means that a vaccine caused it, or even that it actually happened, as noted in their disclaimers).
Since the pharmaceutical companies are already protected from liability, that seems a bit redundant. VAERS is like an internet poll; anyone can post anything. The point is to investigate for actual risks; Pat incorrectly blames everything reported in the system on the vaccine, which is nonsensical. (Apparently there were 2 deaths in ages 1-2 because of the COVID-19 vaccine; I hope they are trying to track down whoever vaccinated a one or two year old.)How can we tell when Rawma is lying? Your hands are on your keyboard.
What they're not doing is following up with every person injected, as they've done with every other vaccine. They're not even following up consistently with a subset of the wider public, defeating the purpose of seeing how the vaccine works outside of a controlled environment. Instead, they're doing various ad hoc studies.Phase 4 testing, which happens after the vaccine has been released to the general public, is traditionally called "post marketing surveillance" for a reason. It involves checking whether there's any difference in results between a controlled clinical environment and the real world, and looks for any long-term or particularly rare side effects. Companies are required to follow up with everyone who has been injected. This is mandatory, and required for every vaccine.
Until now. The covid vaccines are exempt from this requirement. They haven't just scaled back phase 4, which would be reasonable because so many people have been jabbed that it would be difficult to follow up with them all. Instead, they've completely gotten rid of it, and they're not doing any formal phase 4 follow up at all. The best tool we have for seeing what happens after a vaccine has been released into the wild has been blinded.
The vaccine manufacturers are continuing to monitor phase 3 participants; governments are collecting data (in the US, with the VAERS system; that led to a brief suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, and a warning about the increased risk of blood clots).
Phase 4 is not required for drug approval, since it must by definition occur after a drug is approved.I literally just said that. In the paragraph you quoted. What do you think "released to the public" means?
So you got your information from what may be an anti-vaxxer website; it's not surprising for a right-winger like Pat to go for easy incorrect numbers that support his preferences. I got my number from the CDC website. Maybe you should explain how the requirement to report such deaths will still manage to miss the vast majority (not that something reported to VAERS means that a vaccine caused it, or even that it actually happened, as noted in their disclaimers).
Since the pharmaceutical companies are already protected from liability, that seems a bit redundant.
VAERS is like an internet poll; anyone can post anything. The point is to investigate for actual risks; Pat incorrectly blames everything reported in the system on the vaccine, which is nonsensical. (Apparently there were 2 deaths in ages 1-2 because of the COVID-19 vaccine; I hope they are trying to track down whoever vaccinated a one or two year old.)
The vaccine manufacturers are continuing to monitor phase 3 participants; governments are collecting data (in the US, with the VAERS system; that led to a brief suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, and a warning about the increased risk of blood clots). Phase 4 is not required for drug approval, since it must by definition occur after a drug is approved.
There are laws and messages pushing the wearing of seatbelts to reduce the incidence and sensor injuries in motor vehicle collisios. Some people argue that those too are an affront to their freedom, but sensible people just buckle up, while idiots ride motorcycles and just hope for the best.
You realize trying to point out a law and at the same time mentioning motorcycles, which are legal to ride shows the very contradiction in what is legal and accepted? It is also a pretty massive contradiction regarding an activity you must be tested and licensed for (driving) versus simply moving freely about the world. If you fear death or injury from some activity, do not partake in it. If this includes going out in public, again try a respirator or gas mask.
I wish people could take the Pandemic seriously without having to bring in the Illuminati.People don't act to their own advantage or respond to incentives, that's just conspiracy theorizing! The only possible explanation for anyone doing anything that increases their own power is the Illuminati!
::)
The China vaccine for Wuhan flu, Sinovac, is a real vaccine that contains inactive virus.That might be for the best, considering China's quality control can be somewhat spotty.
However we can't get it here.
There are laws and messages pushing the wearing of seatbelts to reduce the incidence and sensor injuries in motor vehicle collisios. Some people argue that those too are an affront to their freedom, but sensible people just buckle up, while idiots ride motorcycles and just hope for the best.
You realize trying to point out a law and at the same time mentioning motorcycles, which are legal to ride shows the very contradiction in what is legal and accepted? It is also a pretty massive contradiction regarding an activity you must be tested and licensed for (driving) versus simply moving freely about the world. If you fear death or injury from some activity, do not partake in it. If this includes going out in public, again try a respirator or gas mask.
While motorcycles are legal, many governments (including in the U.S.) have laws for requiring seatbelts, just as many governments (including in the U.S.) have laws requiring vaccines - either for everyone or for broad populations like anyone in public school. Even though getting vaccinated is an action that technically affects only an individual, there are widespread social consequences of having mass vaccinations. There is similar justification over drug laws. Some would say that what an individual puts inside their body isn't the business of the government -- but the counter-argument is that the spread of infectious disease and/or patterns of drug use and addiction have consequences for the wider society.
For the most part, this logic has been accepted broadly across different political sides. Major political parties will argue about where to draw the lines about what the regulations should be, but the mainstream don't argue over the right of the government to regulate.
As for the stuff about covid in general,
I've now read several studies on masks and on vaccines - but for me the biggest issue is just the most obvious. There are some points about covid, masks, and the vaccines that are disagreed about -- but there's also a lot in common between nearly all the countries in the world, which are all taking covid very seriously and pursuing vaccinations. This goes from South Korea to Australia to Israel to England to Brazil. I can't see any way all those governments - and doctors and scientists among them all -- could cooperate in a deliberate ruse. The data and effects are way too widespread for it to be controlled short of the Illuminati.
I've now read several studies on masks and on vaccines - but for me the biggest issue is just the most obvious. There are some points about covid, masks, and the vaccines that are disagreed about -- but there's also a lot in common between nearly all the countries in the world, which are all taking covid very seriously and pursuing vaccinations. This goes from South Korea to Australia to Israel to England to Brazil. I can't see any way all those governments - and doctors and scientists among them all -- could cooperate in a deliberate ruse. The data and effects are way too widespread for it to be controlled short of the Illuminati.
The Lancet published a fraudulent paper meant to discredit HCQ + Zinc as a prophylactic for Covid-19, and you aren't even allowed to discuss Ivermectin as part of a treatment regimen or else you'll be censored from mainstream discourse.Yeah, I found it fascinating how certain posters here just didn't react when I brought up how Surgisphere helped prop up the Lancet's study, and then simply vanished like it had been disintegrated.
The Lancet published a fraudulent paper meant to discredit HCQ + Zinc as a prophylactic for Covid-19, and you aren't even allowed to discuss Ivermectin as part of a treatment regimen or else you'll be censored from mainstream discourse.Yeah, I found it fascinating how certain posters here just didn't react when I brought up how Surgisphere helped prop up the Lancet's study, and then simply vanished like it had been disintegrated.
Much of theHere is a very small smattering of the very many studies which go the other way, none of which happened to be on that page by some "mysterious" reason:
Thanks for posting that, it's actually important to be familiar with both sides of these arguments. I've seen some criticism of many of the studies here which leads me to not have confidence in their results.
For example, most of these are not controlled studies. Wang et al, is one of the stronger studies demonstrating compelling results for mask-wearing. However its focus is on individuals who wear masks in their own home -- Most people do not do this. Are the "~80%" protective effects stated actually a result of mask wearing, or is it because we have a self-selected group of people with abnormal personal & social habits (or other confounding factors)?
FWIW I have no personal objection to wearing masks if masks are actually effective. I just don't think we have strong evidence that they are effective, or that the positive effects of mask wearing are worth sacrificing personal liberty or other negative health impacts that result from mask mandates. For example, when I see people freaking out or police officers assaulting people who aren't wearing masks -- At what threshold of effectiveness are we okay with inflicting physical violence on people who don't wear masks?
Much of theHere is a very small smattering of the very many studies which go the other way, none of which happened to be on that page by some "mysterious" reason:
Thanks for posting that, it's actually important to be familiar with both sides of these arguments. I've seen some criticism of many of the studies here which leads me to not have confidence in their results.
For example, most of these are not controlled studies. Wang et al, is one of the stronger studies demonstrating compelling results for mask-wearing. However its focus is on individuals who wear masks in their own home -- Most people do not do this. Are the "~80%" protective effects stated actually a result of mask wearing, or is it because we have a self-selected group of people with abnormal personal & social habits (or other confounding factors)?
FWIW I have no personal objection to wearing masks if masks are actually effective. I just don't think we have strong evidence that they are effective, or that the positive effects of mask wearing are worth sacrificing personal liberty or other negative health impacts that result from mask mandates. For example, when I see people freaking out or police officers assaulting people who aren't wearing masks -- At what threshold of effectiveness are we okay with inflicting physical violence on people who don't wear masks?
Mask wearing appears to be most effective at reducing the chance you will infect someone else, during the days and hours you have the virus but are still unaware you have it. Which seems like a small window, but apparently that's when the virus is most often transmitted to others. In a pre-symptomatic set of days.
There appears to be a great deal of confusion concerning the primary purpose of the masks - that the mask is supposed to primarily protect the wearer from getting Covid. It does have that effect to some degree. It does reduce the chance you will get it while wearing it. But that benefit is much smaller than the reduction in spread from the mask-wearer to others.
And most studies agree that the primary benefit of the mask is to reduce the chances you will spread it to others. Most studies which show they don't help are looking at how much it helps reduce the chance you will get the virus (or "a" virus even if it's a different virus) while wearing the mask, and are not looking at the chance it reduces the chance you will spread the virus.
Many are also not looking at what dose of a virus you will get while wearing the mask, or what dose you will transmit while wearing a mask, just whether you will get or deliver any dose at all, which is not very helpful as dosage appears highly relevant to transmission with this particular virus.
Much of theHere is a very small smattering of the very many studies which go the other way, none of which happened to be on that page by some "mysterious" reason:
Thanks for posting that, it's actually important to be familiar with both sides of these arguments. I've seen some criticism of many of the studies here which leads me to not have confidence in their results.
For example, most of these are not controlled studies. Wang et al, is one of the stronger studies demonstrating compelling results for mask-wearing. However its focus is on individuals who wear masks in their own home -- Most people do not do this. Are the "~80%" protective effects stated actually a result of mask wearing, or is it because we have a self-selected group of people with abnormal personal & social habits (or other confounding factors)?
FWIW I have no personal objection to wearing masks if masks are actually effective. I just don't think we have strong evidence that they are effective, or that the positive effects of mask wearing are worth sacrificing personal liberty or other negative health impacts that result from mask mandates. For example, when I see people freaking out or police officers assaulting people who aren't wearing masks -- At what threshold of effectiveness are we okay with inflicting physical violence on people who don't wear masks?
Mask wearing appears to be most effective at reducing the chance you will infect someone else, during the days and hours you have the virus but are still unaware you have it. Which seems like a small window, but apparently that's when the virus is most often transmitted to others. In a pre-symptomatic set of days.
There appears to be a great deal of confusion concerning the primary purpose of the masks - that the mask is supposed to primarily protect the wearer from getting Covid. It does have that effect to some degree. It does reduce the chance you will get it while wearing it. But that benefit is much smaller than the reduction in spread from the mask-wearer to others.
And most studies agree that the primary benefit of the mask is to reduce the chances you will spread it to others. Most studies which show they don't help are looking at how much it helps reduce the chance you will get the virus (or "a" virus even if it's a different virus) while wearing the mask, and are not looking at the chance it reduces the chance you will spread the virus.
Many are also not looking at what dose of a virus you will get while wearing the mask, or what dose you will transmit while wearing a mask, just whether you will get or deliver any dose at all, which is not very helpful as dosage appears highly relevant to transmission with this particular virus.
The Lancet published a fraudulent paper meant to discredit HCQ + Zinc as a prophylactic for Covid-19, and you aren't even allowed to discuss Ivermectin as part of a treatment regimen or else you'll be censored from mainstream discourse.Yeah, I found it fascinating how certain posters here just didn't react when I brought up how Surgisphere helped prop up the Lancet's study, and then simply vanished like it had been disintegrated.
Mask wearing appears to be most effective at reducing the chance you will infect someone else, during the days and hours you have the virus but are still unaware you have it. Which seems like a small window, but apparently that's when the virus is most often transmitted to others. In a pre-symptomatic set of days...
It is beginning to become clear that vaccine immunity begins to wane after about six months. The Israeli study showed that for people vaccinated more than six months ago, the effectiveness of the vaccine at stopping coronavirus dropped to as low as 16%.
"Tortorous"? It was never touted as an immortality elixir; breakthrough infections were expected, but are observed to be of lower frequency and intensity, reducing both hospitalizations and deaths. The rates for the older unvaccinated are much higher than the rates for the larger older vaccinated group.
The China vaccine for Wuhan flu, Sinovac, is a real vaccine that contains inactive virus.
However we can't get it here.
I wish people could take the Pandemic seriously without having to bring in the Illuminati.
::)
"Tortorous"? It was never touted as an immortality elixir; breakthrough infections were expected, but are observed to be of lower frequency and intensity, reducing both hospitalizations and deaths. The rates for the older unvaccinated are much higher than the rates for the larger older vaccinated group.
You're doing it again. You have to construct this fictional ideal of "preventing hospitalisations and deaths" because it fails in the primary job of a real vaccine, which is preventing infection in the first place.The China vaccine for Wuhan flu, Sinovac, is a real vaccine that contains inactive virus.
However we can't get it here.
It doesn't prevent infection, because none of the "vaccines" on the market can. 60-odd years of research into coronavirus vaccines have been an utter failure.I wish people could take the Pandemic seriously without having to bring in the Illuminati.
::)
Why should I take bad colds any more seriously than I have done every year before 2020? I had covid in January, I've had worse flu. It was a nothing burger, because I'm healthy.
HEALTHY!!! you mean you are awash in good health privilege. best for you to simply admit to it and bow to people who might not have the same privilege and do all the things they think YOU need to do to keep THEM safe.
You just cited the CDC as an authoritative source, and now you're relying on a financial paper named after a Democratic presidential candidate that says the CDC can't be trusted? Nice level of consistency.The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.
The most accurate statement is that covid-19 is much less dangerous than the 1918 pandemic, but so far is roughly equivalent to the next tier of pandemics that occurred in the 20th century.
TL;DR: Here's a link that seems exactly on point to rebut you.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-11/covid-19-was-far-deadlier-than-the-1957-and-1968-flu-pandemics
Since the pharmaceutical companies are already protected from liability, that seems a bit redundant. VAERS is like an internet poll; anyone can post anything. The point is to investigate for actual risks; Pat incorrectly blames everything reported in the system on the vaccine, which is nonsensical. (Apparently there were 2 deaths in ages 1-2 because of the COVID-19 vaccine; I hope they are trying to track down whoever vaccinated a one or two year old.)
I never said any such thing.
Oh look, a CDC whistleblower says the vax death count is 45,000 in a new lawsuit
^ You do realize the number of vaccine-related deaths reported to VAERS is over 11,000? And for most vaccines, the estimate is VAERS only captures 1 in 100 deaths? 45,000 is a conservative estimate.
"Tortorous"? It was never touted as an immortality elixir; breakthrough infections were expected, but are observed to be of lower frequency and intensity, reducing both hospitalizations and deaths. The rates for the older unvaccinated are much higher than the rates for the larger older vaccinated group.
You're doing it again. You have to construct this fictional ideal of "preventing hospitalisations and deaths" because it fails in the primary job of a real vaccine, which is preventing infection in the first place.
Today, diphtheria and tetanus are at historic low rates in the United States. No one has ever studied the efficacy of tetanus toxoid and diphtheria toxoid in a vaccine trial. However experts infer efficacy from protective antitoxin levels. A complete vaccine series has a clinical efficacy of virtually 100% for tetanus and 97% for diphtheria. A complete series is 3 doses for people 7 years or older and 4 doses for children younger than 7.https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/dtap-tdap-td/hcp/about-vaccine.html
The article is saying the CDC's numbers are wrong. It's not some obscure aside, it's the main thrust of the article.You just cited the CDC as an authoritative source, and now you're relying on a financial paper named after a Democratic presidential candidate that says the CDC can't be trusted? Nice level of consistency.The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.
The most accurate statement is that covid-19 is much less dangerous than the 1918 pandemic, but so far is roughly equivalent to the next tier of pandemics that occurred in the 20th century.
TL;DR: Here's a link that seems exactly on point to rebut you.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-11/covid-19-was-far-deadlier-than-the-1957-and-1968-flu-pandemics
I don't see where the article says that the CDC can't be trusted.
But since Pat now finds the CDC authoritative....Where did I say I find them authoritative? For that matter, where did I say I consider them to be less than authoritative?
Pat might prefer to use other estimates (hedging with "up to 4 million"), but the current worldwide count may be much too low, as asserted in the following:I didn't hedge anything. I was working with the 1-4 million range (which matches the range in Wikipedia, which despite its problems, is certainly more authoritative than an financial newspaper article on a disease), and assumed the geometric median (i.e. 2 million) when I posted, not the min. That almost perfectly matches the current worldwide covid-19 death toll, supporting my argument they were in the same tier. I didn't bother to adjust for changes in the world's population, which would roughly double the 1967 flu's numbers, so my bias was in favor of a larger covid-19 death toll. I also pointed out that covid-19 is still an active pandemic, so the numbers will increase, further favoring covid-19. In other words, I looked at the range of deaths from multiple strong sources, made the reasonable assumption the best number was somewhere in the middle, and made assumptions that favored the position I wasn't supporting.
When someone posts "I never said that" as frequently, in response to enough different posters, then the more likely conclusion is that they routinely fail to make their meaning clear in the first place.Or you're a liar, which seems overwhelmingly likely given your history.
Here is your lie that I disputed: "Pat incorrectly blames everything reported in the system on the vaccine".Since the pharmaceutical companies are already protected from liability, that seems a bit redundant. VAERS is like an internet poll; anyone can post anything. The point is to investigate for actual risks; Pat incorrectly blames everything reported in the system on the vaccine, which is nonsensical. (Apparently there were 2 deaths in ages 1-2 because of the COVID-19 vaccine; I hope they are trying to track down whoever vaccinated a one or two year old.)
I never said any such thing.
Hmm.Oh look, a CDC whistleblower says the vax death count is 45,000 in a new lawsuit
and immediately following Mistwell quoting that:^ You do realize the number of vaccine-related deaths reported to VAERS is over 11,000? And for most vaccines, the estimate is VAERS only captures 1 in 100 deaths? 45,000 is a conservative estimate.
What is "vaccine-related deaths" supposed to mean? "Conservative estimate" of what? Are they caused by the vaccines, in whole or part? Without a pandemic or vaccine, many people, especially the elderly, would die. How much are you blaming on the vaccines? How many deaths would you find suspiciously excessive or suspiciously deficient?
Regarding your fear mongering about phase IV studies and the quality of data available, which you present no evidence of, I observe that the manufacturers of vaccines continue their studies (for both financial and regulatory reasons, whether or not they can be given a smidgen of credit for doing what's right), and the CDC asserts "Millions of people in the United States have received COVID-19 vaccines under the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history." I fail to see why either of those would not qualify as phase IV studies, even if the ongoing studies are different than for earlier differently released vaccines.You're the fear mongerer, not me. And if you fail to see how those don't qualify as phase IV, then it's because you didn't read what I wrote. I covered what phase IV testing involves, and it doesn't involve monitoring people for a few minutes after a shot and then giving them handouts, or elective and limited follow up by a few companies with no requirements or standards.
(I discovered why there are differing numbers given for deaths in VAERS; if I'm asked nicely, I might explain it.)No thanks. Given your history, I wouldn't consider you a trustworthy source on whether or not it's currently raining.
I didn't hedge anything. I was working with the 1-4 million range (which matches the range in Wikipedia, which despite its problems, is certainly more authoritative than an financial newspaper article on a disease), and assumed the geometric median (i.e. 2 million) when I posted, not the min. That almost perfectly matches the current worldwide covid-19 death toll, supporting my argument they were in the same tier. I didn't bother to adjust for changes in the world's population, which would roughly double the 1967 flu's numbers, so my bias was in favor of a larger covid-19 death toll. I also pointed out that covid-19 is still an active pandemic, so the numbers will increase, further favoring covid-19. In other words, I looked at the range of deaths from multiple strong sources, made the reasonable assumption the best number was somewhere in the middle, and made assumptions that favored the position I wasn't supporting.Uh, no. Rawma is a fuckwit, but there's a reason you don't use Wikipedia as a primary source for, well, most anything. Might want to rethink this angle if you're sourcing from those retards.
I can see how that could be read the wrong way. Wikipedia is as valuable as its sources, which in this case is the WHO (the 1-4 million range comes from their Risk Management guidance). I mentioned WP instead to highlight that even WP is a better source on diseases than Bloomberg. Rawma was using a financial newspaper to correct the CDC about a pandemic.I didn't hedge anything. I was working with the 1-4 million range (which matches the range in Wikipedia, which despite its problems, is certainly more authoritative than an financial newspaper article on a disease), and assumed the geometric median (i.e. 2 million) when I posted, not the min. That almost perfectly matches the current worldwide covid-19 death toll, supporting my argument they were in the same tier. I didn't bother to adjust for changes in the world's population, which would roughly double the 1967 flu's numbers, so my bias was in favor of a larger covid-19 death toll. I also pointed out that covid-19 is still an active pandemic, so the numbers will increase, further favoring covid-19. In other words, I looked at the range of deaths from multiple strong sources, made the reasonable assumption the best number was somewhere in the middle, and made assumptions that favored the position I wasn't supporting.Uh, no. Rawma is a fuckwit, but there's a reason you don't use Wikipedia as a primary source for, well, most anything. Might want to rethink this angle if you're sourcing from those retards.
Fair enough. But then, I always assume Rawma is wrong anyways :)I can see how that could be read the wrong way. Wikipedia is as valuable as its sources, which in this case is the WHO (the 1-4 million range comes from their Risk Management guidance). I mentioned WP instead to highlight that even WP is a better source on diseases than Bloomberg. Rawma was using a financial newspaper to correct the CDC about a pandemic.I didn't hedge anything. I was working with the 1-4 million range (which matches the range in Wikipedia, which despite its problems, is certainly more authoritative than an financial newspaper article on a disease), and assumed the geometric median (i.e. 2 million) when I posted, not the min. That almost perfectly matches the current worldwide covid-19 death toll, supporting my argument they were in the same tier. I didn't bother to adjust for changes in the world's population, which would roughly double the 1967 flu's numbers, so my bias was in favor of a larger covid-19 death toll. I also pointed out that covid-19 is still an active pandemic, so the numbers will increase, further favoring covid-19. In other words, I looked at the range of deaths from multiple strong sources, made the reasonable assumption the best number was somewhere in the middle, and made assumptions that favored the position I wasn't supporting.Uh, no. Rawma is a fuckwit, but there's a reason you don't use Wikipedia as a primary source for, well, most anything. Might want to rethink this angle if you're sourcing from those retards.
Not about everything, but it's impossible to carry on a conversation even in areas where we might agree because Rawma is more interested in tearing other people down than the facts.Fair enough. But then, I always assume Rawma is wrong anyways :)I can see how that could be read the wrong way. Wikipedia is as valuable as its sources, which in this case is the WHO (the 1-4 million range comes from their Risk Management guidance). I mentioned WP instead to highlight that even WP is a better source on diseases than Bloomberg. Rawma was using a financial newspaper to correct the CDC about a pandemic.I didn't hedge anything. I was working with the 1-4 million range (which matches the range in Wikipedia, which despite its problems, is certainly more authoritative than an financial newspaper article on a disease), and assumed the geometric median (i.e. 2 million) when I posted, not the min. That almost perfectly matches the current worldwide covid-19 death toll, supporting my argument they were in the same tier. I didn't bother to adjust for changes in the world's population, which would roughly double the 1967 flu's numbers, so my bias was in favor of a larger covid-19 death toll. I also pointed out that covid-19 is still an active pandemic, so the numbers will increase, further favoring covid-19. In other words, I looked at the range of deaths from multiple strong sources, made the reasonable assumption the best number was somewhere in the middle, and made assumptions that favored the position I wasn't supporting.Uh, no. Rawma is a fuckwit, but there's a reason you don't use Wikipedia as a primary source for, well, most anything. Might want to rethink this angle if you're sourcing from those retards.
The whole school thing is a nightmare. It was clear very early on that the bus ride to school was a greater risk than covid-19 for the under 18 crowd, that remote learning was an absolutely catastrophic failure, and that kids were almost never infecting adults. But a sob story about a single kid was enough to shut down thousands of schools across multiple states. School age kids have lost more than a year of education, which will hurt them for their entire lifetime. We're sacrificing the well being of almost every kid in the country because of irrational fear mongering, which has been championed by the teacher's unions.
And it's always the low-income kids who are worst hit. They're the least likely to have internet. The least likely to have parents with technical skills. They live in the smallest houses or apartments, so there's less room to set up study areas. Since their caretakers are poorer, there's less of a financial buffer to buy the computers and desks and other things they need. They're less likely to be able to afford tutors or babysitters. They're more likely to be forced to move, due to lost jobs or skyrocketing rents. They're more likely to have lapses in their insurance coverage. And on and on. It's a very long list.
Honorable societies sacrifice the old to make way for the young. Evil, satanic ones sacrifice the young for the old.Very true, and very wise.
Qyburn would have liked you!The whole school thing is a nightmare. It was clear very early on that the bus ride to school was a greater risk than covid-19 for the under 18 crowd, that remote learning was an absolutely catastrophic failure, and that kids were almost never infecting adults. But a sob story about a single kid was enough to shut down thousands of schools across multiple states. School age kids have lost more than a year of education, which will hurt them for their entire lifetime. We're sacrificing the well being of almost every kid in the country because of irrational fear mongering, which has been championed by the teacher's unions.
And it's always the low-income kids who are worst hit. They're the least likely to have internet. The least likely to have parents with technical skills. They live in the smallest houses or apartments, so there's less room to set up study areas. Since their caretakers are poorer, there's less of a financial buffer to buy the computers and desks and other things they need. They're less likely to be able to afford tutors or babysitters. They're more likely to be forced to move, due to lost jobs or skyrocketing rents. They're more likely to have lapses in their insurance coverage. And on and on. It's a very long list.
Honorable societies sacrifice the old to make way for the young. Evil, satanic ones sacrifice the young for the old.
Only a fucktard compares polio, measles, smallpox, and lockjaw to covid.
Only a fucktard compares polio, measles, smallpox, and lockjaw to covid.
I had H1N1 back in 2010. Nearly killed me. Well, I thought I was going to die. I didn't. H1N1 and Covid are more similar, I believe. I think H1N1 made my immune system a bit more ready to cope with Covid. Got the vaccine anyway. Not a guarantee. The Flu Vaccine isn't a guarantee either. Anything I can do prevent an awful illness, I try it...
The current vaccines have quite high efficacy and efficiency; no vaccine has ever been perfect. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. A saving throw of 2 versus infection is better than was expected; the delta variant seems to have a pretty high save without vaccination. Preventing severe illness, hospitalization and death for those who roll a 1 is a pure bonus (damage resistance, I guess).
I'm curious; did you just tough out polio, tetanus, measles, and (if you're old enough) smallpox?
In fairness, the CDC says the following about tetanus vaccination so maybe that could count as a Kiero-approvable perfect vaccine:QuoteToday, diphtheria and tetanus are at historic low rates in the United States. No one has ever studied the efficacy of tetanus toxoid and diphtheria toxoid in a vaccine trial. However experts infer efficacy from protective antitoxin levels. A complete vaccine series has a clinical efficacy of virtually 100% for tetanus and 97% for diphtheria. A complete series is 3 doses for people 7 years or older and 4 doses for children younger than 7.https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/dtap-tdap-td/hcp/about-vaccine.html
So many people rejecting proven vaccines this year were clamoring last year for hydroxychloroquine with only a little anecdotal evidence. SMH.
...that remote learning was an absolutely catastrophic failure...In one sense it was successful in that parents got to see some of the bullshit that was being pushed on their children.
Thank You!Only a fucktard compares polio, measles, smallpox, and lockjaw to covid.
I had H1N1 back in 2010. Nearly killed me. Well, I thought I was going to die. I didn't. H1N1 and Covid are more similar, I believe. I think H1N1 made my immune system a bit more ready to cope with Covid. Got the vaccine anyway. Not a guarantee. The Flu Vaccine isn't a guarantee either. Anything I can do prevent an awful illness, I try it...
Glad to hear you made it through the swine flu. Those are MUCH worse despite being similar families. Biden, according to Obama and others in the administration, badly mismanaged that one too. Covid is in the same family but doesn't appear to be anywhere near as bad.
I'm kind of the flipside of you. I never get the flu shot so I don't see the point of this glorified flu shot. If I had the same life experiences as you or were old/obese (I'm fat at 28 BMI but not in the OMG Covid is going to kill you brackets) I'd be more willing to expose myself to long term health effects of untested new technologies.
I got the vaccine because I hoped it would help me to never get that sick again. So, far I have not become ill. Though, I can not say if it is merely my immune system is working or it is the vaccine or both or if the aliens that control us want me to live. ;)
Nah. Your name suggests you're one of David Icke's UNDERGROUND REPTILLIANS! So, no need for any aliens, since you're obviously already one. (On a side note, I'M an undead Litch called Trevor. Small world, eh?) ;DThank You!Only a fucktard compares polio, measles, smallpox, and lockjaw to covid.
I had H1N1 back in 2010. Nearly killed me. Well, I thought I was going to die. I didn't. H1N1 and Covid are more similar, I believe. I think H1N1 made my immune system a bit more ready to cope with Covid. Got the vaccine anyway. Not a guarantee. The Flu Vaccine isn't a guarantee either. Anything I can do prevent an awful illness, I try it...
Glad to hear you made it through the swine flu. Those are MUCH worse despite being similar families. Biden, according to Obama and others in the administration, badly mismanaged that one too. Covid is in the same family but doesn't appear to be anywhere near as bad.
I'm kind of the flipside of you. I never get the flu shot so I don't see the point of this glorified flu shot. If I had the same life experiences as you or were old/obese (I'm fat at 28 BMI but not in the OMG Covid is going to kill you brackets) I'd be more willing to expose myself to long term health effects of untested new technologies.
What's interesting is they posted signs back in 2009-2010 from the Health Department. It advised us that they were tracking a virus outbreak in Mexico. We were urged to wash our hands frequently and to wear masks. Where I work, there is one of those signs still in the bathroom. Oh my! Swine Flu got political too? No, not really. A virus doesn't really care about your politics. It just needs cozy place to live for awhile.
So, I get your point.
I got the vaccine because I hoped it would help me to never get that sick again. So, far I have not become ill. Though, I can not say if it is merely my immune system is working or it is the vaccine or both or if the aliens that control us want me to live. ;)
Meanwhile, the vaccines for polio, tetanus, measles and TB for the most part actually stop you getting infected. Small variations in individual biochemistry which mean some might not take, aside. Nice attempt to paint me as anti-vaccine, though.
In fairness, the CDC says the following about So many people rejecting proven vaccines this year were clamoring last year for hydroxychloroquine with only a little anecdotal evidence. SMH.
A treatment that actually works in practise, you mean? As opposed to non-vaccines that haven't even finished trials.
The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.
So, immediately with the fake news. Highest mortality rate since WW2, and you immediately go to claiming it was artificially inflated death figures. Facts will not get in the way of your beliefs.
The most accurate statement is that covid-19 is much less dangerous than the 1918 pandemic, but so far is roughly equivalent to the next tier of pandemics that occurred in the 20th century.
The root of such incorrect comparisons may be a knowledge gap regarding how seasonal influenza and COVID-19 data are publicly reported. The CDC, like many similar disease control agencies around the world, presents seasonal influenza morbidity and mortality not as raw counts but as calculated estimates based on submitted International Classification of Diseases codes. Between 2013-2014 and 2018-2019, the reported yearly estimated influenza deaths ranged from 23 000 to 61 000. Over that same time period, however, the number of counted influenza deaths was between 3448 and 15 620 yearly. On average, the CDC estimates of deaths attributed to influenza were nearly 6 times greater than its reported counted numbers. Conversely, COVID-19 fatalities are at present being counted and reported directly, not estimated.https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2766121
That's a reasonable argument, and you didn't lie once about anything I said.The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.
So, immediately with the fake news. Highest mortality rate since WW2, and you immediately go to claiming it was artificially inflated death figures. Facts will not get in the way of your beliefs.
The most accurate statement is that covid-19 is much less dangerous than the 1918 pandemic, but so far is roughly equivalent to the next tier of pandemics that occurred in the 20th century.
For past influenza seasons they start with reported deaths and then estimate total deaths. Comparisons of such totals with reported COVID deaths are not valid.QuoteThe root of such incorrect comparisons may be a knowledge gap regarding how seasonal influenza and COVID-19 data are publicly reported. The CDC, like many similar disease control agencies around the world, presents seasonal influenza morbidity and mortality not as raw counts but as calculated estimates based on submitted International Classification of Diseases codes. Between 2013-2014 and 2018-2019, the reported yearly estimated influenza deaths ranged from 23 000 to 61 000. Over that same time period, however, the number of counted influenza deaths was between 3448 and 15 620 yearly. On average, the CDC estimates of deaths attributed to influenza were nearly 6 times greater than its reported counted numbers. Conversely, COVID-19 fatalities are at present being counted and reported directly, not estimated.https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2766121
IHME lists reported deaths as of 7/29 at over 4.2 million, but excess deaths at over 9 million. That doesn't include high end estimates for places like India, which may have undercounted by millions. WHO said in May the actual death count may be two to three times higher, https://www.reuters.com/world/covid-19-death-tolls-are-likely-significant-undercount-who-says-2021-05-21/ .
The effectiveness of those vaccines is known the same way that the effectiveness of the COVID vaccines is known. You gave the impression that you reject any vaccine that isn't perfect, but I am satisfied that you are simply anti-science and not anti-vaccine, if you think that's somehow better.
Actual studies say otherwise. But, unlike your nonsensical claims that COVID vaccines alter DNA, hydroxychloroquine could actually change your DNA.
https://keck.usc.edu/new-study-points-to-toxic-potential-of-hydroxychloroquine-in-mammalian-cells/
Also, don't forget that excess mortality is, like all statistics, a relative measure when all other factors prove equal. Some of that excess mortality is probably from Covid. Some is probably from people who elected not to have (or were restricted from) exams, procedures, and other medical preventatives due to the pandemic. So there are a lot of possible reasons for excess mortality last year.That's a reasonable argument, and you didn't lie once about anything I said.The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.
So, immediately with the fake news. Highest mortality rate since WW2, and you immediately go to claiming it was artificially inflated death figures. Facts will not get in the way of your beliefs.
The most accurate statement is that covid-19 is much less dangerous than the 1918 pandemic, but so far is roughly equivalent to the next tier of pandemics that occurred in the 20th century.
For past influenza seasons they start with reported deaths and then estimate total deaths. Comparisons of such totals with reported COVID deaths are not valid.QuoteThe root of such incorrect comparisons may be a knowledge gap regarding how seasonal influenza and COVID-19 data are publicly reported. The CDC, like many similar disease control agencies around the world, presents seasonal influenza morbidity and mortality not as raw counts but as calculated estimates based on submitted International Classification of Diseases codes. Between 2013-2014 and 2018-2019, the reported yearly estimated influenza deaths ranged from 23 000 to 61 000. Over that same time period, however, the number of counted influenza deaths was between 3448 and 15 620 yearly. On average, the CDC estimates of deaths attributed to influenza were nearly 6 times greater than its reported counted numbers. Conversely, COVID-19 fatalities are at present being counted and reported directly, not estimated.https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2766121
IHME lists reported deaths as of 7/29 at over 4.2 million, but excess deaths at over 9 million. That doesn't include high end estimates for places like India, which may have undercounted by millions. WHO said in May the actual death count may be two to three times higher, https://www.reuters.com/world/covid-19-death-tolls-are-likely-significant-undercount-who-says-2021-05-21/ .
Who are you, and what have you done with Rawma?
It's true the deaths in earlier pandemics are projections rather than a census, but that doesn't mean we can't compare the two. It just means we need to consider the relative degree of certainty.
I can buy some underreporting in Africa and India, and we know China is lying through their teeth about the number of cases, but we have pretty solid numbers for a lot of the world, and there are plausible reasons to explain why the number of cases in non-Western countries are legitimately much lower -- they're much younger and skinnier. We've known from the start that covid-19 is far more deadly the older you get, and it's becoming more and more clear than obesity is far and away the the most important co-morbidity. Africa is an absurdly young continent, and even the last surge in India was heavily focused on the urban Brahmins, who are much fatter and live longer than the rural population. I suspect the real answer will take years to sort out.
Also, don't forget that excess mortality is, like all statistics, a relative measure when all other factors prove equal. Some of that excess mortality is probably from Covid. Some is probably from people who elected not to have (or were restricted from) exams, procedures, and other medical preventatives due to the pandemic. So there are a lot of possible reasons for excess mortality last year.
look at the shocking "excess suicide" studies that have been done about the effects, particularly on teenagers, of the lockdowns.
Humans are social animals. Cutting humans off from their social networks is one of the cruelest things you can do, especially for someone who is going through the period of heightened social dynamism called puberty. This isn't a matter of losing their cool, or having faulty wiring. It's literally how humans are designed. There's a reason why isolation is one of the most effective torture techniques.look at the shocking "excess suicide" studies that have been done about the effects, particularly on teenagers, of the lockdowns.
I don’t understand why people lose their cool like that. Obvious mental reasons, but how is their brain wired? This is mostly first world problems.
look at the shocking "excess suicide" studies that have been done about the effects, particularly on teenagers, of the lockdowns.
I don’t understand why people lose their cool like that. Obvious mental reasons, but how is their brain wired? This is mostly first world problems.
I don’t understand why people lose their cool like that. Obvious mental reasons, but how is their brain wired? This is mostly first world problems.
No, he's just a fuckwit.I don’t understand why people lose their cool like that. Obvious mental reasons, but how is their brain wired? This is mostly first world problems.
Are you autistic?
I don’t understand why people lose their cool like that. Obvious mental reasons, but how is their brain wired? This is mostly first world problems.
Are you autistic?
Wait, are you signaling that if one doesn’t contemplate suicide on a daily basis then one must be born with a deficiency? You got me confused there. The unprecedented rush to check boxes is simply astonishing in this day and age.
look at the shocking "excess suicide" studies that have been done about the effects, particularly on teenagers, of the lockdowns.
I don’t understand why people lose their cool like that.
An actual randomized control study on masks and Covid:Interesting, I'll have to look it over. But it's not promising that they start out with a blatant lie: "This was the first large-scale randomized evaluation to demonstrate the effectiveness of masks in a real-world setting." (No, this was the first (https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817).)
An actual randomized control study on masks and Covid:Interesting, I'll have to look it over. But it's not promising that they start out with a blatant lie: "This was the first large-scale randomized evaluation to demonstrate the effectiveness of masks in a real-world setting." (No, this was the first (https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817).)
And the new study is using about different strategies to get people to wear masks, including recommendations. Both studies meet the "large-scale randomized evaluation to demonstrate the effectiveness of masks in a real-world setting" criteria, it's just Danmask was first.An actual randomized control study on masks and Covid:Interesting, I'll have to look it over. But it's not promising that they start out with a blatant lie: "This was the first large-scale randomized evaluation to demonstrate the effectiveness of masks in a real-world setting." (No, this was the first (https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817).)
Well no that was about the effectiveness of adding a mask recommendation.
Love the new signs being displayed in stores near me “If you’re not fully Vaxxed, then you must wear a mask” just about everyone in the store was wearing one. I guess if you insist hard enough and continue paying people to stay home you eventually domesticate even the wildest of mammals.
Do you guys roleplay with your masks on? Don’t forget to spray that nasty dice.
Love the new signs being displayed in stores near me “If you’re not fully Vaxxed, then you must wear a mask” just about everyone in the store was wearing one. I guess if you insist hard enough and continue paying people to stay home you eventually domesticate even the wildest of mammals.
Do you guys roleplay with your masks on? Don’t forget to spray that nasty dice.
Begs an interesting question. If you still have to wear a mask when 100% of everyone is vaccinated, when will you ever not have to wear a mask (other than being the mayor of SF or attending the Emmy's)?
https://youtu.be/uHoYnmUtH7I?t=1292
Begs an interesting question. If you still have to wear a mask when 100% of everyone is vaccinated, when will you ever not have to wear a mask (other than being the mayor of SF or attending the Emmy's)?
https://youtu.be/uHoYnmUtH7I?t=1292
As someone whose company makes and sells masks, the answer is you will always have to wear a mask!*
[*I kid - nobody buys our masks these days]
Masks for thee but not for me -- you fucking pleb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4jhICpxtec
https://nypost.com/2021/09/17/san-francisco-mayor-london-breed-breaks-mask-mandate-to-go-clubbing/
How they handle non-compliance with mask-wearing mandates in Australia.
https://twitter.com/DrEliDavid/status/1440770631671300106
I am not a "defund the police" guy by any means, but when I see shit like that, I can understand how one could get to that position.
Articles like these make me take Covid serious.
25yo with no preexistente health problems had his lungs chewed up by the virus.
https://news.yahoo.com/25-old-had-double-lung-122554850.html
Articles like these make me take Covid serious.
25yo with no preexistente health problems had his lungs chewed up by the virus.
https://news.yahoo.com/25-old-had-double-lung-122554850.html
That is, in part, because you are not seeing all of the "25yo with no pre-existing health problems got covid and recovered" articles. Also, because of other articles that claimed "no pre-existing conditions", yet it was obvious from the photos in them that the person was obese, I take that claim with a large grain of salt.
Moreover, when you compare covid deaths in that population
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/
18-29yo = 3376
30-39yo = 9755
to the deaths from car accidents (2019)
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-by-age-group/
15-24yo = 6031
25-44yo = 12204
you should take dying in a car crash more seriously than dying from covid.
That said, I am all for everyone taking the personal actions they believe are necessary with respect to covid.
That is, in part, because you are not seeing all of the "25yo with no pre-existing health problems got covid and recovered" articles. Also, because of other articles that claimed "no pre-existing conditions", yet it was obvious from the photos in them that the person was obese, I take that claim with a large grain of salt.
From Kiero's link in the "Covid, the "lockdowns" etc." topic.
https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/22/30-facts-you-need-to-know-your-covid-cribsheet
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
"Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
We did not consider the use of respirators in the community. Respirators are tight-fitting masks that can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency. However, respirators, such as N95 and P2 masks, work best when they are fit-tested, and these masks will be in limited supply during the next pandemic. These specialist devices should be reserved for use in healthcare settings or in special subpopulations such as immunocompromised persons in the community, first responders, and those performing other critical community functions, as supplies permit."
As this is based on a statistical analysis, take it with a grain of salt. That said, it does show that there are statistical arguments that are both pro and con mask wearing. Which tells me that the focus should be on experiments that evaluate the mechanisms involved.
Again with your BS that the vaccine compromises the immune system. That's a total lie.From Kiero's link in the "Covid, the "lockdowns" etc." topic.
https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/22/30-facts-you-need-to-know-your-covid-cribsheet
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
"Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
We did not consider the use of respirators in the community. Respirators are tight-fitting masks that can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency. However, respirators, such as N95 and P2 masks, work best when they are fit-tested, and these masks will be in limited supply during the next pandemic. These specialist devices should be reserved for use in healthcare settings or in special subpopulations such as immunocompromised persons in the community, first responders, and those performing other critical community functions, as supplies permit."
As this is based on a statistical analysis, take it with a grain of salt. That said, it does show that there are statistical arguments that are both pro and con mask wearing. Which tells me that the focus should be on experiments that evaluate the mechanisms involved.
OK, but that assumes preventing transmission of a virus as trivial as coronavirus is a good thing. It's not a coincidence that the papers are full of stories of people saying they've got really bad colds right now: https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1442529926800941057
The same morons crowing about how they hadn't had a cold in over a year are finding that mysteriously, their immune systems aren't up to handling this season's bugs. Following the guidance suppresses your immune system, which depends on challenge to stay healthy.
Meanwhile, I've done none of those things, been exposed to lots of people, and I'm fine.
Except that's not what he said, and if you had reading comprehension you'd realize that.Again with your BS that the vaccine compromises the immune system. That's a total lie.From Kiero's link in the "Covid, the "lockdowns" etc." topic.
https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/22/30-facts-you-need-to-know-your-covid-cribsheet
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
"Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
We did not consider the use of respirators in the community. Respirators are tight-fitting masks that can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency. However, respirators, such as N95 and P2 masks, work best when they are fit-tested, and these masks will be in limited supply during the next pandemic. These specialist devices should be reserved for use in healthcare settings or in special subpopulations such as immunocompromised persons in the community, first responders, and those performing other critical community functions, as supplies permit."
As this is based on a statistical analysis, take it with a grain of salt. That said, it does show that there are statistical arguments that are both pro and con mask wearing. Which tells me that the focus should be on experiments that evaluate the mechanisms involved.
OK, but that assumes preventing transmission of a virus as trivial as coronavirus is a good thing. It's not a coincidence that the papers are full of stories of people saying they've got really bad colds right now: https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1442529926800941057
The same morons crowing about how they hadn't had a cold in over a year are finding that mysteriously, their immune systems aren't up to handling this season's bugs. Following the guidance suppresses your immune system, which depends on challenge to stay healthy.
Meanwhile, I've done none of those things, been exposed to lots of people, and I'm fine.
Again with your BS that the vaccine compromises the immune system. That's a total lie.
So does the mask prevent virus exposure or not? If you take your argument to the logical end, the immune system "suffers" because it hasn't been exposed (i.e., the masks block exposure). Is that your argument now?Again with your BS that the vaccine compromises the immune system. That's a total lie.
Yes it does, it's been noted there's a "temporary" dip in immune effectiveness immediately after the jabs. Long-term effects unknown.
And in any case, you dumbass, that wasn't even what I was saying. I'm talking about the immune suppression effect of masks and avoiding contact with other people.
Again with your BS that the vaccine compromises the immune system. That's a total lie.
Yes it does, it's been noted there's a "temporary" dip in immune effectiveness immediately after the jabs. Long-term effects unknown.
So does the mask prevent virus exposure or not? If you take your argument to the logical end, the immune system "suffers" because it hasn't been exposed (i.e., the masks block exposure). Is that your argument now?Again with your BS that the vaccine compromises the immune system. That's a total lie.
Yes it does, it's been noted there's a "temporary" dip in immune effectiveness immediately after the jabs. Long-term effects unknown.
And in any case, you dumbass, that wasn't even what I was saying. I'm talking about the immune suppression effect of masks and avoiding contact with other people.
So does the mask prevent virus exposure or not? If you take your argument to the logical end, the immune system "suffers" because it hasn't been exposed (i.e., the masks block exposure). Is that your argument now?
Kiero lives in multiple universes, and occupies whichever one in that moment best matches his world view for that particular argument. If the topic is "masks reduce the spread of viruses" he's living in the universe where masks are entirely ineffective at preventing viruses from spreading. If however the topic is "working out your immune system with minor viruses so it's a stronger overall immune system" then he lives in the universe where masks are effective at stopping the spread of viruses and therefore suppress the immune system by preventing exposure to minor viruses.
Kiero is also a cat which is both alive and dead.
You're not dead, but it seems pretty apparent that Covid has caused you some lasting brain injury.So does the mask prevent virus exposure or not? If you take your argument to the logical end, the immune system "suffers" because it hasn't been exposed (i.e., the masks block exposure). Is that your argument now?
No, it does fuck all, but it's included in the same set of pointless "measures" that purport to control the virus. Avoiding people prevents exposure, except avoiding people suppresses your immune system. The "cure" is worse than the issue it supposedly solves.Kiero lives in multiple universes, and occupies whichever one in that moment best matches his world view for that particular argument. If the topic is "masks reduce the spread of viruses" he's living in the universe where masks are entirely ineffective at preventing viruses from spreading. If however the topic is "working out your immune system with minor viruses so it's a stronger overall immune system" then he lives in the universe where masks are effective at stopping the spread of viruses and therefore suppress the immune system by preventing exposure to minor viruses.
Kiero is also a cat which is both alive and dead.
Nope, none of the measures really matter, nor are they proportionate against a virus as trivial as a coronavirus. Mysteriously, despite ignoring them all entirely, I'm not dead, have never been seriously ill with covid, nor has anyone around me.
You're not dead, but it seems pretty apparent that Covid has caused you some lasting brain injury.
Where have I discussed a shift in the severity of endemic pathogens?You're not dead, but it seems pretty apparent that Covid has caused you some lasting brain injury.
I'm not the one engaging in the mass delusion that the world changed in 2020 and the seasonal viruses we see every single year have suddenly become lethal pathogens.
So does the mask prevent virus exposure or not? If you take your argument to the logical end, the immune system "suffers" because it hasn't been exposed (i.e., the masks block exposure). Is that your argument now?
No, it does fuck all, but it's included in the same set of pointless "measures" that purport to control the virus. Avoiding people prevents exposure, except avoiding people suppresses your immune system. The "cure" is worse than the issue it supposedly solves.Kiero lives in multiple universes, and occupies whichever one in that moment best matches his world view for that particular argument. If the topic is "masks reduce the spread of viruses" he's living in the universe where masks are entirely ineffective at preventing viruses from spreading. If however the topic is "working out your immune system with minor viruses so it's a stronger overall immune system" then he lives in the universe where masks are effective at stopping the spread of viruses and therefore suppress the immune system by preventing exposure to minor viruses.
Kiero is also a cat which is both alive and dead.
Nope, none of the measures really matter, nor are they proportionate against a virus as trivial as a coronavirus. Mysteriously, despite ignoring them all entirely, I'm not dead, have never been seriously ill with covid, nor has anyone around me.
Moreover, when you compare covid deaths in that population
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/
18-29yo = 3376
30-39yo = 9755
to the deaths from car accidents (2019)
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-by-age-group/
15-24yo = 6031
25-44yo = 12204
Might prevent getting bugs caught in your grill. This applies to both masking cars and masking people.Moreover, when you compare covid deaths in that population
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/
18-29yo = 3376
30-39yo = 9755
to the deaths from car accidents (2019)
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-by-age-group/
15-24yo = 6031
25-44yo = 12204
Masking cars to protect them from accidents is just as effective as masking people to protect them from the KungFlu.
(https://wlos.com/resources/media/ffcf6b2d-434e-4da7-9865-769016cd6a22-large16x9_MASK2.JPG)
Where have I discussed a shift in the severity of endemic pathogens?
I am starting to think you're just a narcissist. It would explain the myopia where you think you're good, so everyone must be like you. Because you view the world as Kiero-centric.
You believe that Covid-19 is not a novel infection. OK... How many infections and deaths did it cause in 2018?Where have I discussed a shift in the severity of endemic pathogens?
Where every single post you make is in support of the narrative, which requires us to believe covid is a new, novel infection which justifies any of this biosecurity theatre.I am starting to think you're just a narcissist. It would explain the myopia where you think you're good, so everyone must be like you. Because you view the world as Kiero-centric.
You already convinced me you're thick as shit and guzzling up everything you're told to by your "trusted sources". Doesn't surprise me, I know of many lawyers who think they're smarter than they actually are.
I am good, because I'm healthy. Unlike all the fat, lazy morons around the place terrified of the sniffles.
You believe that Covid-19 is not a novel infection. OK... How many infections and deaths did it cause in 2018?
Irrelevant. By any measure, Covid-19 caused more deaths from 2019-present that at any date before 2019.You believe that Covid-19 is not a novel infection. OK... How many infections and deaths did it cause in 2018?
How many deaths did it actually cause in 2020, without them inventing an entirely new method of measurement (death by any cause within 28/60 days of a positive test)?
Irrelevant. By any measure, Covid-19 caused more deaths from 2019-present that at any date before 2019.
Irrelevant. By any measure, Covid-19 caused more deaths from 2019-present that at any date before 2019.
Utterly vital a question, because the "covid deaths" figure is concocted bollocks. Anyone who died from absolutely anything, but happened to test positive within the last month/two months is included. That's bullshit.
I refer back to the Freedom of Information request responded to a while back by a Birmingham hospital trust. 98% of those who died "with" covid were killed by their underlying condition, not by covid.
You're still dodging. Show me evidence of Covid-19 infections and deaths prior to 2019. If Covid-19 is an endemic infection as you suggest rather than something novel/new, surely you can find some evidence that it has been inecting (and killing) people for a long time.Irrelevant. By any measure, Covid-19 caused more deaths from 2019-present that at any date before 2019.
Utterly vital a question, because the "covid deaths" figure is concocted bollocks. Anyone who died from absolutely anything, but happened to test positive within the last month/two months is included. That's bullshit.
I refer back to the Freedom of Information request responded to a while back by a Birmingham hospital trust. 98% of those who died "with" covid were killed by their underlying condition, not by covid.
Between March 1, 2020, and January 2, 2021, the US experienced 2 801 439 deaths, 22.9% more than expected, representing 522 368 excess deaths
You're still dodging. Show me evidence of Covid-19 infections and deaths prior to 2019. If Covid-19 is an endemic infection as you suggest rather than something novel/new, surely you can find some evidence that it has been inecting (and killing) people for a long time.
There's a reasonable argument that the happyhappyfunfunlockdown virus originated in Mojiang, where 3 miners died from a SARS-like disease in 2012, because the samples collected by the Wuhan lab (RaTG13) are the closest known relative of SARS-Cov-19. China of course tried to cover it up, but they weren't quick enough to erase all the evidence.You're still dodging. Show me evidence of Covid-19 infections and deaths prior to 2019. If Covid-19 is an endemic infection as you suggest rather than something novel/new, surely you can find some evidence that it has been inecting (and killing) people for a long time.Irrelevant. By any measure, Covid-19 caused more deaths from 2019-present that at any date before 2019.
Utterly vital a question, because the "covid deaths" figure is concocted bollocks. Anyone who died from absolutely anything, but happened to test positive within the last month/two months is included. That's bullshit.
I refer back to the Freedom of Information request responded to a while back by a Birmingham hospital trust. 98% of those who died "with" covid were killed by their underlying condition, not by covid.
I've spent over a decade in healthcare, and I can tell you that we never had the types of hospitalizations and deaths from "sniffles" that we've seen in the last 18 months. You are totally full of shit.You're still dodging. Show me evidence of Covid-19 infections and deaths prior to 2019. If Covid-19 is an endemic infection as you suggest rather than something novel/new, surely you can find some evidence that it has been inecting (and killing) people for a long time.
Coronaviruses have been around since we split off from monkeys. Before 2020, no one bothered using crap tests that don't even work to distinguish between coronaviruses, influenza, adenoviruses, rhinoviruses and all the other causes of the sniffles that carried off the vulnerable every winter. Tens of thousands die of respiratory infections in this country every year.
That would still be an exceptional incident, not an example of an endemic pathogen. Kiero the Dumbass has stated that Covid-19 is just a "seasonal virus" that's always been around.There's a reasonable argument that the happyhappyfunfunlockdown virus originated in Mojiang, where 3 miners died from a SARS-like disease in 2012, because the samples collected by the Wuhan lab (RaTG13) are the closest known relative of SARS-Cov-19. China of course tried to cover it up, but they weren't quick enough to erase all the evidence.You're still dodging. Show me evidence of Covid-19 infections and deaths prior to 2019. If Covid-19 is an endemic infection as you suggest rather than something novel/new, surely you can find some evidence that it has been inecting (and killing) people for a long time.Irrelevant. By any measure, Covid-19 caused more deaths from 2019-present that at any date before 2019.
Utterly vital a question, because the "covid deaths" figure is concocted bollocks. Anyone who died from absolutely anything, but happened to test positive within the last month/two months is included. That's bullshit.
I refer back to the Freedom of Information request responded to a while back by a Birmingham hospital trust. 98% of those who died "with" covid were killed by their underlying condition, not by covid.
It's true that coronaviruses have been around forever, and it's also true the Pooh Bear variant wasn't endemic anywhere until late 2019. You're being precise and careful with your wording, Kiero is being sloppy and jumping around a lot.That would still be an exceptional incident, not an example of an endemic pathogen. Kiero the Dumbass has stated that Covid-19 is just a "seasonal virus" that's always been around.There's a reasonable argument that the happyhappyfunfunlockdown virus originated in Mojiang, where 3 miners died from a SARS-like disease in 2012, because the samples collected by the Wuhan lab (RaTG13) are the closest known relative of SARS-Cov-19. China of course tried to cover it up, but they weren't quick enough to erase all the evidence.You're still dodging. Show me evidence of Covid-19 infections and deaths prior to 2019. If Covid-19 is an endemic infection as you suggest rather than something novel/new, surely you can find some evidence that it has been inecting (and killing) people for a long time.Irrelevant. By any measure, Covid-19 caused more deaths from 2019-present that at any date before 2019.
Utterly vital a question, because the "covid deaths" figure is concocted bollocks. Anyone who died from absolutely anything, but happened to test positive within the last month/two months is included. That's bullshit.
I refer back to the Freedom of Information request responded to a while back by a Birmingham hospital trust. 98% of those who died "with" covid were killed by their underlying condition, not by covid.
I've spent over a decade in healthcare, and I can tell you that we never had the types of hospitalizations and deaths from "sniffles" that we've seen in the last 18 months. You are totally full of shit.You're still dodging. Show me evidence of Covid-19 infections and deaths prior to 2019. If Covid-19 is an endemic infection as you suggest rather than something novel/new, surely you can find some evidence that it has been inecting (and killing) people for a long time.
Coronaviruses have been around since we split off from monkeys. Before 2020, no one bothered using crap tests that don't even work to distinguish between coronaviruses, influenza, adenoviruses, rhinoviruses and all the other causes of the sniffles that carried off the vulnerable every winter. Tens of thousands die of respiratory infections in this country every year.
You're welcome to come visit anytime. If you like it, stay.I've spent over a decade in healthcare, and I can tell you that we never had the types of hospitalizations and deaths from "sniffles" that we've seen in the last 18 months. You are totally full of shit.You're still dodging. Show me evidence of Covid-19 infections and deaths prior to 2019. If Covid-19 is an endemic infection as you suggest rather than something novel/new, surely you can find some evidence that it has been inecting (and killing) people for a long time.
Coronaviruses have been around since we split off from monkeys. Before 2020, no one bothered using crap tests that don't even work to distinguish between coronaviruses, influenza, adenoviruses, rhinoviruses and all the other causes of the sniffles that carried off the vulnerable every winter. Tens of thousands die of respiratory infections in this country every year.
Florida just keeps looking better and better everytime HappyDaze posts.
First no culture war and also health care that does not get overwhelmed by the yearly winter corona virus surge.
So lucky
You're welcome to come visit anytime. If you like it, stay.I've spent over a decade in healthcare, and I can tell you that we never had the types of hospitalizations and deaths from "sniffles" that we've seen in the last 18 months. You are totally full of shit.You're still dodging. Show me evidence of Covid-19 infections and deaths prior to 2019. If Covid-19 is an endemic infection as you suggest rather than something novel/new, surely you can find some evidence that it has been inecting (and killing) people for a long time.
Coronaviruses have been around since we split off from monkeys. Before 2020, no one bothered using crap tests that don't even work to distinguish between coronaviruses, influenza, adenoviruses, rhinoviruses and all the other causes of the sniffles that carried off the vulnerable every winter. Tens of thousands die of respiratory infections in this country every year.
Florida just keeps looking better and better everytime HappyDaze posts.
First no culture war and also health care that does not get overwhelmed by the yearly winter corona virus surge.
So lucky
You sure you wouldn't rather have a boar?You're welcome to come visit anytime. If you like it, stay.I've spent over a decade in healthcare, and I can tell you that we never had the types of hospitalizations and deaths from "sniffles" that we've seen in the last 18 months. You are totally full of shit.You're still dodging. Show me evidence of Covid-19 infections and deaths prior to 2019. If Covid-19 is an endemic infection as you suggest rather than something novel/new, surely you can find some evidence that it has been inecting (and killing) people for a long time.
Coronaviruses have been around since we split off from monkeys. Before 2020, no one bothered using crap tests that don't even work to distinguish between coronaviruses, influenza, adenoviruses, rhinoviruses and all the other causes of the sniffles that carried off the vulnerable every winter. Tens of thousands die of respiratory infections in this country every year.
Florida just keeps looking better and better everytime HappyDaze posts.
First no culture war and also health care that does not get overwhelmed by the yearly winter corona virus surge.
So lucky
Save an alligator for me!
I am going to call mine Bitey
You sure you wouldn't rather have a boar?
Save an alligator for me!
I am going to call mine Bitey
Ok, you buy a big ass trashcan and I'll point you toward the glades.You sure you wouldn't rather have a boar?
I think Bitey would eat it.
I've spent over a decade in healthcare, and I can tell you that we never had the types of hospitalizations and deaths from "sniffles" that we've seen in the last 18 months. You are totally full of shit.You're still dodging. Show me evidence of Covid-19 infections and deaths prior to 2019. If Covid-19 is an endemic infection as you suggest rather than something novel/new, surely you can find some evidence that it has been inecting (and killing) people for a long time.
Coronaviruses have been around since we split off from monkeys. Before 2020, no one bothered using crap tests that don't even work to distinguish between coronaviruses, influenza, adenoviruses, rhinoviruses and all the other causes of the sniffles that carried off the vulnerable every winter. Tens of thousands die of respiratory infections in this country every year.
I've been given a chance to get the Booster. I am still trying to make the decision. It's only been 8 months since I had the Pfizer series. My healthcare provider doesn't think I need it because my bloodwork indicates my immune system is great...
I've spent over a decade in healthcare, and I can tell you that we never had the types of hospitalizations and deaths from "sniffles" that we've seen in the last 18 months. You are totally full of shit.
You didn't have annual flu vaccines?I've spent over a decade in healthcare, and I can tell you that we never had the types of hospitalizations and deaths from "sniffles" that we've seen in the last 18 months. You are totally full of shit.
Funny, because our healthcare system is "overwhelmed" by winter respiratory viruses every single year.
Course we didn't have a reckless policy of trying to jab our way out of it in any previous years. Or 18 months of deliberately suppressing people's immune systems by keeping them away from other people. Along with encouraging them to spend more time stuck indoors sitting on their arses.
You didn't have annual flu vaccines?I've spent over a decade in healthcare, and I can tell you that we never had the types of hospitalizations and deaths from "sniffles" that we've seen in the last 18 months. You are totally full of shit.
Funny, because our healthcare system is "overwhelmed" by winter respiratory viruses every single year.
Course we didn't have a reckless policy of trying to jab our way out of it in any previous years. Or 18 months of deliberately suppressing people's immune systems by keeping them away from other people. Along with encouraging them to spend more time stuck indoors sitting on their arses.
And where is your evidence that your system is overwhelme every single year. Show what you have for the last 10 years.
To be fair he's right in that influenza puts a massive amount of pressure on the NHS in the winter and there are tens of thousands of deaths. Apart from that he's wrong as the flu vaccine is the most effective way of relieving that pressure and saves tens of thousands of lives every year whilst stopping the NHS from being totally overwhelmed.More beds wouldn't hurt.
To be fair he's right in that influenza puts a massive amount of pressure on the NHS in the winter and there are tens of thousands of deaths. Apart from that he's wrong as the flu vaccine is the most effective way of relieving that pressure and saves tens of thousands of lives every year whilst stopping the NHS from being totally overwhelmed.More beds wouldn't hurt.
If it's been so successful, why don't you have enough beds?To be fair he's right in that influenza puts a massive amount of pressure on the NHS in the winter and there are tens of thousands of deaths. Apart from that he's wrong as the flu vaccine is the most effective way of relieving that pressure and saves tens of thousands of lives every year whilst stopping the NHS from being totally overwhelmed.More beds wouldn't hurt.
Ten years of austerity put paid to that.
The other problem is that the NHS has been incredibly successful over the past 70 years. The end product of that success is an aging population that's more vulnerable to stuff like flu meaning you have to invest more into it.
If it's been so successful, why don't you have enough beds?To be fair he's right in that influenza puts a massive amount of pressure on the NHS in the winter and there are tens of thousands of deaths. Apart from that he's wrong as the flu vaccine is the most effective way of relieving that pressure and saves tens of thousands of lives every year whilst stopping the NHS from being totally overwhelmed.More beds wouldn't hurt.
Ten years of austerity put paid to that.
The other problem is that the NHS has been incredibly successful over the past 70 years. The end product of that success is an aging population that's more vulnerable to stuff like flu meaning you have to invest more into it.
You must be using a different definition of "success".If it's been so successful, why don't you have enough beds?To be fair he's right in that influenza puts a massive amount of pressure on the NHS in the winter and there are tens of thousands of deaths. Apart from that he's wrong as the flu vaccine is the most effective way of relieving that pressure and saves tens of thousands of lives every year whilst stopping the NHS from being totally overwhelmed.More beds wouldn't hurt.
Ten years of austerity put paid to that.
The other problem is that the NHS has been incredibly successful over the past 70 years. The end product of that success is an aging population that's more vulnerable to stuff like flu meaning you have to invest more into it.
As I noted the successful outcome is people who are going to get sick again. Also ten years of cuts really doesn't help. The massive drop in our performance in the recent Commonwealth Fund Report is due to the cuts.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly (https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly)
You must be using a different definition of "success".If it's been so successful, why don't you have enough beds?To be fair he's right in that influenza puts a massive amount of pressure on the NHS in the winter and there are tens of thousands of deaths. Apart from that he's wrong as the flu vaccine is the most effective way of relieving that pressure and saves tens of thousands of lives every year whilst stopping the NHS from being totally overwhelmed.More beds wouldn't hurt.
Ten years of austerity put paid to that.
The other problem is that the NHS has been incredibly successful over the past 70 years. The end product of that success is an aging population that's more vulnerable to stuff like flu meaning you have to invest more into it.
As I noted the successful outcome is people who are going to get sick again. Also ten years of cuts really doesn't help. The massive drop in our performance in the recent Commonwealth Fund Report is due to the cuts.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly (https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly)
It's true that coronaviruses have been around forever, and it's also true the Pooh Bear variant wasn't endemic anywhere until late 2019. You're being precise and careful with your wording, Kiero is being sloppy and jumping around a lot.
Ten years of austerity put paid to that.
The other problem is that the NHS has been incredibly successful over the past 70 years. The end product of that success is an aging population that's more vulnerable to stuff like flu meaning you have to invest more into it.
Ten years of austerity put paid to that.
The other problem is that the NHS has been incredibly successful over the past 70 years. The end product of that success is an aging population that's more vulnerable to stuff like flu meaning you have to invest more into it.
Usual public sector-serving line. The only thing the NHS has been "successful" at is employing as many people as possible. 1.4 million at last count, but only 550,000 of them delivering actual primary care.
Such a wonderful system literally no other country on the planet copied our model.
You didn't have annual flu vaccines?I've spent over a decade in healthcare, and I can tell you that we never had the types of hospitalizations and deaths from "sniffles" that we've seen in the last 18 months. You are totally full of shit.
Funny, because our healthcare system is "overwhelmed" by winter respiratory viruses every single year.
Course we didn't have a reckless policy of trying to jab our way out of it in any previous years. Or 18 months of deliberately suppressing people's immune systems by keeping them away from other people. Along with encouraging them to spend more time stuck indoors sitting on their arses.
And where is your evidence that your system is overwhelme every single year. Show what you have for the last 10 years.
To be fair he's right in that influenza puts a massive amount of pressure on the NHS in the winter and there are tens of thousands of deaths. Apart from that he's wrong as the flu vaccine is the most effective way of relieving that pressure and saves tens of thousands of lives every year whilst stopping the NHS from being totally overwhelmed.
Of course Kiero has influenza down as just sniffles as well whilst talking about the tens of thousands of deaths it causes so it's hard to understand what he defines as serious. I mean how many deaths does he want?
Starts with a smidgen of extra capacity.You must be using a different definition of "success".If it's been so successful, why don't you have enough beds?To be fair he's right in that influenza puts a massive amount of pressure on the NHS in the winter and there are tens of thousands of deaths. Apart from that he's wrong as the flu vaccine is the most effective way of relieving that pressure and saves tens of thousands of lives every year whilst stopping the NHS from being totally overwhelmed.More beds wouldn't hurt.
Ten years of austerity put paid to that.
The other problem is that the NHS has been incredibly successful over the past 70 years. The end product of that success is an aging population that's more vulnerable to stuff like flu meaning you have to invest more into it.
As I noted the successful outcome is people who are going to get sick again. Also ten years of cuts really doesn't help. The massive drop in our performance in the recent Commonwealth Fund Report is due to the cuts.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly (https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly)
What's yours?
The US doesn't have capacity problems to anywhere near the same degree.
And I don't believe you've explained it anywhere, in this thread. So you're conceding the argument.
And the Commonwealth Fund makes the fundamental mistake of mostly measuring inputs, not outcomes. You get points if the care you provide is free to the end user, which should be a means to a desired end (say wider health coverage) rather than a measured result. And the outcomes that are measured, like the one with "outcomes" in its name, look at data that isn't uniformly collected across all the countries (thus they're measuring different things), and even more critically, it's looking at absolute numbers rather than relative improvements. The US tends to be pretty fat, which isn't a problem that can be solved by the practice of medicine, so it's unreasonable to say the medical system is a failure because of that. The document even blatantly admits this: "U.S. health outcomes could therefore be improved through actions targeting factors beyond health care." The document is designed to reward the types of healthcare systems the authors decided worked best, before they even looked at the data; rather than a fair analysis of which system worked best, relative to the different conditions. It's propaganda for specific policies, nothing more.
Speaking of weird why are you trying to make it a competition?I'm not. That's entirely your reading. You literally posted a link to a document that compared healthcare systems among different countries, talked about how the UK had slipped in the rankings, and nobody else is allowed to mention other countries?
Speaking of weird why are you trying to make it a competition?I'm not. That's entirely your reading. You literally posted a link to a document that compared healthcare systems among different countries, talked about how the UK had slipped in the rankings, and nobody else is allowed to mention other countries?
Since you're refusing to make an argument and are just engaging the standard internet telepathy/willful misreading/personal attack combo, I guess the discussion is over.
An argument about what? You seem to want to have an argument about how your countries healthcare dick is bigger than mines when I wasn't discussing that.What the fucking hell.
An argument about what? You seem to want to have an argument about how your countries healthcare dick is bigger than mines when I wasn't discussing that.What the fucking hell.
That's entirely your sick fetish. Creep.
An argument about what? You seem to want to have an argument about how your countries healthcare dick is bigger than mines when I wasn't discussing that.What the fucking hell.
That's entirely your sick fetish. Creep.
Okay so you've gone down there. I'm thinking you tried to start some sort of argument but had no recourse when I didn't bite. I remember you trying to portray yourself as the voice of reason in a maelstrom of chaos. That'll be your sick fetish. Creep.
No, you're the only one who went there. I made an argument, you said you were too tired to make one, dismissed rather than addressed my arguments, insulted me, and then started talking about dicks.An argument about what? You seem to want to have an argument about how your countries healthcare dick is bigger than mines when I wasn't discussing that.What the fucking hell.
That's entirely your sick fetish. Creep.
Okay so you've gone down there. I'm thinking you tried to start some sort of argument but had no recourse when I didn't bite. I remember you trying to portray yourself as the voice of reason in a maelstrom of chaos. That'll be your sick fetish. Creep.
I've been given a chance to get the Booster. I am still trying to make the decision. It's only been 8 months since I had the Pfizer series. My healthcare provider doesn't think I need it because my bloodwork indicates my immune system is great...
It might have been before you got jabbed.
No, you're the only one who went there. I made an argument, you said you were too tired to make one, dismissed rather than addressed my arguments, insulted me, and then started talking about dicks.An argument about what? You seem to want to have an argument about how your countries healthcare dick is bigger than mines when I wasn't discussing that.What the fucking hell.
That's entirely your sick fetish. Creep.
Okay so you've gone down there. I'm thinking you tried to start some sort of argument but had no recourse when I didn't bite. I remember you trying to portray yourself as the voice of reason in a maelstrom of chaos. That'll be your sick fetish. Creep.
Creep. Stay away from children.
You've really gone off the deep end haven't you? Did you look at the Commonwealth Fund Report? I was aghast at it because of our drop from the 2017 one but it's still pretty successful. You just seem to be havering the same shite repeatedly.
How you doing on laying out the conspiracy BTW? I noticed you've not explained it yet but I understand it's hard with all the post it notes and bits of string. I'm sure you're about ready to explain it.
Kiero appears to think just overweight people, old people, or people with preexisting conditions die from Covid or the Flu. Which in his book is OK in some manner, and all those people should just separate themselves from society for the rest of their lives or until they change those conditions, I assume because he categorizes them as sinners in some way.
It's, of course, an fucking completely insane world view. Even if it were accurate that's the only people who die, the idea that that's an acceptable result to his view of the world makes him a pretty horrible or crazy person.
You didn't. That's the point.No, you're the only one who went there. I made an argument, you said you were too tired to make one, dismissed rather than addressed my arguments, insulted me, and then started talking about dicks.An argument about what? You seem to want to have an argument about how your countries healthcare dick is bigger than mines when I wasn't discussing that.What the fucking hell.
That's entirely your sick fetish. Creep.
Okay so you've gone down there. I'm thinking you tried to start some sort of argument but had no recourse when I didn't bite. I remember you trying to portray yourself as the voice of reason in a maelstrom of chaos. That'll be your sick fetish. Creep.
Creep. Stay away from children.
What argument did I make?
Sounds exactly like education in the US. All these sob stories about how teachers are underpaid and the terrible cuts to education, while spending has increased massively over the past 40 years.You've really gone off the deep end haven't you? Did you look at the Commonwealth Fund Report? I was aghast at it because of our drop from the 2017 one but it's still pretty successful. You just seem to be havering the same shite repeatedly.
How you doing on laying out the conspiracy BTW? I noticed you've not explained it yet but I understand it's hard with all the post it notes and bits of string. I'm sure you're about ready to explain it.
I'm not the devotee of the cult of the NHS. Bet you were out clapping/kneeling/banging pots and pans when they were doing that shite last year. Spending on the NHS has tripled in the last 30 years, way ahead of inflation. Fuck off with that "Tory cuts" bollocks.
Oh god! Just to think the local teachers used to organize and demand more pay each year… This became so normalized. What happened to finding a new job? Perhaps the roots of our current problems are in a failing educational system. Affordable private schooling should be the new standard for a decent education.Sounds exactly like education in the US. All these sob stories about how teachers are underpaid and the terrible cuts to education, while spending has increased massively over the past 40 years.You've really gone off the deep end haven't you? Did you look at the Commonwealth Fund Report? I was aghast at it because of our drop from the 2017 one but it's still pretty successful. You just seem to be havering the same shite repeatedly.
How you doing on laying out the conspiracy BTW? I noticed you've not explained it yet but I understand it's hard with all the post it notes and bits of string. I'm sure you're about ready to explain it.
I'm not the devotee of the cult of the NHS. Bet you were out clapping/kneeling/banging pots and pans when they were doing that shite last year. Spending on the NHS has tripled in the last 30 years, way ahead of inflation. Fuck off with that "Tory cuts" bollocks.
Kiero appears to think just overweight people, old people, or people with preexisting conditions die from Covid or the Flu. Which in his book is OK in some manner, and all those people should just separate themselves from society for the rest of their lives or until they change those conditions, I assume because he categorizes them as sinners in some way.
It's, of course, an fucking completely insane world view. Even if it were accurate that's the only people who die, the idea that that's an acceptable result to his view of the world makes him a pretty horrible or crazy person.
Perhaps an uncharitable interpretation? I see it more in line with the idea that those that are vulnerable have the onus to take the actions necessary to protect themselves (e.g., sequester, wear a proper mask, get the vaccine and all of the follow-on boosters.). I have a former colleague who's 90+ year-old father in-law did just that. Pretty much never left the house until he got vaccinated.
If you take the position that everyone has to take on the burden of protection for the vulnerable, then it begs the question of why weren't we doing that previously for the flu? Or or are the deaths of 30K to 60K a year "OK in some manner". Taking the point even further, why do "bubble boys" have to live in bubbles? Why should they have to "separate themselves from society for the rest of their lives". And does that mean we are all "a pretty horrible or crazy person" for holding those positions pre-covid?
Stepping back, it looks like ~40K deaths/yr is Ok (and enjoy living in a bubble kiddo), while ~400K deaths/yr is not Ok (and get a mask on that grannie-killing two year-old). Note that I am fine with that, assuming that a proper (and transparent) cost/benefit analyses are done to support the decisions made.
Regards.
You could easily improve the US educational system by firing approximately 75% of the non-instructor bureaucracy.Oh god! Just to think the local teachers used to organize and demand more pay each year… This became so normalized. What happened to finding a new job? Perhaps the roots of our current problems are in a failing educational system. Affordable private schooling should be the new standard for a decent education.Sounds exactly like education in the US. All these sob stories about how teachers are underpaid and the terrible cuts to education, while spending has increased massively over the past 40 years.You've really gone off the deep end haven't you? Did you look at the Commonwealth Fund Report? I was aghast at it because of our drop from the 2017 one but it's still pretty successful. You just seem to be havering the same shite repeatedly.
How you doing on laying out the conspiracy BTW? I noticed you've not explained it yet but I understand it's hard with all the post it notes and bits of string. I'm sure you're about ready to explain it.
I'm not the devotee of the cult of the NHS. Bet you were out clapping/kneeling/banging pots and pans when they were doing that shite last year. Spending on the NHS has tripled in the last 30 years, way ahead of inflation. Fuck off with that "Tory cuts" bollocks.
You didn't. That's the point.No, you're the only one who went there. I made an argument, you said you were too tired to make one, dismissed rather than addressed my arguments, insulted me, and then started talking about dicks.An argument about what? You seem to want to have an argument about how your countries healthcare dick is bigger than mines when I wasn't discussing that.What the fucking hell.
That's entirely your sick fetish. Creep.
Okay so you've gone down there. I'm thinking you tried to start some sort of argument but had no recourse when I didn't bite. I remember you trying to portray yourself as the voice of reason in a maelstrom of chaos. That'll be your sick fetish. Creep.
Creep. Stay away from children.
What argument did I make?
You made a claim, I countered the argument. That's not "weird". That's how discussions work.You didn't. That's the point.No, you're the only one who went there. I made an argument, you said you were too tired to make one, dismissed rather than addressed my arguments, insulted me, and then started talking about dicks.An argument about what? You seem to want to have an argument about how your countries healthcare dick is bigger than mines when I wasn't discussing that.What the fucking hell.
That's entirely your sick fetish. Creep.
Okay so you've gone down there. I'm thinking you tried to start some sort of argument but had no recourse when I didn't bite. I remember you trying to portray yourself as the voice of reason in a maelstrom of chaos. That'll be your sick fetish. Creep.
Creep. Stay away from children.
What argument did I make?
So it's just you arguing with yourself. Weird but off you go.
That wouldn't fix the problem, but it would help. it's amazing how when you increase their budget, they just create more jobs and give the bureaucracy higher salaries, instead of doing things that would help the children, and when nothing improves they just say they need more money.You could easily improve the US educational system by firing approximately 75% of the non-instructor bureaucracy.Oh god! Just to think the local teachers used to organize and demand more pay each year… This became so normalized. What happened to finding a new job? Perhaps the roots of our current problems are in a failing educational system. Affordable private schooling should be the new standard for a decent education.Sounds exactly like education in the US. All these sob stories about how teachers are underpaid and the terrible cuts to education, while spending has increased massively over the past 40 years.You've really gone off the deep end haven't you? Did you look at the Commonwealth Fund Report? I was aghast at it because of our drop from the 2017 one but it's still pretty successful. You just seem to be havering the same shite repeatedly.
How you doing on laying out the conspiracy BTW? I noticed you've not explained it yet but I understand it's hard with all the post it notes and bits of string. I'm sure you're about ready to explain it.
I'm not the devotee of the cult of the NHS. Bet you were out clapping/kneeling/banging pots and pans when they were doing that shite last year. Spending on the NHS has tripled in the last 30 years, way ahead of inflation. Fuck off with that "Tory cuts" bollocks.
That's what sops up the cash.
Then follow up by delegating authority back to teachers and principals, rather than bureaucrats, instead of hobbling them.
You made a claim, I countered the argument. That's not "weird". That's how discussions work.You didn't. That's the point.No, you're the only one who went there. I made an argument, you said you were too tired to make one, dismissed rather than addressed my arguments, insulted me, and then started talking about dicks.An argument about what? You seem to want to have an argument about how your countries healthcare dick is bigger than mines when I wasn't discussing that.What the fucking hell.
That's entirely your sick fetish. Creep.
Okay so you've gone down there. I'm thinking you tried to start some sort of argument but had no recourse when I didn't bite. I remember you trying to portray yourself as the voice of reason in a maelstrom of chaos. That'll be your sick fetish. Creep.
Creep. Stay away from children.
What argument did I make?
So it's just you arguing with yourself. Weird but off you go.
Fucking creep.
Guys! guys!! Good news, the experts predict the virus will be gone by thanksgiving.
An argument about what? You seem to want to have an argument about how your countries healthcare dick is bigger than mines when I wasn't discussing that.What the fucking hell.
That's entirely your sick fetish. Creep.
Okay so you've gone down there. I'm thinking you tried to start some sort of argument but had no recourse when I didn't bite. I remember you trying to portray yourself as the voice of reason in a maelstrom of chaos. That'll be your sick fetish. Creep.
Guys! guys!! Good news, the experts predict the virus will be gone by thanksgiving.
Stop projecting Mistwell, you're the one who's gone crazy. Look at how you're going out of your way to attack me, in random threads like this. And it's always classy siding with a creep.
Look at your post. Seriously, everyone just look at Garry's post. Who's the one being emotional? Yes, Garry. It's you. You acting in a highly emotional way, and trying to project that on me. Like everyone who acts in a highly emotional ways does.Stop projecting Mistwell, you're the one who's gone crazy. Look at how you're going out of your way to attack me, in random threads like this. And it's always classy siding with a creep.
To be fair you tried to start an argument by saying "bed" cos you were pissy because the US healthcare system doesn't do well over a variety of metrics compared to other countries. When I pointed out I was talking about how disappointed I was with the UK's drop in those metrics you continued to be a wound up bairn. When I also put up a link showing that the UK used the same guidelines on ICU beds as the US you leeches your pants and had a proper laldy. Then you just bawled a bit, started calling names and stamped your feet insisting you'd won an argument that I wasn't even having with you.
You lost your own made up argument to somebody who couldn't really be bothered.
I thought you were supposed to be the master of cool analysis that would take people apart, you kept saying so. Och well eh?
Look at your post. Seriously, everyone just look at Garry's post. Who's the one being emotional? Yes, Garry. It's you. You acting in a highly emotional way, and trying to project that on me. Like everyone who acts in a highly emotional ways does.Stop projecting Mistwell, you're the one who's gone crazy. Look at how you're going out of your way to attack me, in random threads like this. And it's always classy siding with a creep.
To be fair you tried to start an argument by saying "bed" cos you were pissy because the US healthcare system doesn't do well over a variety of metrics compared to other countries. When I pointed out I was talking about how disappointed I was with the UK's drop in those metrics you continued to be a wound up bairn. When I also put up a link showing that the UK used the same guidelines on ICU beds as the US you leeches your pants and had a proper laldy. Then you just bawled a bit, started calling names and stamped your feet insisting you'd won an argument that I wasn't even having with you.
You lost your own made up argument to somebody who couldn't really be bothered.
I thought you were supposed to be the master of cool analysis that would take people apart, you kept saying so. Och well eh?
You're also a liar. I never defended the US healthcare system. I've pointed that out a couple times already. In fact, I think the US system is shit. But I also think the NHS is a piece of shit, just in different ways. And when I pointed out a couple of shortcomings, you completely flipped out and started throwing random insults, telling me what I was feeling, and overall acted like a complete crybaby.
Pretty much the same thing that happened with Mistwell, when I pointed how he kept vanishing when anyone pointed out the flaw in proposals about masks/etc., only to pop up later with exact same arguments.
The two of you deserve each other.
Look at your post. Seriously, everyone just look at Garry's post. Who's the one being emotional? Yes, Garry. It's you. You acting in a highly emotional way, and trying to project that on me. Like everyone who acts in a highly emotional ways does.
All I did was post a criticism, and you started talking about dick size. Like a creep.
You acted like a creep. So I called you one.
I'm sure talking about big dicks will go over well next time you try to talk to a child.
I caught your post before the edit. What criticism of the NHS did I overreact to?Hit the quote links, creep.
I caught your post before the edit. What criticism of the NHS did I overreact to?Hit the quote links, creep.
That word makes no sense. Nonsense, really.
Clearly you shouldn't be talking to anyone, but especially children.
You're the one who flipped out, and started accusing me of doing everything you were doing.Clearly you shouldn't be talking to anyone, but especially children.
To be fair I've heard more cogent arguments from bairns than you lately. When did you turn into a complete mental? You were fairly coherent back in the day.
You're the one who flipped out, and started accusing me of doing everything you were doing.Clearly you shouldn't be talking to anyone, but especially children.
To be fair I've heard more cogent arguments from bairns than you lately. When did you turn into a complete mental? You were fairly coherent back in the day.
Clearly you shouldn't be talking to anyone, but especially children.
To be fair I've heard more cogent arguments from bairns than you lately. When did you turn into a complete mental? You were fairly coherent back in the day.
You shared a document comparing the NHS to other countries, I criticized its methodology, and compared the NHS unfavorably to another country in a few areas. In response to my criticism of your country's healthcare system, you completely flipped out, while accusing me of flipping out and being upset about criticism of my own country's health care system. Which is ridiculous, because I think it's a badly failed system and there was nothing histrionic in any of my posts. I've posted endlessly about the crap of the third party payer system, the price controls of Medicare and more. (The NHS still sucks.) Since you were completely irrational, there was no point in talking to you any more. So I just pointed out how creepy you were being with that whole thing about healthcare dick sizes. Creep.
If by flipped out you mean I was confused by why you were trying to have an argument. Are you having a lot of stress at work or something?Why don't you deal with your own issues, instead of projecting them on others?
I’ll miss wearing a mask, said no one ever.
Maybe Pat has long-haul Covid.We know Kiero the Lying Bitch has some lingering brain damage.
Wow so Covid-19 been around much longer than we thought.Maybe Pat has long-haul Covid.We know Kiero the Lying Bitch has some lingering brain damage.
We know Kiero the Lying Bitch has some lingering brain damage.
Wow so Covid-19 been around much longer than we thought.
Wow so Covid-19 been around much longer than we thought.Maybe Pat has long-haul Covid.We know Kiero the Lying Bitch has some lingering brain damage.
We know Kiero the Lying Bitch has some lingering brain damage.
Nope, I do nothing differently to the way I lived in 2019. I'm not engaging with the mass delusion that a trivial virus merits a complete change of the way we should operate.Wow so Covid-19 been around much longer than we thought.
It's a minor spin on SARS-COV-1 from 2003, so of course.
Effectiveness vs some viruses is not the same as effectiveness vs all viruses. Covid has been found to transmit with larger particles than the flu for instance. And, those studies were testing receiving particles by the wearer, not spreading them.I remember the last time we talked about this! It only a week or so ago, wasn't it? I challenged your meritless claims, like I've done endless times before. And you tried to duck out, just like you've done every other time. But when I pointed out you keep bringing up this claim but then vanish when challenged, you started by claiming you'd already covered it (you hadn't), then moved to trying to claim you'd already covered but I argued dishonestly (nope), and then you started calling me names, and began stalking me in other threads to call me names there as well.
But those two points have repeatedly been discussed in this very thread over and over again for nearly 2 years now but you guys willfully pretend you never heard any such thing and just keep repeating the same refuted point about those old studies about non-covid and about the wearers risk of receiving the virus rather than spreading it.
Almost like you're being intentionally dishonest at this point.
Effectiveness vs some viruses is not the same as effectiveness vs all viruses. Covid has been found to transmit with larger particles than the flu for instance. And, those studies were testing receiving particles by the wearer, not spreading them.
But those two points have repeatedly been discussed in this very thread over and over again for nearly 2 years now but you guys willfully pretend you never heard any such thing and just keep repeating the same refuted point about those old studies about non-covid and about the wearers risk of receiving the virus rather than spreading it.
Almost like you're being intentionally dishonest at this point.
Effectiveness vs some viruses is not the same as effectiveness vs all viruses. Covid has been found to transmit with larger particles than the flu for instance. And, those studies were testing receiving particles by the wearer, not spreading them.I remember the last time we talked about this! It only a week or so ago, wasn't it? I challenged your meritless claims, like I've done endless times before. And you tried to duck out, just like you've done every other time. But when I pointed out you keep bringing up this claim but then vanish when challenged, you started by claiming you'd already covered it (you hadn't), then moved to trying to claim you'd already covered but I argued dishonestly (nope), and then you started calling me names, and began stalking me in other threads to call me names there as well.
But those two points have repeatedly been discussed in this very thread over and over again for nearly 2 years now but you guys willfully pretend you never heard any such thing and just keep repeating the same refuted point about those old studies about non-covid and about the wearers risk of receiving the virus rather than spreading it.
Almost like you're being intentionally dishonest at this point.
The evidence suggests masks don't work. The only solid, large, randomized, peer-reviewed study on the efficacy of cloth masks in preventing covid-19 when worn by the general public (DANMASK), shows no statistical evidence that masks work. There are a number of much smaller and weaker studies that show mild evidence in favor (or no evidence), but they're very low on the tiers of evidence based medicine. There were a bunch of studies before covid-19 appeared that tried to measure the effectiveness of masks, but they mostly covered N95 masks or in a few cases surgical masks, and were exclusively conducted in clinical environments, so they provided no information at all on their effectiveness when worn by the general public during a respiratory disease pandemic. The last study worth noting is the Bangladesh study, which is a randomized trial, and one that's larger than the DANMASK study, and did conclude that masks helped. But when you linked it, a couple of us went through and noted a number of major methodological problems that call the study's conclusions into question, not to mention that the study itself doesn't even measure the effectiveness of masks. It only measures the effectiveness of campaigns promoting mask wearing, so the effects could be the result of other things, like more hand washing or social distancing, caused by a heightened awareness of the pandemic.
So yes, we've covered this again and again. But no, you've never supported your position.
The assumption at the start of the pandemic was that covid-19 was primarily spread via large droplets. That's what led to the mask mandates, cleaning of common surfaces, hand washing, and so on. But it was always nonsense, and a minority of scientists and physicians were pointing that out from the start.Effectiveness vs some viruses is not the same as effectiveness vs all viruses. Covid has been found to transmit with larger particles than the flu for instance. And, those studies were testing receiving particles by the wearer, not spreading them.
But those two points have repeatedly been discussed in this very thread over and over again for nearly 2 years now but you guys willfully pretend you never heard any such thing and just keep repeating the same refuted point about those old studies about non-covid and about the wearers risk of receiving the virus rather than spreading it.
Almost like you're being intentionally dishonest at this point.
My understanding was that, like influenza, covid was known to spread via "droplets" (i.e., aerosol particles that plate out rapidly due to gravitational settling). It was spread via "aerosols" (i.e., aerosol particles that plate out slowly due to gravitational settling) that was new. Moreover, according to the WHO, "COVID-19 and influenza and covid spread in similar ways.":
"COVID-19 and influenza spread in similar ways. Both COVID-19 and influenza are spread by droplets and aerosols when an infected person coughs, sneezes, speaks, sings or breathes. The droplets and aerosols can land in the eyes, nose or mouth of people who are nearby -- typically within 1 metre of the infected person, but sometimes even further away. People can also get infected with both COVID-19 and influenza by touching contaminated surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth without cleaning their hands."
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-similarities-and-differences-with-influenza
But they completely ignored this, and doubled down on their existing recommendations. Even when they finally officially recognized the highly aerosolized nature of the disease (the CDC didn't do this until April 2021), they still didn't change their recommendations.I was right last year when I said masks don't work.
A rag on your face is nothing more than a virtue signal. Signalling your bovine compliance with an edict that makes no sense.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/15/world/italy-green-pass-covid-protests-intl/index.html
Even CNN is covering the protests as Italy tries to beat out Australia as the world's most repressive regime. Though, of course, it's the people protesting that they're being stripped of their basic rights who are being called fascists, not the government imposing the fascistic dictates:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/19/how-a-covid-pass-protest-sparked-a-debate-in-italy-on-its-fascist-past
Sure, blame those other countries.https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/15/world/italy-green-pass-covid-protests-intl/index.html
Even CNN is covering the protests as Italy tries to beat out Australia as the world's most repressive regime. Though, of course, it's the people protesting that they're being stripped of their basic rights who are being called fascists, not the government imposing the fascistic dictates:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/19/how-a-covid-pass-protest-sparked-a-debate-in-italy-on-its-fascist-past
That could be a really good competition.
On the one hand you have the originators, the OP if you will, of Fascism and on the other hand you have an entire country populated by criminals and police.
Sure, blame those other countries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENEUktOrQV8
"Dismiss anything else. We will continue to be your single source of truth."
-Big Brother, in George Orwell's 1984Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand
That was even what St. Fauci was saying in his correspondence and on TV circa March 2020. Then magically masks became effective -- because SCIENCE!(tm).
Dr. Michael Osterholm, University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy Director and Top Covid-19 adviser to Biden said on TV that cloth or paper masks don't work to stop the spread of the Covid-19 virus.
“get rid of the term masking” because it “implies anything you put in front of your face works.”
He then went on to say:
“And if I could just add a nuance to that, which hopefully doesn’t add more confusion, we know today that many of the face cloth coverings people wear are not very effective in reducing any of the virus movement in or out,” Osterholm added. “Either you’re breathing out or you’re breathing in.”
Dr. Flip Flopper Fauci wrote in a February 5, 2020 email:
"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you. I do not recommend you wear a mask”