This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Here's your Mask Protocol  (Read 71589 times)

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #210 on: April 28, 2021, 05:01:53 PM »
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).

It seemed like you were interested in what the odds were, since you talked about crunching the numbers. Yes, there is risk of death from many sources - but some things are far more dangerous than others. Personally, I try to be guided by information. In my life, I'm not worried about space junk or mass shootings for myself - but I do watch what I eat and exercise, because for my life, heart disease is the most likely killer along with cancer. And covid-19 would be even more risky if I caught it.

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.

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.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #211 on: April 28, 2021, 05:27:07 PM »
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.

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.
World population, 1918: About 1.8 billion.
World population, 2020: About 7.8 billion.

You're right, it's deceptive. Just the opposite direction from the one you're implying. If you want to compare the Spanish flu deaths to current numbers, then that 3 million should be multiplied by 1.8/7.8. So it's 17 to 100 million vs. a proportional 700,000. That's approximately 2 orders of magnitude difference.

And how exactly would you propose the people of 1918 treat the Spanish flu, gene therapy?

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #212 on: April 28, 2021, 06:04:18 PM »
And how exactly would you propose the people of 1918 treat the Spanish flu, gene therapy?

Pat they should have used masks which have been proven by science to stop viral infections from spreading.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #213 on: April 28, 2021, 09:11:23 PM »
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).

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?

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.

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #214 on: April 28, 2021, 09:15:16 PM »
Quote from: jhkim
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.

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 issued again yesterday a 94% success rate for the vaccine, including preventing asymptotic carriers.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2021, 09:18:06 PM by Mistwell »

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #215 on: April 28, 2021, 09:16:46 PM »
Quote from: jhkim
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.

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.

They are saying it works but be cautious anyway, probably because they don't want to provide cover to those who are not vaccinated to blend in with those who are in nor wearing masks.  But here you go, and yes it's effective:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/28/health/covid-19-vaccines-reduce-hospitalization-cdc-study/index.html?fbclid=IwAR1sU8K_jE08VD6dURk-6Ye0oYNBnJFsHZTn_JKbvV0Ix0Tar6CmpcxFT9w
« Last Edit: April 28, 2021, 09:18:34 PM by Mistwell »

moonsweeper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 944
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #216 on: April 28, 2021, 09:42:54 PM »
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).

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?

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.
"I have a very hard time taking seriously someone who has the time and resources to protest capitalism, while walking around in Nike shoes and drinking Starbucks, while filming it on their iPhone."  --  Alderaan Crumbs

"Just, can you make it The Ramones at least? I only listen to Abba when I want to fuck a stripper." -- Jeff37923

"Government is the only entity that relies on its failures to justify the expansion of its powers." -- David Freiheit (Viva Frei)

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #217 on: April 28, 2021, 10:09:30 PM »
...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.

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #218 on: April 28, 2021, 10:34:13 PM »
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).

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?

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.

moonsweeper

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 944
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #219 on: April 28, 2021, 10:55:43 PM »
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).

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?

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.

Uh nooo....

I pointed out why the Pfizer and Moderna specifically cannot be vaccines...

in the case of J&J, the biochemical part functions like a vaccine (as in it actually stimulates a response by the immune system) but it in fact probably does not fit the specific definition and I would welcome an actual citing that it fits the legal definition and would therefore have civil suit immunity due to the original 80s law.

"I have a very hard time taking seriously someone who has the time and resources to protest capitalism, while walking around in Nike shoes and drinking Starbucks, while filming it on their iPhone."  --  Alderaan Crumbs

"Just, can you make it The Ramones at least? I only listen to Abba when I want to fuck a stripper." -- Jeff37923

"Government is the only entity that relies on its failures to justify the expansion of its powers." -- David Freiheit (Viva Frei)

KingCheops

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 1272
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #220 on: April 29, 2021, 10:59:04 AM »
...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.

Thank you for more eloquently saying my opinions.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #221 on: April 29, 2021, 03:34:26 PM »
...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?

Eirikrautha, my intent was to use the term "deadly" based on the 3 million deaths that it has caused in a year - which distinguishes it from infections that are highly contagious but far less deadly, such as the common cold or HPV. I agree that the covid-19 infection fatality rate is less than 1%, and I did not mean to imply otherwise. I'm sorry if it came across that way.


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.

Again, I did not mean to imply that it was not your choice regarding vaccines. I agree that your body is your choice. I favor choosing to take this and other recommended vaccines, and I'd hope to continue to discuss it.

Zelen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 861
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #222 on: May 01, 2021, 01:46:39 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2021, 01:51:51 AM by Zelen »

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #223 on: May 01, 2021, 08:42:05 AM »
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.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #224 on: May 01, 2021, 06:38:43 PM »
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'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've seen a few different issues in PCR testing come up in a few different countries/agencies -- which can result in either undercounting or overcounting. The main problem I see is the problem of consistency, in that these sort of 10-20% differences can mean skewed comparisons between different regions. But there are a lot of larger unexplained differences between different countries regardless of those sort of counting issues, so it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

I think there has been a ton of political pressure in different directions on scientific sources in the face of the pandemic, which is unsurprising given the suddenness and the huge effects. There has been scandal - notably the fake data from Surgisphere. Science has never been immune to politics. However, I also think most of the attacks on the science are from sources that are much less reliable than the science itself.

To Zelen -- I absolutely don't think that violence against people not wearing masks. I am also opposed to violence against businesses or employees for requiring masks. I don't know where you are that you're seeing people tased over mask wearing, but obviously that's unacceptable.