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.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.
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 34626 times)

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9483
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #585 on: July 26, 2021, 01:23:02 PM »
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.

Surgisphere was deliberately falsified data, but it was proven as fake and papers based on that data were withdrawn.

Scientific research has *always* had periodic attempts at falsified data - since back to Gregor Mendel. That it was caught and withdrawn is showing the system working. There have been hundreds of these over the decades, in all fields. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents

This is why independent reproducibility is so important.

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4125
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #586 on: July 26, 2021, 01:30:43 PM »
Much of the
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:

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.

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6882
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #587 on: July 26, 2021, 02:18:33 PM »
Much of the
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:

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.

We've seen people jog with masks, or driving alone with a mask. I'm not even going to knock that, because good mask protocol is to put it on, and then not touch your friggin face until you take it off again. These people may be going somewhere indoors with people like a coffee shop or whatnot.
But then we have the crazy partial masking, or having a mask slipped down off their nose or just around their neck.

Personally, my mask wearing is performative. I keep a few cloth masks in my car and put them on when I go into a place that requires masks for the unvaccinated. If that's their policy, and considering the context of the pandemic, I'm willing to do that. But I do not wear the mask to protect myself or others. I was at my local gaming pub, and took my mask off to eat or drink. Pretty much making the masking uneffective at protecting anybody if I were infected.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2317
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #588 on: July 26, 2021, 02:19:56 PM »
Much of the
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:

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.

   Point being masks are worthless for the most part, so if you have real concerns, especially about catching the virus, go to the store and buy a respirator.  Problem solved, then will not matter if the horrible people who are walking around infected have a mask on or not.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #589 on: July 26, 2021, 05:09:19 PM »
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.

Ghostmaker you know that evidence of corruption is not evidence of systemic corruption.
There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Zelen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 402
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #590 on: July 26, 2021, 09:41:13 PM »
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...

I think this is highly overstating the effectiveness of masks. Simply put, there's some recent studies that purport to demonstrate that masks work, but also a century of practice & studies that don't demonstrate any clear positive effect when dealing with airborne pathogens. We can and should study the topic in much more detail to explore the topic further, but what you're stating is simply not well-evidenced particularly given the current hostile & non-scientific climate around research of this nature (e.g. Publish results that show masks work? Great. Publish results that show masks don't work? Get blacklisted.)

In the meantime, we've effectively had a global trial on masks & social distancing as a public health policy measure over the past year. If there's a benefit to mask mandates, it is so minute that it's lost in much more powerful factors like seasonality, pre-existing immunity in populations. Comparing state-to-state data, there's no demonstrable correlation between imposition of mask mandates to case numbers / death numbers, nor is there a demonstrable correlation across countries in Europe. The whole thing is literally politicians grasping at something, anything to look like they can take meaningful action.


Some good news, natural immunity shows clear and long lasting protection. (Another study compares immune response between natural immune response and vax. Results demonstrate natural immunity has broader range of response and greater efficacy.)

Some bad news, new severe cases are on the rise in Israel.

Quote from: The Jerusalem Post
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%.

The real question is if The Powers That Lie are going to succeed in blaming the drop in efficacy of the vaccines on unvaccinated people.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2021, 09:43:19 PM by Zelen »

Kiero

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 2426
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #591 on: July 27, 2021, 10:25:15 AM »
"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.
Currently running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia in 300BC.

Our podcast site, In Sanity We Trust Productions.

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2317
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #592 on: July 27, 2021, 12:18:58 PM »
"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. 

Kiero

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 2426
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #593 on: July 27, 2021, 12:43:17 PM »
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.

By all means, comrade! How dare I take responsibility for my own health and make good life choices!
« Last Edit: July 27, 2021, 01:11:05 PM by Kiero »
Currently running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia in 300BC.

Our podcast site, In Sanity We Trust Productions.

rawma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1798
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #594 on: July 27, 2021, 11:50:57 PM »
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
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.

I don't see where the article says that the CDC can't be trusted. It observes that if they rename a flu pandemic for a single year (the 1968 flu), then they shouldn't give multi-year totals. It describes the source for the CDC number, which seems a respectable enough paper by an epidemiologist (albeit with multi-year totals). The article looks at later work and concludes that the number of deaths were much less for the 1968 pandemic compared to the current pandemic.

But since Pat now finds the CDC authoritative, since they are the sole source of data in his antivaxxer website (but with context and disclaimers scrubbed from it), let's observe that the CDC numbers indicate the 1968 pandemic, over however many years, killed fewer in the US and the world (adjusted for population increase) than the current pandemic so far. 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:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-11/covid-19-was-far-deadlier-than-the-1957-and-1968-flu-pandemics

(I expect that many countries are vastly underreporting; India seems very bad right now. But I'm not sure I believe that the US has underreported by so much, no matter how badly the last administration wanted to pretend. I hope that with 50 years of medical advances we would do better, even if the US has done significantly worse in this pandemic.)

If I said no more, Pat would squeal "I never said the CDC was authoritative!"; it's a typical Pat dodge which should be ignored. 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.

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?

Reporting is much higher in VAERS for the COVID vaccine than for previous vaccines. I don't know if this is the political aspect, or that the CDC is pushing VAERS harder, or something else. I've had at least 5 different vaccinations in the past few decades and this is the first that actually gave me any information about VAERS, and it also touted a new smartphone app (vsafe.cdc.gov) which promises "you can quickly tell CDC if you have any side effects after getting a COVID-19 vaccine" - it seems unlikely that such reports would not end up in VAERS. For that matter, I've spent way more time looking at CDC information in the past year plus than I ever would have expected, and lots of pages about vaccines point at VAERS. For the political end, I would have expected a similar pattern for the HPV vaccine, with an extra helping of prudishness, but it doesn't seem to show up in VAERS.

So touting your antivaxxer site's reference that estimated 1% reporting in 2007-2010 when there is clearly greater reporting now invites people to think you're a nutty conspiracy theorist. Do you think there are any patterns of deaths, like the J&J vaccine thrombosis or the mRNA myocarditis/pericarditis risk, with more deaths that could be discovered in the VAERS data if only there were more? VAERS is credited with discovering issues with various previous vaccines in the face of massive underreporting; why wouldn't it work again, if there were other issues?

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.

(I discovered why there are differing numbers given for deaths in VAERS; if I'm asked nicely, I might explain it.)

rawma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1798
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #595 on: July 28, 2021, 12:15:14 AM »
"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 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:
Quote
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

So many people rejecting proven vaccines this year were clamoring last year for hydroxychloroquine with only a little anecdotal evidence. SMH.

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 4068
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #596 on: July 28, 2021, 01:25:03 AM »
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
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.

I don't see where the article says that the CDC can't be trusted.
The article is saying the CDC's numbers are wrong. It's not some obscure aside, it's the main thrust of the article.

There's literally no way any reasonable person could interpret it any other way. Rawma, you're lying again.

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?

Oh, I didn't. I just pointed out you were being inconsistent about using them as a source. I made no assertion about their authoritativeness, one way or the other. Rawma is lying again.

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.

In contrast, you're only considering the lowest number in the range, and even though it's from a source you consider to be an authority on pandemics and other diseases, you're rejecting their number as too high, and instead relying on an article in a financial newspaper. In other words, your biasing the data in your favor as much as possible, and when that doesn't work, you're rejecting even your own sources and relying instead on an outlier with no expertise in the subject.

And none of that is even relevant, because even if we use the lowest bound for the 1967 flu (i.e. 1 million), don't adjust it up for the increase in the world's population, and assume the covid-19 death total will double (in other words, favoring your position to the maximum amount possible), covid-19 will only end up being roughly four times as deadly as the 1967 flu.

Which perfectly supports my position, because all I was doing was making a distinction between the worst pandemic of the 20th century, and the 2nd tier. Even with everything biased massively in your favor, covid-19 still groups with the 1967 flu, not the 1918 flu. Which killed 20-50 million, and thus is a factor of 10 to 100 more deadly than covid-19 (the latter number is adjusted for population growth).

In other words, you lied about literally everything I said. Again. That's why it's worthless talking to you. There's no way to have a conversation with someone who lies about everything I say.

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.

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?
Here is your lie that I disputed: "Pat incorrectly blames everything reported in the system on the vaccine".

Again, where did I say that? Because nothing you just quoted supports your lie.

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.

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #597 on: July 28, 2021, 08:10:26 AM »
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.

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 4068
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #598 on: July 28, 2021, 01:46:38 PM »
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.

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #599 on: July 28, 2021, 02:32:03 PM »
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.
Fair enough. But then, I always assume Rawma is wrong anyways :)