/**/

Collapse

Announcement

No announcement yet.
Collapse

The Panic over the CoronaVirus [ Covid -19] is both Ridiculous and Unjustifed

X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • All those guys who said it would get worse before it would get better were right. I just scrolled through 5 pages of posts and only stopped to read about 4 of them.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MapleMania View Post

      You're grasping at straws, pudubny. Do you want to take the focus this far on good research needing time? None of that is accurate. I never defended Naomi Wolf. Wow. Never misunderstood Ben Cowling. His retraction or explanation later doesn't mean I misinterpreted. Why would he need to clarify in the first place? I took it in proper context. You can't see that though. Looking so hard for your gotcha moment. . I saw the video of Fauci and posted it here. Revisionist history for you to frame it any other way. CNBC showed what? Filtered it and spun it for you so you could dismiss the truth? I didn't and don't need ANYONE to explain to me what happened in those emails. I read them and understood them all by myself. Try it sometime.

      There are zero gotcha moments. Is this really about you not wanting to talk about time being needed for good research?
      You seem pretty sour that you got put in your place.

      I’m going to find you a nice forum where your “view” on things can be appreciated by like minded individuals.
      Ping G410 Plus 10.5*
      Ping G410 3W 16*(17*)
      Ping G400 7W 20.5* or 3H 19*
      Ping G400 4H - 22*
      Ping G400 5 - UW
      Ping Glide 3.0 54/14 WS
      Ping Glide 3.0 58/10 SS
      Gamer: Odyssey Tri-Hot 5K One (Evnroll gravity grip)
      Back up: SeeMore DB4 Nashville (303 milled)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by SeanAvery2point0 View Post

        The guy has been used as a punching bag, and obsessive posts were made when he took a few days off.
        Not as many as when he wasn't on vacation...
        What's in the Sunmountain 4.5?

        10.5 M2 with Speeder 77 Stiff 3 wood shaft
        TM Rescue 17*
        TM M2 4-AW
        TM RAC 52/56 CG15 60
        Odyssey 2 Ball with Superstroke Fatso

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ace in the hazard View Post

          Not as many as when he wasn't on vacation...
          Still baffles me with his copious volume of posts on this.
          I think it signals some type of obsessive personality.
          Pretty common for the conspiracy theory crowd.

          Hope he doesn’t find out the election was stolen.
          Ping G410 Plus 10.5*
          Ping G410 3W 16*(17*)
          Ping G400 7W 20.5* or 3H 19*
          Ping G400 4H - 22*
          Ping G400 5 - UW
          Ping Glide 3.0 54/14 WS
          Ping Glide 3.0 58/10 SS
          Gamer: Odyssey Tri-Hot 5K One (Evnroll gravity grip)
          Back up: SeeMore DB4 Nashville (303 milled)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Marty Canuck View Post
            All those guys who said it would get worse before it would get better were right. I just scrolled through 5 pages of posts and only stopped to read about 4 of them.
            Thats his MO unfortunately.
            Ping G410 Plus 10.5*
            Ping G410 3W 16*(17*)
            Ping G400 7W 20.5* or 3H 19*
            Ping G400 4H - 22*
            Ping G400 5 - UW
            Ping Glide 3.0 54/14 WS
            Ping Glide 3.0 58/10 SS
            Gamer: Odyssey Tri-Hot 5K One (Evnroll gravity grip)
            Back up: SeeMore DB4 Nashville (303 milled)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Pingeye2_fan View Post

              Still baffles me with his copious volume of posts on this.
              I think it signals some type of obsessive personality.
              Pretty common for the conspiracy theory crowd.

              Hope he doesn’t find out the election was stolen.
              And your volume of posts? Says what?

              Comment


              • I enjoyed this thread. What is more likely? Nature copied man-made, or man-made copied nature and tried hiding it. Lab-leak has so much circumstantial evidence behind it. Remember, China state-run media was speaking to readying for nuclear war even for the suggestion of being investigated independently. There is incredible pressure not to ever prove lab-leak because then intentional enters the conversation and if intentional, war enters the conversation. Nobody wants nuclear war. Way too much incentive to pretend it was zoonosis, not Shi Zhengli.

                These people on the fence have to know what the deal really is but just don't want to say it. There's too much riding for it to be spoken.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by AdiosAmigo View Post

                  And your volume of posts? Says what?
                  What ever you want it to.
                  Ping G410 Plus 10.5*
                  Ping G410 3W 16*(17*)
                  Ping G400 7W 20.5* or 3H 19*
                  Ping G400 4H - 22*
                  Ping G400 5 - UW
                  Ping Glide 3.0 54/14 WS
                  Ping Glide 3.0 58/10 SS
                  Gamer: Odyssey Tri-Hot 5K One (Evnroll gravity grip)
                  Back up: SeeMore DB4 Nashville (303 milled)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MapleMania View Post

                    You're grasping at straws, pudubny. Do you want to take the focus this far on good research needing time? None of that is accurate. I never defended Naomi Wolf. Wow. Never misunderstood Ben Cowling. His retraction or explanation later doesn't mean I misinterpreted. Why would he need to clarify in the first place? I took it in proper context. You can't see that though. Looking so hard for your gotcha moment. . I saw the video of Fauci and posted it here. Revisionist history for you to frame it any other way. CNBC showed what? Filtered it and spun it for you so you could dismiss the truth? I didn't and don't need ANYONE to explain to me what happened in those emails. I read them and understood them all by myself. Try it sometime.

                    There are zero gotcha moments. Is this really about you not wanting to talk about time being needed for good research?
                    Cowling didn't retract, you used a specific comment and misapplied it. Since at least 2019 Cowling has been an advocate of mask wearing to prevent the spread of pandemics. To you his "retraction" is conspirial. You sincerely believe Fauci would predict a pandemic because he wanted one or because as history has taught us, they happen and a major one was overdue. Also since outbreaks of Zika, Ebola, SARS and h1n1 have taught us they are becoming too common.
                    YOU said on June 3,
                    "The email I shared showed that he was minimizing the threat of the virus to a woman who was concerned about it. Told her it overwhelmingly affected the elderly and people with specific comorbidities. That was NEVER the messaging at anytime during this"
                    That's not true, the email you cited was from late Feb. In March Fauci was still saying the same thing as reported by CNBC and others. Example here:

                    So his message was the same in public as it was in the email. Full stop.
                    Fact check sites have discussed Cowling and masks. Here is a quote I linked for you.
                    "Swann released a follow-up video about a week after the original and relied heavily on this paper, claiming that it “proves that face masks do not prevent the spread of a virus.”
                    But one of the researchers who worked on the paper, Benjamin Cowling, told us by email, “It is WRONG to say that our review said there was no effectiveness of face masks. We could only rule out very large effects.”
                    Cowling, an epidemiologist at the University of Hong Kong, explained that, “while we said there was not a significant effect, we could not exclude the possibility that masks reduce transmission by 10% or 20%. Those would be useful effect sizes.”
                    He also noted on Twitter that he and his colleagues worked with the World Health Organization in 2019 to come up with guidelines for mitigating pandemic influenza. Those guidelines recommend wearing a mask in “severe epidemics or pandemics.”

                    Now I suspect your source material on Cowling comes from Swann or a "reputable" website using his video as fodder. Cowling has recommended masks for pandemics since at least 2019. Thanks.
                    Oh, you also mentioned the Danish study. It's flawed as Nassim Taleb and others have pointed out because they didn't factor those who caught Covid at home..that is while not wearing a mask. Here is a link where Talib discusses the flaws to the study and how it missed a major gap on the issue. But that study has been trotted out by every anti-masker, and you.
                    ​​​​​​https://www.google.com/amp/s/fooledb...ask-study/amp/
                    Now here is Talib's discussion on anti-maskers and to be fair, he isn't always nice to you lot. But you like independent thinkers and as the author of Black Swan, he is that. Of course he is also a brilliant mathematician so good luck arguing his probabilities.


                    ​​​​Where I agree with Talib is that the libertarian group think mask wearing is some overwhelming burden that somehow infringes on their independence or freedom. First world problems, oh the humanity!!!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by pudubny View Post

                      Cowling didn't retract, you used a specific comment and misapplied it. Since at least 2019 Cowling has been an advocate of mask wearing to prevent the spread of pandemics. To you his "retraction" is conspirial. You sincerely believe Fauci would predict a pandemic because he wanted one or because as history has taught us, they happen and a major one was overdue. Also since outbreaks of Zika, Ebola, SARS and h1n1 have taught us they are becoming too common.
                      YOU said on June 3,
                      "The email I shared showed that he was minimizing the threat of the virus to a woman who was concerned about it. Told her it overwhelmingly affected the elderly and people with specific comorbidities. That was NEVER the messaging at anytime during this"
                      That's not true, the email you cited was from late Feb. In March Fauci was still saying the same thing as reported by CNBC and others. Example here:

                      So his message was the same in public as it was in the email. Full stop.
                      Fact check sites have discussed Cowling and masks. Here is a quote I linked for you.
                      "Swann released a follow-up video about a week after the original and relied heavily on this paper, claiming that it “proves that face masks do not prevent the spread of a virus.”
                      But one of the researchers who worked on the paper, Benjamin Cowling, told us by email, “It is WRONG to say that our review said there was no effectiveness of face masks. We could only rule out very large effects.”
                      Cowling, an epidemiologist at the University of Hong Kong, explained that, “while we said there was not a significant effect, we could not exclude the possibility that masks reduce transmission by 10% or 20%. Those would be useful effect sizes.”
                      He also noted on Twitter that he and his colleagues worked with the World Health Organization in 2019 to come up with guidelines for mitigating pandemic influenza. Those guidelines recommend wearing a mask in “severe epidemics or pandemics.”

                      Now I suspect your source material on Cowling comes from Swann or a "reputable" website using his video as fodder. Cowling has recommended masks for pandemics since at least 2019. Thanks.
                      Oh, you also mentioned the Danish study. It's flawed as Nassim Taleb and others have pointed out because they didn't factor those who caught Covid at home..that is while not wearing a mask. Here is a link where Talib discusses the flaws to the study and how it missed a major gap on the issue. But that study has been trotted out by every anti-masker, and you.
                      ​​​​​​https://www.google.com/amp/s/fooledb...ask-study/amp/
                      Now here is Talib's discussion on anti-maskers and to be fair, he isn't always nice to you lot. But you like independent thinkers and as the author of Black Swan, he is that. Of course he is also a brilliant mathematician so good luck arguing his probabilities.


                      ​​​​Where I agree with Talib is that the libertarian group think mask wearing is some overwhelming burden that somehow infringes on their independence or freedom. First world problems, oh the humanity!!!
                      I posted the Cowling comment here. There is no out of context. You told me he didn't mean it. I have no idea if he meant it. I only know what I quoted and what I quoted was accurate as was my interpretaion of his quote.

                      Anything but talking about it takes time to do good research, eh?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MapleMania View Post

                        I posted the Cowling comment here. There is no out of context. You told me he didn't mean it. I have no idea if he meant it. I only know what I quoted and what I quoted was accurate as was my interpretaion of his quote.

                        Anything but talking about it takes time to do good research, eh?
                        I just posted a quote BY COWLING saying it is "wrong to say our review showed no effectiveness for masks". You respond by saying that your interpretation is correct.
                        YOU provided the isolated quote, please cite the paper where it's from, that will provide context that you say you understand better than Cowling who recommended masks in 2019 (that's pre-covid).
                        PS. Did you read Talib?
                        Research takes time but how is that measured?. Various ways. When you look at a standard vaccine or medicine it's usually developed over a longer period of time. But the hours put in are standard, that is 9-5pm days, 5 days a week is the pharmaceutical standard. We know that considerable effort and time was put into developing these vaccines. Huge amounts of human inputs were funded to do the process quicker. To be fair, that doesn't really work with testing. Although few long term effects are examined for any vaccine, it's generally looked at over 2-3 years initially. But extrapolations can be used to assume future risk. Sometimes wrong but often right. While we can debate the overall effectiveness of the vaccine to a point, future safety is a potential concern. But...you have long since concluded it is NOT safe. Is their any evidence for that? We know some deaths have been attributed to vaccines, but compared to lives it has saved? What's the ratio? Difficult to easily determine but I suspect it's over 1000/1. Is that a good trade? Are seat belts that good? Saving as many lives as injuries they make worse? Not sure. But I doubt Covid vaccines have the risks you actually believe they do. Again conjecture is not evidence, suspicion is not evidence. Certainly created quickly and not as effective as we would like but that's different than saying they are not effective and dangerous with certainty. You have moved passed assumption and declared them dangerous, no evidence of that.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by pudubny View Post

                          I just posted a quote BY COWLING saying it is "wrong to say our review showed no effectiveness for masks". You respond by saying that your interpretation is correct.
                          YOU provided the isolated quote, please cite the paper where it's from, that will provide context that you say you understand better than Cowling who recommended masks in 2019 (that's pre-covid).
                          PS. Did you read Talib?
                          Research takes time but how is that measured?. Various ways. When you look at a standard vaccine or medicine it's usually developed over a longer period of time. But the hours put in are standard, that is 9-5pm days, 5 days a week is the pharmaceutical standard. We know that considerable effort and time was put into developing these vaccines. Huge amounts of human inputs were funded to do the process quicker. To be fair, that doesn't really work with testing. Although few long term effects are examined for any vaccine, it's generally looked at over 2-3 years initially. But extrapolations can be used to assume future risk. Sometimes wrong but often right. While we can debate the overall effectiveness of the vaccine to a point, future safety is a potential concern. But...you have long since concluded it is NOT safe. Is their any evidence for that? We know some deaths have been attributed to vaccines, but compared to lives it has saved? What's the ratio? Difficult to easily determine but I suspect it's over 1000/1. Is that a good trade? Are seat belts that good? Saving as many lives as injuries they make worse? Not sure. But I doubt Covid vaccines have the risks you actually believe they do. Again conjecture is not evidence, suspicion is not evidence. Certainly created quickly and not as effective as we would like but that's different than saying they are not effective and dangerous with certainty. You have moved passed assumption and declared them dangerous, no evidence of that.
                          I've excerpted the Cowling quote below. Again, tell me how this is out of context? It says what it says.

                          This is its sourcing: https://www.livescience.com/are-face...us-spread.html

                          Have not read Talib. Yet.

                          There is no way on earth that you can tell me that the appropriate amount of time was put in as to long term safety data. There is an element called "time" that wasn't given to this. It doesn't matter if every single scientist in the world worked on the vaccines around the clock. NONE of them would know the long term safety data because that takes...time. It's impossible to argue otherwise. There is no a soul on this earth who knows what the outcome of these jabs will be. No one. That is why big pharma pushed so hard for and received indemnity. Why do they need indemnity if they know this is safe? It's needed because they don't know that. You don't. I don't. No one does.

                          We'll never know how many/if this has saved a single life. We'll never know the full impact of side effects and deaths the jabs have caused nor the long term issues people will suffer with for life because of them. The correct approach for anyone who isn't weighting fear of the virus is to wait, or not take this at all. There is no other way. Reasoned people who aren't acting on emotion simply aren't taking this. There's no reason to. Unless, the fear has caused you to give no weight to the safety concerns. You may find the safety concerns to be no big deal and I respect your choice. I would hope you can see why I and millions of others do not want this. It's unnecessary. I believe in my previous infection and my immune system being better than scientists guessing, yes guessing at how to stop this. To each his own.
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                          • Will try to read what you posted from Talib at a later time. I was caught up in hockey and then this daunting modeling of the future of vaccines and their ability to neutralize the virus. It's not pretty and will show vaccination to have the kind of effect I've stated it would on this virus.

                            The spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 is the molecular target for many vaccines and antibody-based prophylactics aimed at bringing COVID-19 under control. Such a narrow molecular focus raises the specter of viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode for these biomedical interventions. With the emergence of new strains of SARS-CoV-2 with altered transmissibility and immune evasion potential, a critical question is this: how easily can the virus escape neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) targeting the spike RBD? To answer this question, we combined an analysis of the RBD structure-function with an evolutionary modeling framework. Our structure-function analysis revealed that epitopes for RBD-targeting nAbs overlap one another substantially and can be evaded by escape mutants with ACE2 affinities comparable to the wild type, that are observed in sequence surveillance data and infect cells in vitro. This suggests that the fitness cost of nAb-evading mutations is low. We then used evolutionary modeling to predict the frequency of immune escape before and after the widespread presence of nAbs due to vaccines, passive immunization or natural immunity. Our modeling suggests that SARS-CoV-2 mutants with one or two mildly deleterious mutations are expected to exist in high numbers due to neutral genetic variation, and consequently resistance to vaccines or other prophylactics that rely on one or two antibodies for protection can develop quickly -and repeatedly- under positive selection. Predicted resistance timelines are comparable to those of the decay kinetics of nAbs raised against vaccinal or natural antigens, raising a second potential mechanism for loss of immunity in the population. Strategies for viral elimination should therefore be diversified across molecular targets and therapeutic modalities.

                            Comment


                            • While we can debate the overall effectiveness of the vaccine to a point, future safety is a potential concern
                              Great line here. Effectiveness of the vaccine is an interpretation. For some people, 60% effective is positive and for some it means the vaccine doesn't work or doesn't work well enough to justify its usage. Same goes for future safety. For someone who doesn't believe that covid is dangerous to them, the risk of a vaccine side effect is deemed unnecessary and thus any risk is too great. On the other hand, if one deems covid dangerous to them, then the mentality of the "benefits outweigh the risks" is relevant, and the low percentage of adverse side effects becomes a necessary risk one will take and it just becomes par for the course so to speak.

                              We all have different beliefs and time will give us the answers to questions that we think we know but likely don't. I personally cannot take an absolute stance on anything as we just don't know. I wear a mask and have gotten vaccinated and hopefully time will tell if this was the right move. Will the vaccine work against all the variants? - I sure hope so, but who the hell knows. What's causing all the variants? Is it the non-vaccinated crowd or something else and just reason to promote vaccination to everyone? Again, everything out there now is just speculation and the speculation is used to promote a stance. This whole thing is crazy and fascinating at the same time.

                              Comment


                              • I miss Bladerunner.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Latest TGN Reviews


                                Collapse

                                PGA Leaderboard


                                Collapse

                                Today's Birthdays


                                Working...
                                X