|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On October 15 2021 18:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 09:15 WombaT wrote:On October 15 2021 08:01 BlackJack wrote:On October 14 2021 20:10 WombaT wrote:On October 14 2021 12:16 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 21:19 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2021 21:09 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 20:55 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2021 20:39 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 20:21 Acrofales wrote:
There is no scenario where comparing natural immunity alone to a vaccine alone makes sense, because those are not equivalent options if you are pursuing protection from Covid.
. As I have said previously, there are hundreds of millions of people that have already been infected with COVID. It is critically important for them to know what level of protection they have. Just because this dumb scenario of the uninfected person having to make an option of which immunity to pursue is the only thing you can conjure doesn't mean it's the only implication that exists. In all seriousness why do you think there are scientists studying this topic as we speak? Do you think they are trying to figure out if it might be a better idea to seek out natural immunity instead of vaccine immunity? Do you think they any of them are open to that possibility? Shouldn't you warn them that they are wasting their time because no matter what their research shows the only thing that matters is that it's better to get vaccinated than to seek out natural immunity?Maybe I am being a little snarky there but please do provide a serious answer of why you think scientists are researching this if the results of their research are "not relevant because vaccine immunity is always going to be better because you don't have to get COVID to get vaccine immunity." Because the point of science is to study and understand the universe around us. Researching the effects of natural immunity is a part of that and studies into it could help understand the virus, the bodies reaction to the virus and how to better deal with it. Doesn't mean they are in favour of letting people just catch Covid and hope they don't land in the hospital or suffer other long term effects. You can research natural immunity and at the same time understand that it is not a better option for dealing with a pandemic. Yes!! Fantastic answers. Thank you! In fact I guarantee you not a single one of them favors letting people catch COVID over getting a vaccine. In fact there are many reasons why it's important to study and exactly none of them are for this ridiculous scenario that people keep reposting. People keep posting those 'ridiculous scenario's' because that is what happens outside in the real world. You think the people stupid enough to take horse dewormer aren't capable of thinking "hey, natural immunity is good I'll just get some covid victims to cough in my face"? Let scientists do their science but keep that shit away from the general public because 'we' can't be trusted to handle it and its no use to us anyway. Back to mistrust/misinformation - I'm more concerned that there are reasonable people that are saying we shouldn't say things even if they are objectively true because the horse paste eaters might take it the wrong way. Especially when the "horse dewormer eating" thing was a narrative that was heavily trumped up by the media. For example: The NYTimes article that reported Mississippi poison control was inundated with calls about people taking ivermectin/horse dewormer, with 70% of their calls being related to ivermectin. The rest of the mainstream media from MSNBC to Huffpost and everyone in between repeated the story. Well weeks later the NYT came out with a correction that it wasn't 70%, it was actually 2% of calls. Not exactly what I would call inundated. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/fNGrSje.png) Or the Rolling Stone article of the Oklahoma doctor that claimed gunshot victims were waiting for beds because the hospital was full of people overdosing on Ivermectin. Again, widely reposted by every media outlet, also found to be complete bullshit. Or the MSM casually reporting that Joe Rogan was taking horse dewormer medicine to treat his COVID even though he was taking ivermectin for human consumption prescribed by a doctor. I'm far more concerned when misinformation comes from the MSM and even reasonable and educated people buy into it. Natural immunity is clearly a pretty crucial part of any wider pandemic mitigation strategy and needs investigated. Knowing its potency will also assuage the fears of those who have been infected and have been unable to access vaccination. It’s something that can be relatively soberly discussed within a thread like this, as something that’s a neutral bit of information and how to address it. I think the last 8 pages of this thread has plenty of evidence that this is not true. But the reason I think this is a way bigger concern is because, in my opinion, this is primarily what drives people to the rabbit holes of anti-vaccine misinformation. Joe Rogan has millions and millions of followers. When it's obvious that CNN is lying about him taking a livestock medication his followers think "well it's clear they are pushing a narrative and can't be trusted." It's giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists. But that alone is not even the most concerning part. The part I find most concerning is that due to the hysteria around COVID and concerns about misinformation, people are becoming more and more convinced that the government should step in to restrict false info online even if it means limiting freedom of information. One poll showed that support of this idea went from 40% to 65% among one group in just the last few years. This is 10x scarier than anything I have heard about COVID. A small group of people that are stupid enough to eat horse paste is not much of a threat. The fact that the MSM can convince lots of people that the horse paste eaters are so numerous that they are taking up all the hospital beds and making gunshot victims wait is very scary when you realize it leads to people thinking the government should censor/control information. Why is that scary? When has it ever been a good thing when a government could determine what the truth was and control the flow of information to the masses? I think historically there are enough examples to say this is overwhelmingly more bad than good. I think it's a mistake to think you would want anyone to determine what is true/false for you. It's a much bigger mistake if that anyone is the government. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas.
While I'm not necessarily a fan of government control over 'what truth is', I also find the 'historical examples' a rather poor argument in general. 500 years ago, just about everyone in the West was convinced that the only reasonable form of government is hereditary monarchy and look where we are now; not to mention that modern issues with 'truth' and 'free speech' that stem from internet and social media simply weren't relevant at all in the past. It's like saying government control over what's a reasonable way to package your produce or how much pollution you emit is unnecessary, because you know, in the past we didn't need that.
|
The government isn't the one determining what the truth is the medical and scientific community does.
Not wanting others to tell you what is true or not is a hilarious rebuke of any type of society or technology.
|
On October 15 2021 14:14 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Some people want to be part of the solution and some people want to be part of the problem. Can't we just ship them to re-education camps? Or do you think all hope is lost. Maybe we can cordon off a section of Mohdoo Island to use for the camps until they are permitted to re-enter society.
No I think stripping groups of people from jobs they clearly don't want and are incapable of competently preforming is something that capitalism loves to do.
They can try and find some job they acomidates their desire to trust misinformation over not killing people.
|
|
|
|
|
Northern Ireland25506 Posts
On October 15 2021 18:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 09:15 WombaT wrote:On October 15 2021 08:01 BlackJack wrote:On October 14 2021 20:10 WombaT wrote:On October 14 2021 12:16 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 21:19 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2021 21:09 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 20:55 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2021 20:39 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 20:21 Acrofales wrote:
There is no scenario where comparing natural immunity alone to a vaccine alone makes sense, because those are not equivalent options if you are pursuing protection from Covid.
. As I have said previously, there are hundreds of millions of people that have already been infected with COVID. It is critically important for them to know what level of protection they have. Just because this dumb scenario of the uninfected person having to make an option of which immunity to pursue is the only thing you can conjure doesn't mean it's the only implication that exists. In all seriousness why do you think there are scientists studying this topic as we speak? Do you think they are trying to figure out if it might be a better idea to seek out natural immunity instead of vaccine immunity? Do you think they any of them are open to that possibility? Shouldn't you warn them that they are wasting their time because no matter what their research shows the only thing that matters is that it's better to get vaccinated than to seek out natural immunity?Maybe I am being a little snarky there but please do provide a serious answer of why you think scientists are researching this if the results of their research are "not relevant because vaccine immunity is always going to be better because you don't have to get COVID to get vaccine immunity." Because the point of science is to study and understand the universe around us. Researching the effects of natural immunity is a part of that and studies into it could help understand the virus, the bodies reaction to the virus and how to better deal with it. Doesn't mean they are in favour of letting people just catch Covid and hope they don't land in the hospital or suffer other long term effects. You can research natural immunity and at the same time understand that it is not a better option for dealing with a pandemic. Yes!! Fantastic answers. Thank you! In fact I guarantee you not a single one of them favors letting people catch COVID over getting a vaccine. In fact there are many reasons why it's important to study and exactly none of them are for this ridiculous scenario that people keep reposting. People keep posting those 'ridiculous scenario's' because that is what happens outside in the real world. You think the people stupid enough to take horse dewormer aren't capable of thinking "hey, natural immunity is good I'll just get some covid victims to cough in my face"? Let scientists do their science but keep that shit away from the general public because 'we' can't be trusted to handle it and its no use to us anyway. Back to mistrust/misinformation - I'm more concerned that there are reasonable people that are saying we shouldn't say things even if they are objectively true because the horse paste eaters might take it the wrong way. Especially when the "horse dewormer eating" thing was a narrative that was heavily trumped up by the media. For example: The NYTimes article that reported Mississippi poison control was inundated with calls about people taking ivermectin/horse dewormer, with 70% of their calls being related to ivermectin. The rest of the mainstream media from MSNBC to Huffpost and everyone in between repeated the story. Well weeks later the NYT came out with a correction that it wasn't 70%, it was actually 2% of calls. Not exactly what I would call inundated. Or the Rolling Stone article of the Oklahoma doctor that claimed gunshot victims were waiting for beds because the hospital was full of people overdosing on Ivermectin. Again, widely reposted by every media outlet, also found to be complete bullshit. Or the MSM casually reporting that Joe Rogan was taking horse dewormer medicine to treat his COVID even though he was taking ivermectin for human consumption prescribed by a doctor. I'm far more concerned when misinformation comes from the MSM and even reasonable and educated people buy into it. Natural immunity is clearly a pretty crucial part of any wider pandemic mitigation strategy and needs investigated. Knowing its potency will also assuage the fears of those who have been infected and have been unable to access vaccination. It’s something that can be relatively soberly discussed within a thread like this, as something that’s a neutral bit of information and how to address it. I think the last 8 pages of this thread has plenty of evidence that this is not true. But the reason I think this is a way bigger concern is because, in my opinion, this is primarily what drives people to the rabbit holes of anti-vaccine misinformation. Joe Rogan has millions and millions of followers. When it's obvious that CNN is lying about him taking a livestock medication his followers think "well it's clear they are pushing a narrative and can't be trusted." It's giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists. But that alone is not even the most concerning part. The part I find most concerning is that due to the hysteria around COVID and concerns about misinformation, people are becoming more and more convinced that the government should step in to restrict false info online even if it means limiting freedom of information. One poll showed that support of this idea went from 40% to 65% among one group in just the last few years. This is 10x scarier than anything I have heard about COVID. A small group of people that are stupid enough to eat horse paste is not much of a threat. The fact that the MSM can convince lots of people that the horse paste eaters are so numerous that they are taking up all the hospital beds and making gunshot victims wait is very scary when you realize it leads to people thinking the government should censor/control information. Why is that scary? When has it ever been a good thing when a government could determine what the truth was and control the flow of information to the masses? I think historically there are enough examples to say this is overwhelmingly more bad than good. I think it's a mistake to think you would want anyone to determine what is true/false for you. It's a much bigger mistake if that anyone is the government. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas.
When the alternative is either amateur aggregation or a commercial model where engagement with content is the primary concern.
Any evidence that sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas is pretty mixed or arguably just not the case in many areas. It was my position for many, many years, but I don’t think how information is piped around structurally necessarily enables it.
I don’t think it necessarily follows that any solution would have to be the government controlling what is truth by diktat either.
Having thought about this quite a lot over the years, there’s a whole swathe of things other than a free speech free for all or an authoritarian government that would work in this domain.
|
|
|
On October 15 2021 23:38 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 18:41 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 09:15 WombaT wrote:On October 15 2021 08:01 BlackJack wrote:On October 14 2021 20:10 WombaT wrote:On October 14 2021 12:16 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 21:19 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2021 21:09 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 20:55 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2021 20:39 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
As I have said previously, there are hundreds of millions of people that have already been infected with COVID. It is critically important for them to know what level of protection they have. Just because this dumb scenario of the uninfected person having to make an option of which immunity to pursue is the only thing you can conjure doesn't mean it's the only implication that exists.
In all seriousness why do you think there are scientists studying this topic as we speak? Do you think they are trying to figure out if it might be a better idea to seek out natural immunity instead of vaccine immunity? Do you think they any of them are open to that possibility? Shouldn't you warn them that they are wasting their time because no matter what their research shows the only thing that matters is that it's better to get vaccinated than to seek out natural immunity?
Maybe I am being a little snarky there but please do provide a serious answer of why you think scientists are researching this if the results of their research are "not relevant because vaccine immunity is always going to be better because you don't have to get COVID to get vaccine immunity." Because the point of science is to study and understand the universe around us. Researching the effects of natural immunity is a part of that and studies into it could help understand the virus, the bodies reaction to the virus and how to better deal with it. Doesn't mean they are in favour of letting people just catch Covid and hope they don't land in the hospital or suffer other long term effects. You can research natural immunity and at the same time understand that it is not a better option for dealing with a pandemic. Yes!! Fantastic answers. Thank you! In fact I guarantee you not a single one of them favors letting people catch COVID over getting a vaccine. In fact there are many reasons why it's important to study and exactly none of them are for this ridiculous scenario that people keep reposting. People keep posting those 'ridiculous scenario's' because that is what happens outside in the real world. You think the people stupid enough to take horse dewormer aren't capable of thinking "hey, natural immunity is good I'll just get some covid victims to cough in my face"? Let scientists do their science but keep that shit away from the general public because 'we' can't be trusted to handle it and its no use to us anyway. Back to mistrust/misinformation - I'm more concerned that there are reasonable people that are saying we shouldn't say things even if they are objectively true because the horse paste eaters might take it the wrong way. Especially when the "horse dewormer eating" thing was a narrative that was heavily trumped up by the media. For example: The NYTimes article that reported Mississippi poison control was inundated with calls about people taking ivermectin/horse dewormer, with 70% of their calls being related to ivermectin. The rest of the mainstream media from MSNBC to Huffpost and everyone in between repeated the story. Well weeks later the NYT came out with a correction that it wasn't 70%, it was actually 2% of calls. Not exactly what I would call inundated. Or the Rolling Stone article of the Oklahoma doctor that claimed gunshot victims were waiting for beds because the hospital was full of people overdosing on Ivermectin. Again, widely reposted by every media outlet, also found to be complete bullshit. Or the MSM casually reporting that Joe Rogan was taking horse dewormer medicine to treat his COVID even though he was taking ivermectin for human consumption prescribed by a doctor. I'm far more concerned when misinformation comes from the MSM and even reasonable and educated people buy into it. Natural immunity is clearly a pretty crucial part of any wider pandemic mitigation strategy and needs investigated. Knowing its potency will also assuage the fears of those who have been infected and have been unable to access vaccination. It’s something that can be relatively soberly discussed within a thread like this, as something that’s a neutral bit of information and how to address it. I think the last 8 pages of this thread has plenty of evidence that this is not true. But the reason I think this is a way bigger concern is because, in my opinion, this is primarily what drives people to the rabbit holes of anti-vaccine misinformation. Joe Rogan has millions and millions of followers. When it's obvious that CNN is lying about him taking a livestock medication his followers think "well it's clear they are pushing a narrative and can't be trusted." It's giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists. But that alone is not even the most concerning part. The part I find most concerning is that due to the hysteria around COVID and concerns about misinformation, people are becoming more and more convinced that the government should step in to restrict false info online even if it means limiting freedom of information. One poll showed that support of this idea went from 40% to 65% among one group in just the last few years. This is 10x scarier than anything I have heard about COVID. A small group of people that are stupid enough to eat horse paste is not much of a threat. The fact that the MSM can convince lots of people that the horse paste eaters are so numerous that they are taking up all the hospital beds and making gunshot victims wait is very scary when you realize it leads to people thinking the government should censor/control information. Why is that scary? When has it ever been a good thing when a government could determine what the truth was and control the flow of information to the masses? I think historically there are enough examples to say this is overwhelmingly more bad than good. I think it's a mistake to think you would want anyone to determine what is true/false for you. It's a much bigger mistake if that anyone is the government. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas. When the alternative is either amateur aggregation or a commercial model where engagement with content is the primary concern. Any evidence that sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas is pretty mixed or arguably just not the case in many areas. It was my position for many, many years, but I don’t think how information is piped around structurally necessarily enables it. I don’t think it necessarily follows that any solution would have to be the government controlling what is truth by diktat either. Having thought about this quite a lot over the years, there’s a whole swathe of things other than a free speech free for all or an authoritarian government that would work in this domain.
I am kind of split here. I hate how much blatently false information gets propagated nowadays, and is apparently prominent in the decisionmaking of people.
But on the other hand, i imagine a Trump administration having the power to define what is truth, and punish people who disagree with them. And lets be honest, the next insane republican administration is probably less that 10 years away.
We need to figure some kind of societal immunization to bullshit out. I imagine this process as kind of similar to the societal immunization to alcohol we (mostly) have. I don't think that the government defining truth is what that would look like, though. In a country that is not the US, i would probably want the court system involved here, but the US court system is so horribly broken that i don't think it would make stuff better. I would also love to have more critical thinking skills among the general population, but i have no idea how to get those skills there.
|
Northern Ireland25506 Posts
On October 16 2021 01:31 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 23:38 WombaT wrote:On October 15 2021 18:41 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 09:15 WombaT wrote:On October 15 2021 08:01 BlackJack wrote:On October 14 2021 20:10 WombaT wrote:On October 14 2021 12:16 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 21:19 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2021 21:09 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 20:55 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Because the point of science is to study and understand the universe around us. Researching the effects of natural immunity is a part of that and studies into it could help understand the virus, the bodies reaction to the virus and how to better deal with it.
Doesn't mean they are in favour of letting people just catch Covid and hope they don't land in the hospital or suffer other long term effects.
You can research natural immunity and at the same time understand that it is not a better option for dealing with a pandemic. Yes!! Fantastic answers. Thank you! In fact I guarantee you not a single one of them favors letting people catch COVID over getting a vaccine. In fact there are many reasons why it's important to study and exactly none of them are for this ridiculous scenario that people keep reposting. People keep posting those 'ridiculous scenario's' because that is what happens outside in the real world. You think the people stupid enough to take horse dewormer aren't capable of thinking "hey, natural immunity is good I'll just get some covid victims to cough in my face"? Let scientists do their science but keep that shit away from the general public because 'we' can't be trusted to handle it and its no use to us anyway. Back to mistrust/misinformation - I'm more concerned that there are reasonable people that are saying we shouldn't say things even if they are objectively true because the horse paste eaters might take it the wrong way. Especially when the "horse dewormer eating" thing was a narrative that was heavily trumped up by the media. For example: The NYTimes article that reported Mississippi poison control was inundated with calls about people taking ivermectin/horse dewormer, with 70% of their calls being related to ivermectin. The rest of the mainstream media from MSNBC to Huffpost and everyone in between repeated the story. Well weeks later the NYT came out with a correction that it wasn't 70%, it was actually 2% of calls. Not exactly what I would call inundated. Or the Rolling Stone article of the Oklahoma doctor that claimed gunshot victims were waiting for beds because the hospital was full of people overdosing on Ivermectin. Again, widely reposted by every media outlet, also found to be complete bullshit. Or the MSM casually reporting that Joe Rogan was taking horse dewormer medicine to treat his COVID even though he was taking ivermectin for human consumption prescribed by a doctor. I'm far more concerned when misinformation comes from the MSM and even reasonable and educated people buy into it. Natural immunity is clearly a pretty crucial part of any wider pandemic mitigation strategy and needs investigated. Knowing its potency will also assuage the fears of those who have been infected and have been unable to access vaccination. It’s something that can be relatively soberly discussed within a thread like this, as something that’s a neutral bit of information and how to address it. I think the last 8 pages of this thread has plenty of evidence that this is not true. But the reason I think this is a way bigger concern is because, in my opinion, this is primarily what drives people to the rabbit holes of anti-vaccine misinformation. Joe Rogan has millions and millions of followers. When it's obvious that CNN is lying about him taking a livestock medication his followers think "well it's clear they are pushing a narrative and can't be trusted." It's giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists. But that alone is not even the most concerning part. The part I find most concerning is that due to the hysteria around COVID and concerns about misinformation, people are becoming more and more convinced that the government should step in to restrict false info online even if it means limiting freedom of information. One poll showed that support of this idea went from 40% to 65% among one group in just the last few years. This is 10x scarier than anything I have heard about COVID. A small group of people that are stupid enough to eat horse paste is not much of a threat. The fact that the MSM can convince lots of people that the horse paste eaters are so numerous that they are taking up all the hospital beds and making gunshot victims wait is very scary when you realize it leads to people thinking the government should censor/control information. Why is that scary? When has it ever been a good thing when a government could determine what the truth was and control the flow of information to the masses? I think historically there are enough examples to say this is overwhelmingly more bad than good. I think it's a mistake to think you would want anyone to determine what is true/false for you. It's a much bigger mistake if that anyone is the government. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas. When the alternative is either amateur aggregation or a commercial model where engagement with content is the primary concern. Any evidence that sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas is pretty mixed or arguably just not the case in many areas. It was my position for many, many years, but I don’t think how information is piped around structurally necessarily enables it. I don’t think it necessarily follows that any solution would have to be the government controlling what is truth by diktat either. Having thought about this quite a lot over the years, there’s a whole swathe of things other than a free speech free for all or an authoritarian government that would work in this domain. I am kind of split here. I hate how much blatently false information gets propagated nowadays, and is apparently prominent in the decisionmaking of people. But on the other hand, i imagine a Trump administration having the power to define what is truth, and punish people who disagree with them. And lets be honest, the next insane republican administration is probably less that 10 years away. We need to figure some kind of societal immunization to bullshit out. I imagine this process as kind of similar to the societal immunization to alcohol we (mostly) have. I don't think that the government defining truth is what that would look like, though. In a country that is not the US, i would probably want the court system involved here, but the US court system is so horribly broken that i don't think it would make stuff better. I would also love to have more critical thinking skills among the general population, but i have no idea how to get those skills there.
I think we’ve collectively lost a sense of deference to expertise and any doubt in our own surety.
I wasn’t some soothsayer by any means, but in the pre-social media people would enquire as to my thoughts on the going’s on of the day, as I was the ‘politics guy’ who read newspapers and books on such things. Had some interesting chats, nowadays everyone is a ‘politics guy’, or a vaccine expert or w/e.
I think critical thinking skills are a bit overplayed, a lot of people with completely ridiculous views think that they are critical thinkers and apply skepticism badly. I’m also unsure how much of that skillset can actually be taught and how much is innate in some way, of course we could definitely collectively improve in instilling those skills to everyone.
Building up a cultural understanding that it’s OK not to know things, while also being skeptical and understanding how structures all intersect and enabling proper critique from there.
We’re a borderline hivemind now as a species, interconnected in all sorts of directions in a way that didn’t use to be the case, but we haven’t socially evolved to really adjust to this.
|
On October 15 2021 21:10 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 14:14 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Some people want to be part of the solution and some people want to be part of the problem. Can't we just ship them to re-education camps? Or do you think all hope is lost. Maybe we can cordon off a section of Mohdoo Island to use for the camps until they are permitted to re-enter society. No I think stripping groups of people from jobs they clearly don't want and are incapable of competently preforming is something that capitalism loves to do. They can try and find some job they acomidates their desire to trust misinformation over not killing people.
Have you ever talked to people? Almost everyone believes some kind of anti-science bullshit. Even smart people like Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of bullshit alternative medicine. If you think holding irrational opinions makes you incompetent to do your job, good luck at getting rid of 90%+ of the workforce.
|
On October 16 2021 05:57 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 21:10 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2021 14:14 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Some people want to be part of the solution and some people want to be part of the problem. Can't we just ship them to re-education camps? Or do you think all hope is lost. Maybe we can cordon off a section of Mohdoo Island to use for the camps until they are permitted to re-enter society. No I think stripping groups of people from jobs they clearly don't want and are incapable of competently preforming is something that capitalism loves to do. They can try and find some job they acomidates their desire to trust misinformation over not killing people. Have you ever talked to people? Almost everyone believes some kind of anti-science bullshit. Even smart people like Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of bullshit alternative medicine. If you think holding irrational opinions makes you incompetent to do your job, good luck at getting rid of 90%+ of the workforce.
Not generally, but some irrational opinions do make you incompetent in some jobs. For example, if steve jobs believed that orgon crystals are really good for computing and pushed lots of apple research money into that direction, he would be bad at his job.
Similarly, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine, that makes them a bad doctor, because they will try to prescribe those pointless placebo pills to people as if they actually help. If the doctor thinks that he is really good at rap battles when all evidence points to the contrary, that does not hinder his performance as a doctor.
And if a judge doesn't believe in the law, that makes him bad at his job. If a judge believes that crystal healing is totally a real thing, that usually doesn't hinder him a lot.
Lots of working class people irrationally believe that they know really well what would be the best course of action for a specific sports team. That doesn't hinder them in their job. But if a construction worker started to belief that he is immune to damage from falling rocks due to his superior skull structure and thus stop wearing hard hats, he would be out of a job pretty soon.
Some irrational beliefs immediately impact your job, usually if those beliefs are linked to central stuff you do at your job. Other irrational beliefs only impact your private life, usually if those beliefs don't have anything to do with your job.
|
On October 16 2021 06:18 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2021 05:57 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 21:10 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2021 14:14 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Some people want to be part of the solution and some people want to be part of the problem. Can't we just ship them to re-education camps? Or do you think all hope is lost. Maybe we can cordon off a section of Mohdoo Island to use for the camps until they are permitted to re-enter society. No I think stripping groups of people from jobs they clearly don't want and are incapable of competently preforming is something that capitalism loves to do. They can try and find some job they acomidates their desire to trust misinformation over not killing people. Have you ever talked to people? Almost everyone believes some kind of anti-science bullshit. Even smart people like Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of bullshit alternative medicine. If you think holding irrational opinions makes you incompetent to do your job, good luck at getting rid of 90%+ of the workforce. Not generally, but some irrational opinions do make you incompetent in some jobs. For example, if steve jobs believed that orgon crystals are really good for computing and pushed lots of apple research money into that direction, he would be bad at his job. Similarly, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine, that makes them a bad doctor, because they will try to prescribe those pointless placebo pills to people as if they actually help. If the doctor thinks that he is really good at rap battles when all evidence points to the contrary, that does not hinder his performance as a doctor. And if a judge doesn't believe in the law, that makes him bad at his job. If a judge believes that crystal healing is totally a real thing, that usually doesn't hinder him a lot. Lots of working class people irrationally believe that they know really well what would be the best course of action for a specific sports team. That doesn't hinder them in their job. But if a construction worker started to belief that he is immune to damage from falling rocks due to his superior skull structure and thus stop wearing hard hats, he would be out of a job pretty soon. Some irrational beliefs immediately impact your job, usually if those beliefs are linked to central stuff you do at your job. Other irrational beliefs only impact your private life, usually if those beliefs don't have anything to do with your job.
No, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine it does not make him a bad doctor. If he tries to prescribe homeopathic medicine instead of real medicine then it does make him a bad doctor. If a teacher holds some stupid beliefs it does not make them a bad teacher. If they try to push those stupid beliefs onto their students then it does make them a bad teacher. Don't conflate acts of incompetence with thoughts of incompetence as an excuse to herald in the thought police.
|
On October 15 2021 20:10 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 18:41 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 09:15 WombaT wrote:On October 15 2021 08:01 BlackJack wrote:On October 14 2021 20:10 WombaT wrote:On October 14 2021 12:16 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 21:19 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2021 21:09 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 20:55 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2021 20:39 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
As I have said previously, there are hundreds of millions of people that have already been infected with COVID. It is critically important for them to know what level of protection they have. Just because this dumb scenario of the uninfected person having to make an option of which immunity to pursue is the only thing you can conjure doesn't mean it's the only implication that exists.
In all seriousness why do you think there are scientists studying this topic as we speak? Do you think they are trying to figure out if it might be a better idea to seek out natural immunity instead of vaccine immunity? Do you think they any of them are open to that possibility? Shouldn't you warn them that they are wasting their time because no matter what their research shows the only thing that matters is that it's better to get vaccinated than to seek out natural immunity?
Maybe I am being a little snarky there but please do provide a serious answer of why you think scientists are researching this if the results of their research are "not relevant because vaccine immunity is always going to be better because you don't have to get COVID to get vaccine immunity." Because the point of science is to study and understand the universe around us. Researching the effects of natural immunity is a part of that and studies into it could help understand the virus, the bodies reaction to the virus and how to better deal with it. Doesn't mean they are in favour of letting people just catch Covid and hope they don't land in the hospital or suffer other long term effects. You can research natural immunity and at the same time understand that it is not a better option for dealing with a pandemic. Yes!! Fantastic answers. Thank you! In fact I guarantee you not a single one of them favors letting people catch COVID over getting a vaccine. In fact there are many reasons why it's important to study and exactly none of them are for this ridiculous scenario that people keep reposting. People keep posting those 'ridiculous scenario's' because that is what happens outside in the real world. You think the people stupid enough to take horse dewormer aren't capable of thinking "hey, natural immunity is good I'll just get some covid victims to cough in my face"? Let scientists do their science but keep that shit away from the general public because 'we' can't be trusted to handle it and its no use to us anyway. Back to mistrust/misinformation - I'm more concerned that there are reasonable people that are saying we shouldn't say things even if they are objectively true because the horse paste eaters might take it the wrong way. Especially when the "horse dewormer eating" thing was a narrative that was heavily trumped up by the media. For example: The NYTimes article that reported Mississippi poison control was inundated with calls about people taking ivermectin/horse dewormer, with 70% of their calls being related to ivermectin. The rest of the mainstream media from MSNBC to Huffpost and everyone in between repeated the story. Well weeks later the NYT came out with a correction that it wasn't 70%, it was actually 2% of calls. Not exactly what I would call inundated. Or the Rolling Stone article of the Oklahoma doctor that claimed gunshot victims were waiting for beds because the hospital was full of people overdosing on Ivermectin. Again, widely reposted by every media outlet, also found to be complete bullshit. Or the MSM casually reporting that Joe Rogan was taking horse dewormer medicine to treat his COVID even though he was taking ivermectin for human consumption prescribed by a doctor. I'm far more concerned when misinformation comes from the MSM and even reasonable and educated people buy into it. Natural immunity is clearly a pretty crucial part of any wider pandemic mitigation strategy and needs investigated. Knowing its potency will also assuage the fears of those who have been infected and have been unable to access vaccination. It’s something that can be relatively soberly discussed within a thread like this, as something that’s a neutral bit of information and how to address it. I think the last 8 pages of this thread has plenty of evidence that this is not true. But the reason I think this is a way bigger concern is because, in my opinion, this is primarily what drives people to the rabbit holes of anti-vaccine misinformation. Joe Rogan has millions and millions of followers. When it's obvious that CNN is lying about him taking a livestock medication his followers think "well it's clear they are pushing a narrative and can't be trusted." It's giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists. But that alone is not even the most concerning part. The part I find most concerning is that due to the hysteria around COVID and concerns about misinformation, people are becoming more and more convinced that the government should step in to restrict false info online even if it means limiting freedom of information. One poll showed that support of this idea went from 40% to 65% among one group in just the last few years. This is 10x scarier than anything I have heard about COVID. A small group of people that are stupid enough to eat horse paste is not much of a threat. The fact that the MSM can convince lots of people that the horse paste eaters are so numerous that they are taking up all the hospital beds and making gunshot victims wait is very scary when you realize it leads to people thinking the government should censor/control information. Why is that scary? When has it ever been a good thing when a government could determine what the truth was and control the flow of information to the masses? I think historically there are enough examples to say this is overwhelmingly more bad than good. I think it's a mistake to think you would want anyone to determine what is true/false for you. It's a much bigger mistake if that anyone is the government. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas. While I'm not necessarily a fan of government control over 'what truth is', I also find the 'historical examples' a rather poor argument in general. 500 years ago, just about everyone in the West was convinced that the only reasonable form of government is hereditary monarchy and look where we are now; not to mention that modern issues with 'truth' and 'free speech' that stem from internet and social media simply weren't relevant at all in the past. It's like saying government control over what's a reasonable way to package your produce or how much pollution you emit is unnecessary, because you know, in the past we didn't need that.
We don't even need historical examples. We have plenty of examples just during this pandemic that shows the government and/or public health experts are willing to lie to us to suit their agenda. Here's a good article that summarizes some of the lies we were told:
https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.html
My favorite is probably Fauci admitting he moved the goalposts on "herd immunity" based on public opinion polls.
When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85.
Even as recent as yesterday multiple people in this thread were still believing in this pipe dream of herd immunity. Don't worry guys, we're so close! Just a few more vaccines and it's right around the corner. I'm sure you're not still being lied to.
|
On October 16 2021 06:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2021 06:18 Simberto wrote:On October 16 2021 05:57 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 21:10 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2021 14:14 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Some people want to be part of the solution and some people want to be part of the problem. Can't we just ship them to re-education camps? Or do you think all hope is lost. Maybe we can cordon off a section of Mohdoo Island to use for the camps until they are permitted to re-enter society. No I think stripping groups of people from jobs they clearly don't want and are incapable of competently preforming is something that capitalism loves to do. They can try and find some job they acomidates their desire to trust misinformation over not killing people. Have you ever talked to people? Almost everyone believes some kind of anti-science bullshit. Even smart people like Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of bullshit alternative medicine. If you think holding irrational opinions makes you incompetent to do your job, good luck at getting rid of 90%+ of the workforce. Not generally, but some irrational opinions do make you incompetent in some jobs. For example, if steve jobs believed that orgon crystals are really good for computing and pushed lots of apple research money into that direction, he would be bad at his job. Similarly, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine, that makes them a bad doctor, because they will try to prescribe those pointless placebo pills to people as if they actually help. If the doctor thinks that he is really good at rap battles when all evidence points to the contrary, that does not hinder his performance as a doctor. And if a judge doesn't believe in the law, that makes him bad at his job. If a judge believes that crystal healing is totally a real thing, that usually doesn't hinder him a lot. Lots of working class people irrationally believe that they know really well what would be the best course of action for a specific sports team. That doesn't hinder them in their job. But if a construction worker started to belief that he is immune to damage from falling rocks due to his superior skull structure and thus stop wearing hard hats, he would be out of a job pretty soon. Some irrational beliefs immediately impact your job, usually if those beliefs are linked to central stuff you do at your job. Other irrational beliefs only impact your private life, usually if those beliefs don't have anything to do with your job. No, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine it does not make him a bad doctor. If he tries to prescribe homeopathic medicine instead of real medicine then it does make him a bad doctor. If a teacher holds some stupid beliefs it does not make them a bad teacher. If they try to push those stupid beliefs onto their students then it does make them a bad teacher. Don't conflate acts of incompetence with thoughts of incompetence as an excuse to herald in the thought police.
I think you defeated your own argument with this. By not vaccinating they're pushing their opinions about being pro covid on other people around them. People not believing in the vaccine in it of itself isn't the issue the problem is not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and other people around them.
|
On October 16 2021 07:17 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2021 06:35 BlackJack wrote:On October 16 2021 06:18 Simberto wrote:On October 16 2021 05:57 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 21:10 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2021 14:14 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Some people want to be part of the solution and some people want to be part of the problem. Can't we just ship them to re-education camps? Or do you think all hope is lost. Maybe we can cordon off a section of Mohdoo Island to use for the camps until they are permitted to re-enter society. No I think stripping groups of people from jobs they clearly don't want and are incapable of competently preforming is something that capitalism loves to do. They can try and find some job they acomidates their desire to trust misinformation over not killing people. Have you ever talked to people? Almost everyone believes some kind of anti-science bullshit. Even smart people like Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of bullshit alternative medicine. If you think holding irrational opinions makes you incompetent to do your job, good luck at getting rid of 90%+ of the workforce. Not generally, but some irrational opinions do make you incompetent in some jobs. For example, if steve jobs believed that orgon crystals are really good for computing and pushed lots of apple research money into that direction, he would be bad at his job. Similarly, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine, that makes them a bad doctor, because they will try to prescribe those pointless placebo pills to people as if they actually help. If the doctor thinks that he is really good at rap battles when all evidence points to the contrary, that does not hinder his performance as a doctor. And if a judge doesn't believe in the law, that makes him bad at his job. If a judge believes that crystal healing is totally a real thing, that usually doesn't hinder him a lot. Lots of working class people irrationally believe that they know really well what would be the best course of action for a specific sports team. That doesn't hinder them in their job. But if a construction worker started to belief that he is immune to damage from falling rocks due to his superior skull structure and thus stop wearing hard hats, he would be out of a job pretty soon. Some irrational beliefs immediately impact your job, usually if those beliefs are linked to central stuff you do at your job. Other irrational beliefs only impact your private life, usually if those beliefs don't have anything to do with your job. No, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine it does not make him a bad doctor. If he tries to prescribe homeopathic medicine instead of real medicine then it does make him a bad doctor. If a teacher holds some stupid beliefs it does not make them a bad teacher. If they try to push those stupid beliefs onto their students then it does make them a bad teacher. Don't conflate acts of incompetence with thoughts of incompetence as an excuse to herald in the thought police. I think you defeated your own argument with this. By not vaccinating they're pushing their opinions about being pro covid on other people around them. People not believing in the vaccine in it of itself isn't the issue the problem is not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and other people around them.
How is not getting vaccinated at all equal to pushing your opinion to not vaccinate on other people? Can you tell which people are vaccinated by just looking at them?
Ironically you defeated your own argument by saying it's not about not believing in the vaccine it's about spreading COVID. In that case someone that works in a factory doing a job that could be done by a robot should also not be permitted to work if they don't get vaccinated. So it has literally nothing to do with job competency, don't you agree?
|
I am more than willing to accept miscalculations and guesses about herd immunity. This has been discussed before, herd immunity is highly depending on how contagious the virus is, and nobody could tell how much would be needed to stop the Delta variant. We will eventually know what is needed to reach actual herd immunity, the Scandinavian countries have believe they are there. Note that it is not the same as no cases, but outbreaks will fizzle out without any additional measures (including testing and quarantines).
But yes, every government has presented some extremely dubious and damaging guesses about this pandemic, also underestimating the threat in the early stages. They also only rarely admit their mistakes, and some times even double down on their bullshit. A nasty recent example was Spanish politicians using the incoming flu season as an excuse to keep mask mandates despite ~80% of the entire population being fully vaccinated for Covid.
|
On October 16 2021 07:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 20:10 Salazarz wrote:On October 15 2021 18:41 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 09:15 WombaT wrote:On October 15 2021 08:01 BlackJack wrote:On October 14 2021 20:10 WombaT wrote:On October 14 2021 12:16 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 21:19 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2021 21:09 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 20:55 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Because the point of science is to study and understand the universe around us. Researching the effects of natural immunity is a part of that and studies into it could help understand the virus, the bodies reaction to the virus and how to better deal with it.
Doesn't mean they are in favour of letting people just catch Covid and hope they don't land in the hospital or suffer other long term effects.
You can research natural immunity and at the same time understand that it is not a better option for dealing with a pandemic. Yes!! Fantastic answers. Thank you! In fact I guarantee you not a single one of them favors letting people catch COVID over getting a vaccine. In fact there are many reasons why it's important to study and exactly none of them are for this ridiculous scenario that people keep reposting. People keep posting those 'ridiculous scenario's' because that is what happens outside in the real world. You think the people stupid enough to take horse dewormer aren't capable of thinking "hey, natural immunity is good I'll just get some covid victims to cough in my face"? Let scientists do their science but keep that shit away from the general public because 'we' can't be trusted to handle it and its no use to us anyway. Back to mistrust/misinformation - I'm more concerned that there are reasonable people that are saying we shouldn't say things even if they are objectively true because the horse paste eaters might take it the wrong way. Especially when the "horse dewormer eating" thing was a narrative that was heavily trumped up by the media. For example: The NYTimes article that reported Mississippi poison control was inundated with calls about people taking ivermectin/horse dewormer, with 70% of their calls being related to ivermectin. The rest of the mainstream media from MSNBC to Huffpost and everyone in between repeated the story. Well weeks later the NYT came out with a correction that it wasn't 70%, it was actually 2% of calls. Not exactly what I would call inundated. Or the Rolling Stone article of the Oklahoma doctor that claimed gunshot victims were waiting for beds because the hospital was full of people overdosing on Ivermectin. Again, widely reposted by every media outlet, also found to be complete bullshit. Or the MSM casually reporting that Joe Rogan was taking horse dewormer medicine to treat his COVID even though he was taking ivermectin for human consumption prescribed by a doctor. I'm far more concerned when misinformation comes from the MSM and even reasonable and educated people buy into it. Natural immunity is clearly a pretty crucial part of any wider pandemic mitigation strategy and needs investigated. Knowing its potency will also assuage the fears of those who have been infected and have been unable to access vaccination. It’s something that can be relatively soberly discussed within a thread like this, as something that’s a neutral bit of information and how to address it. I think the last 8 pages of this thread has plenty of evidence that this is not true. But the reason I think this is a way bigger concern is because, in my opinion, this is primarily what drives people to the rabbit holes of anti-vaccine misinformation. Joe Rogan has millions and millions of followers. When it's obvious that CNN is lying about him taking a livestock medication his followers think "well it's clear they are pushing a narrative and can't be trusted." It's giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists. But that alone is not even the most concerning part. The part I find most concerning is that due to the hysteria around COVID and concerns about misinformation, people are becoming more and more convinced that the government should step in to restrict false info online even if it means limiting freedom of information. One poll showed that support of this idea went from 40% to 65% among one group in just the last few years. This is 10x scarier than anything I have heard about COVID. A small group of people that are stupid enough to eat horse paste is not much of a threat. The fact that the MSM can convince lots of people that the horse paste eaters are so numerous that they are taking up all the hospital beds and making gunshot victims wait is very scary when you realize it leads to people thinking the government should censor/control information. Why is that scary? When has it ever been a good thing when a government could determine what the truth was and control the flow of information to the masses? I think historically there are enough examples to say this is overwhelmingly more bad than good. I think it's a mistake to think you would want anyone to determine what is true/false for you. It's a much bigger mistake if that anyone is the government. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas. While I'm not necessarily a fan of government control over 'what truth is', I also find the 'historical examples' a rather poor argument in general. 500 years ago, just about everyone in the West was convinced that the only reasonable form of government is hereditary monarchy and look where we are now; not to mention that modern issues with 'truth' and 'free speech' that stem from internet and social media simply weren't relevant at all in the past. It's like saying government control over what's a reasonable way to package your produce or how much pollution you emit is unnecessary, because you know, in the past we didn't need that. We don't even need historical examples. We have plenty of examples just during this pandemic that shows the government and/or public health experts are willing to lie to us to suit their agenda. Here's a good article that summarizes some of the lies we were told: https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.htmlMy favorite is probably Fauci admitting he moved the goalposts on "herd immunity" based on public opinion polls. Show nested quote +When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85. Even as recent as yesterday multiple people in this thread were still believing in this pipe dream of herd immunity. Don't worry guys, we're so close! Just a few more vaccines and it's right around the corner. I'm sure you're not still being lied to.
Even experts in a field will happily tell you they ultimately know very little about what they do, because it's true. Only once you start really understanding something do you also begin to understand how much you don't know. So I guess, it's not that even experts will admit they don't know, it's especially experts.
You're reading some kind of nefarious agenda into someone basically saying they didn't know what was going to happen in an unprecedented pandemic. It's like we're all mortal in the end, or something. But sure, the big pro-vaccine lobby is out to get you.
|
On October 16 2021 07:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2021 20:10 Salazarz wrote:On October 15 2021 18:41 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 09:15 WombaT wrote:On October 15 2021 08:01 BlackJack wrote:On October 14 2021 20:10 WombaT wrote:On October 14 2021 12:16 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 21:19 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2021 21:09 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 20:55 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Because the point of science is to study and understand the universe around us. Researching the effects of natural immunity is a part of that and studies into it could help understand the virus, the bodies reaction to the virus and how to better deal with it.
Doesn't mean they are in favour of letting people just catch Covid and hope they don't land in the hospital or suffer other long term effects.
You can research natural immunity and at the same time understand that it is not a better option for dealing with a pandemic. Yes!! Fantastic answers. Thank you! In fact I guarantee you not a single one of them favors letting people catch COVID over getting a vaccine. In fact there are many reasons why it's important to study and exactly none of them are for this ridiculous scenario that people keep reposting. People keep posting those 'ridiculous scenario's' because that is what happens outside in the real world. You think the people stupid enough to take horse dewormer aren't capable of thinking "hey, natural immunity is good I'll just get some covid victims to cough in my face"? Let scientists do their science but keep that shit away from the general public because 'we' can't be trusted to handle it and its no use to us anyway. Back to mistrust/misinformation - I'm more concerned that there are reasonable people that are saying we shouldn't say things even if they are objectively true because the horse paste eaters might take it the wrong way. Especially when the "horse dewormer eating" thing was a narrative that was heavily trumped up by the media. For example: The NYTimes article that reported Mississippi poison control was inundated with calls about people taking ivermectin/horse dewormer, with 70% of their calls being related to ivermectin. The rest of the mainstream media from MSNBC to Huffpost and everyone in between repeated the story. Well weeks later the NYT came out with a correction that it wasn't 70%, it was actually 2% of calls. Not exactly what I would call inundated. Or the Rolling Stone article of the Oklahoma doctor that claimed gunshot victims were waiting for beds because the hospital was full of people overdosing on Ivermectin. Again, widely reposted by every media outlet, also found to be complete bullshit. Or the MSM casually reporting that Joe Rogan was taking horse dewormer medicine to treat his COVID even though he was taking ivermectin for human consumption prescribed by a doctor. I'm far more concerned when misinformation comes from the MSM and even reasonable and educated people buy into it. Natural immunity is clearly a pretty crucial part of any wider pandemic mitigation strategy and needs investigated. Knowing its potency will also assuage the fears of those who have been infected and have been unable to access vaccination. It’s something that can be relatively soberly discussed within a thread like this, as something that’s a neutral bit of information and how to address it. I think the last 8 pages of this thread has plenty of evidence that this is not true. But the reason I think this is a way bigger concern is because, in my opinion, this is primarily what drives people to the rabbit holes of anti-vaccine misinformation. Joe Rogan has millions and millions of followers. When it's obvious that CNN is lying about him taking a livestock medication his followers think "well it's clear they are pushing a narrative and can't be trusted." It's giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists. But that alone is not even the most concerning part. The part I find most concerning is that due to the hysteria around COVID and concerns about misinformation, people are becoming more and more convinced that the government should step in to restrict false info online even if it means limiting freedom of information. One poll showed that support of this idea went from 40% to 65% among one group in just the last few years. This is 10x scarier than anything I have heard about COVID. A small group of people that are stupid enough to eat horse paste is not much of a threat. The fact that the MSM can convince lots of people that the horse paste eaters are so numerous that they are taking up all the hospital beds and making gunshot victims wait is very scary when you realize it leads to people thinking the government should censor/control information. Why is that scary? When has it ever been a good thing when a government could determine what the truth was and control the flow of information to the masses? I think historically there are enough examples to say this is overwhelmingly more bad than good. I think it's a mistake to think you would want anyone to determine what is true/false for you. It's a much bigger mistake if that anyone is the government. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas. While I'm not necessarily a fan of government control over 'what truth is', I also find the 'historical examples' a rather poor argument in general. 500 years ago, just about everyone in the West was convinced that the only reasonable form of government is hereditary monarchy and look where we are now; not to mention that modern issues with 'truth' and 'free speech' that stem from internet and social media simply weren't relevant at all in the past. It's like saying government control over what's a reasonable way to package your produce or how much pollution you emit is unnecessary, because you know, in the past we didn't need that. We don't even need historical examples. We have plenty of examples just during this pandemic that shows the government and/or public health experts are willing to lie to us to suit their agenda. Here's a good article that summarizes some of the lies we were told: https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.htmlMy favorite is probably Fauci admitting he moved the goalposts on "herd immunity" based on public opinion polls. Show nested quote +When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85. Even as recent as yesterday multiple people in this thread were still believing in this pipe dream of herd immunity. Don't worry guys, we're so close! Just a few more vaccines and it's right around the corner. I'm sure you're not still being lied to.
Yeah, let's go back and consider the consequences of Fauci's lies; then compare it to the thousands of dead bodies of people who believed there are microchips in the vaccines or that social distancing is literally communism or what have you.
Never mind that arguably the biggest reason we even have governments that are willing to lie and put whatever ridiculous garbage ideas ahead of real public interest and benefit is that the voters are drowning in lies and false promises. We live in a society where misinformation has become utterly normalized and there are no consequences of any kind for lies -- and you're telling me demanding more accountability and restricting / punishing misinformation and false promises would be bad, because you have examples of government workers lying? That just doesn't make sense.
|
On October 16 2021 09:53 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2021 07:13 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 20:10 Salazarz wrote:On October 15 2021 18:41 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 09:15 WombaT wrote:On October 15 2021 08:01 BlackJack wrote:On October 14 2021 20:10 WombaT wrote:On October 14 2021 12:16 BlackJack wrote:On October 13 2021 21:19 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2021 21:09 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Yes!! Fantastic answers. Thank you! In fact I guarantee you not a single one of them favors letting people catch COVID over getting a vaccine.
In fact there are many reasons why it's important to study and exactly none of them are for this ridiculous scenario that people keep reposting. People keep posting those 'ridiculous scenario's' because that is what happens outside in the real world. You think the people stupid enough to take horse dewormer aren't capable of thinking "hey, natural immunity is good I'll just get some covid victims to cough in my face"? Let scientists do their science but keep that shit away from the general public because 'we' can't be trusted to handle it and its no use to us anyway. Back to mistrust/misinformation - I'm more concerned that there are reasonable people that are saying we shouldn't say things even if they are objectively true because the horse paste eaters might take it the wrong way. Especially when the "horse dewormer eating" thing was a narrative that was heavily trumped up by the media. For example: The NYTimes article that reported Mississippi poison control was inundated with calls about people taking ivermectin/horse dewormer, with 70% of their calls being related to ivermectin. The rest of the mainstream media from MSNBC to Huffpost and everyone in between repeated the story. Well weeks later the NYT came out with a correction that it wasn't 70%, it was actually 2% of calls. Not exactly what I would call inundated. Or the Rolling Stone article of the Oklahoma doctor that claimed gunshot victims were waiting for beds because the hospital was full of people overdosing on Ivermectin. Again, widely reposted by every media outlet, also found to be complete bullshit. Or the MSM casually reporting that Joe Rogan was taking horse dewormer medicine to treat his COVID even though he was taking ivermectin for human consumption prescribed by a doctor. I'm far more concerned when misinformation comes from the MSM and even reasonable and educated people buy into it. Natural immunity is clearly a pretty crucial part of any wider pandemic mitigation strategy and needs investigated. Knowing its potency will also assuage the fears of those who have been infected and have been unable to access vaccination. It’s something that can be relatively soberly discussed within a thread like this, as something that’s a neutral bit of information and how to address it. I think the last 8 pages of this thread has plenty of evidence that this is not true. But the reason I think this is a way bigger concern is because, in my opinion, this is primarily what drives people to the rabbit holes of anti-vaccine misinformation. Joe Rogan has millions and millions of followers. When it's obvious that CNN is lying about him taking a livestock medication his followers think "well it's clear they are pushing a narrative and can't be trusted." It's giving more ammunition to the conspiracy theorists. But that alone is not even the most concerning part. The part I find most concerning is that due to the hysteria around COVID and concerns about misinformation, people are becoming more and more convinced that the government should step in to restrict false info online even if it means limiting freedom of information. One poll showed that support of this idea went from 40% to 65% among one group in just the last few years. This is 10x scarier than anything I have heard about COVID. A small group of people that are stupid enough to eat horse paste is not much of a threat. The fact that the MSM can convince lots of people that the horse paste eaters are so numerous that they are taking up all the hospital beds and making gunshot victims wait is very scary when you realize it leads to people thinking the government should censor/control information. Why is that scary? When has it ever been a good thing when a government could determine what the truth was and control the flow of information to the masses? I think historically there are enough examples to say this is overwhelmingly more bad than good. I think it's a mistake to think you would want anyone to determine what is true/false for you. It's a much bigger mistake if that anyone is the government. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad ideas. While I'm not necessarily a fan of government control over 'what truth is', I also find the 'historical examples' a rather poor argument in general. 500 years ago, just about everyone in the West was convinced that the only reasonable form of government is hereditary monarchy and look where we are now; not to mention that modern issues with 'truth' and 'free speech' that stem from internet and social media simply weren't relevant at all in the past. It's like saying government control over what's a reasonable way to package your produce or how much pollution you emit is unnecessary, because you know, in the past we didn't need that. We don't even need historical examples. We have plenty of examples just during this pandemic that shows the government and/or public health experts are willing to lie to us to suit their agenda. Here's a good article that summarizes some of the lies we were told: https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.htmlMy favorite is probably Fauci admitting he moved the goalposts on "herd immunity" based on public opinion polls. When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85. Even as recent as yesterday multiple people in this thread were still believing in this pipe dream of herd immunity. Don't worry guys, we're so close! Just a few more vaccines and it's right around the corner. I'm sure you're not still being lied to. Even experts in a field will happily tell you they ultimately know very little about what they do, because it's true. Only once you start really understanding something do you also begin to understand how much you don't know. So I guess, it's not that even experts will admit they don't know, it's especially experts. You're reading some kind of nefarious agenda into someone basically saying they didn't know what was going to happen in an unprecedented pandemic. It's like we're all mortal in the end, or something. But sure, the big pro-vaccine lobby is out to get you.
Did you read that quote? Not sure how you got "saying they didn't know what was going to happen." He didn't say he didn't know what number we needed for herd immunity. He said he purposefully made up a new number to shift the goal posts because he thought it could get more people vaccinated.
The only confusing part is why he would even say that publicly. He could have just kept that to himself and people would have assumed the shifting numbers were from changing variables. The only explanation I can think of is that he really needs people to know how cunning and clever he is and how well he can manipulate the public.
|
Then that must be the only explanation. I don't see why it needs further discussion, in that case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
