|
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 November 07 2022 08:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 08:13 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 06:44 Symplectos wrote:
We don't have a ton of data to disprove for example that California couldn't open schools the same time Florida opened schools. If anything the data points the other way - Florida has more senior citizens than California, they have more people that have been chronically without health insurance, they have lower vaccination rates, etc.
This, however, is at the crux of why those discussions drag out for so many pages. The statement "Florida opened their schools early, thus California could have done that as well", is difficult for two reasons. It requires hindsight, but even if we ignore that, it is not how a logical argument is constructed. The problematic part is this: "We don't have a ton of data to disprove for example that California couldn't open schools the same time Florida opened schools." That brings no logical value, as failure of being able to disprove something does not equal a proof. Logically speaking, it is difficult to compare the situations in Florida and California, and even if we could, what about every other region in the world? I don't disagree with you. Nobody can prove one way or the other that the route not taken was the correct route. No matter how similar to localities are, proof that one could open schools is not proof that the other could (although I will insist that it is evidence). My grievance was that the other side thinks they have exclusive rights to declare that closing schools was the correct course of action and I'm obliged to disprove it with a preponderance of evidence. Magic Powers posted a source that said that the decision to close schools was not done based on a rigorous analysis of the factors but often driven by confirmation bias. Additionally we saw that the largest factors relating to reopening schools was not ICU bed availability or case rates or death rates. Instead the largest factors were completely political - i.e. areas with stronger teachers unions were slower to open, areas that are heavily Democrat were slower to reopen. If people want to agree to disagree because we're all just guessing about the optimal timeline for reopening schools I have no problem with that. But instead people want to insist without evidence that their position has the full faith and backing of "The Science" when the leading health experts in the world are urging kids to get back into school and liberal politicians attempting to not ruffle teacher's unions are the ones keeping them out. It's infuriating. Which liberal states/cities and teachers' unions are still currently keeping schools closed? Or are you referring to last school year?
Yes I'm referring to last year
|
On November 05 2022 11:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2022 09:47 Razyda wrote:On November 05 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2022 03:28 Razyda wrote:On November 04 2022 23:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2022 22:35 Razyda wrote:On November 04 2022 20:20 evilfatsh1t wrote:well in the context of politics tl is already becoming more of an echo chamber. isnt controversial political views like the #1 reason for bans for long time users? anyway for what its worth, in the context of this thread, there are several points that i agree with on blackjack. unfortunately for him, i dont have his kind of patience and cannot be fucked engaging in a neverending debate on an issue thats largely behind us already anyway. i dont even care to explain what the points i agreed with were, because that would require me to engage further in discussion. just wanted to point out that there are probably some people here who are like me. its less about being afraid to speak up, and more to do with not wanting to have to deal with people i consider to have a fundamental lack of reading comprehension ability and a lack of understanding of the fact that decisions in the real world involving mass amounts of people require more consideration than "what does this particular statistic suggest we do". reading this thread is honestly tiresome enough, i can only imagine how much worse it would be to have to take an active part. i swear the majority of probably like the last 50 pages of this thread is sermokala vs blackjack with other users chiming in here and there. off topic edit: wow this was a lame 8000th post. ive wanted the archon icon for a long time and then i got it randomly when tl got merged. my archon life has been so short lived  On November 04 2022 21:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Last 50 pages is mostly just people debating whether previous actions taken 1-3 years ago were justified.It's all in the rear view mirror now, probably only 1% still masking here.
Still a few ridiculous rules, like needing to wear a mask in the dentist reception but obviously taking the mask off when you step inside the dentist's office and the dentist is working inside your mouth.Queensland just removed all mask requirements so I imagine these holdovers will be gone in other states by year end. Issue with that is that it encourages them more. If more people were arguing back then and/or keep arguing now, we may not be in the situation we are now. Even after being proven wrong on pretty much everything possible they are still doubling down. We are already living in ridiculous times where people not only approve but are also happy about: Censorship Repercussions for different views FDA being basically advertising department for Pfizer This kind of attitude: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23028843.covid-scotland-vaccines-ruled-cause-neonatal-deaths-spike/"Public Health Scotland (PHS) said its consultants had given “careful consideration” to the “potential benefits and harms” of carrying out such as analysis as part of its probe into the tragic deaths of 39 infants, but concluded against doing so because “it was not possible to identify a scenario that would have resulted in a change to public health policy or practice” given that vaccination policy was already “appropriately informed by good-quality population-level evidence and safety data”. [...} In a statement, PHS added that there was also a risk that “identifying the vaccination status of the mothers, even at aggregate level, would result in harm to those individuals and others close to them, through actual or perceived judgement of the effects of their personal vaccination decision”. Furthermore “ the outcomes of such analysis, whilst being uninformative for public health decision making, had the potential to be used to harm vaccine confidence at this critical time”. " If people ignore it, it will just going to go further downhill. 1. The word "censorship" is meaningless without context (social media? at work? against the law? and what's being said that's being censored?). 2. In response to "Repercussions for different views", again, it depends on context. What are the views? If two people had different perspectives that were both evidence-based, that might be a very different situation than, say, Kanye receiving repercussions/censorship for the "different view" that hating on Jews is okay. 3. As far as that article goes, there's no reason to raise any suspicion by speculating about a non-existent correlation between covid vaccines and miscarriages; we know that pregnant women getting vaccinated is a good and safe thing: 1. "Pregnant Women Who Receive COVID-19 Vaccination Pass Protection from the Virus to Their Newborns" https://nyulangone.org/news/pregnant-women-who-receive-covid-19-vaccination-pass-protection-virus-their-newborns 2. "COVID vaccine reduces risk of severe illness in pregnant women, protects newborns" https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/womens-health/covid-19-vaccine-during-pregnancy-protects-newborns 3. "If you’re pregnant, planning a pregnancy or breastfeeding, COVID-19 vaccination is recommended." https://raisingchildren.net.au/guides/coronavirus-covid-19-guide/covid-19-vaccinations-pregnancy-breastfeeding 4. "With the COVID-19 pandemic entering its third year, efforts to mitigate the risk for infection remain vitally important, especially for vulnerable populations. A recent study from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) showed vaccination during pregnancy resulted in more lasting antibody levels in infants, when compared to babies born to unvaccinated, COVID-infected mothers." https://www.massgeneral.org/news/press-release/study-shows-persistent-antibodies-in-infants-after-covid-19-vaccination-in-pregnancy 5. "Babies Better Protected From COVID if Mother Vaccinated During Pregnancy" https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/968674 1 - it actually isnt - censorship is censorship - I previously linked BMJ article how they were censored on Facebook and it wasnt separate accident. It is not like censorship is becoming something good, if it happens to censor people/opinions you disagree with/dont like. 2 - no it doesnt, we not talking about criminal activity, we talking about scientists having different opinions. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-022-09479-4Link to actually quite interesting article regarding first 2 points. Unfortunately, that article merely lists situations where someone got censored or received repercussions, without actually going into detail about what was said. The article says that Person X's tweet received a warning, for example, without actually saying what the tweet was. That article doesn't mention what was said, nor does it bother to analyze if certain videos or messages were "censored" because it was merely a different of legitimate scientific opinion, or for some other reason (like breaking ToS). If your position is "the context doesn't matter, it's all censorship/consequences so it's all necessarily bad", then we're going to have to fundamentally disagree on whether or not experiencing repercussions can ever be justified. 3 - I dont think you understood what is my issue with PHS regarding this article. I am not saying that vaccine is the cause. I am saying that this possibility should be investigated and not discarded beforehand. What should never ever have impact on this decision is this bit: "the outcomes of such analysis, whilst being uninformative for public health decision making, had the potential to be used to harm vaccine confidence at this critical time" So there is "no plausible link", or as you say "non-existent correlation" and yet somehow outcomes of such analysis had the potential to be used to harm vaccine confidence. That doesnt seem to make sense? Considering that over 5 billion people had vaccine ( https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations ) I would say that even slightest health abnormality should be analyzed with this angle in mind. Also links you provided seem to further prove my point? All those confirm that vaccine taken by pregnant women actually affects the child?Positively is not the same as negatively. They're opposites. And yes, of course that pointless analysis would harm vaccine confidence; why would pregnant people get vaccinated if they heard that scientists were suddenly wondering if the vaccine is causing miscarriages, despite all of the above resources showing positive effects? That would be the take-away from many people who don't understand correlation vs. causation and who don't realize that doing a study for the millionth time doesn't mean that the public needs to be worried. This has already been researched, in depth, all around the world, and the last thing that was needed during the height of the pandemic was more vaccine hesitancy about its safety. Bolded: "Study participants include 13 established doctors and scientists" and judging from the article authors seems to know what they doing, so i highly doubt that they included established doctors banned for posting videos of them dancing naked at crossroads at midnight. Italic: A bit out of order. Harm vaccine confidence - highly doubt it, those who wanted vaccine already had it, those who dont probably wont have it anyway. What about people who would understand, like you know doctors and scientists? they dont deserve to know because someone could misunderstood the data? Millionth time? Already researched in depth all around the world? could you please provide me with, lets say, 3 links to research about "neonatal deaths after Covid vaccination" On November 05 2022 03:28 Razyda wrote:
Also links you provided seem to further prove my point? All those confirm that vaccine taken by pregnant women actually affects the child?
On November 05 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Positively is not the same as negatively. They're opposites.. This two, my question and your answer I quoted separately, because in all honesty I dont even know what can be said here. I dont think anyone who finished high school would answer that. It is wrong, it is ignorant, it sounds more like religion than science. Bolded: You can assert that what someone said was probably fine, but the point still stands that we have no idea what was actually said. Italic: Becoming pregnant comes with an entire new set of concerns, including what food, medicines, and shots you end up getting (that you were previously fine with), to make sure they don't interfere with pregnancy. It's completely reasonable for a woman who is starting a vaccine/medicine regiment to wonder if she should continue it once she becomes pregnant, because her body is drastically changing in new ways. If she thinks that the vaccine will negatively affect her pregnancy, she may not continue with boosters (despite them actually being beneficial).
"could you please provide me with, lets say, 3 links to research about "neonatal deaths after Covid vaccination""
I literally just provided you with 5 links of information explaining why pregnant women ought to continue getting vaccinated, as a response to your post wondering if we should be concerned about pregnant women getting vaccinated. If that's not good enough for you, then I'm sorry. "This two, my question and your answer I quoted separately, because in all honesty I dont even know what can be said here. I dont think anyone who finished high school would answer that. It is wrong, it is ignorant, it sounds more like religion than science."
I don't know what this means. You're doing the Trump-esque "I'm just asking questions" nonsense about a non-existent link between vaccines and miscarriages, whereas the research shows that vaccines are healthy for both pregnant women and their babies. What you're (presumably) innocently asking about is a source of fearmongering and it creates unjustified vaccine hesitancy.
Bolded: You know what, whatever , I get it opinions you not agree with getting censored, so censorship is fine and so are repercussions.
So censoring this:
https://www.aier.org/article/twitter-censors-famed-epidemiologist-martin-kulldorff/
is fine, But this isnt and shouldnt be censored:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8tj7eWXIAAl0UK?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fgaq5t4XkAApjgu?format=jpg&name=large
Italic: I know I am a father of 2. As for boosters being beneficial Paul Offit (which I dont think anyone will call antivax) openly said that he advised his son against taking booster and he himself wont be taking bivalent booster?
Bolded 2: So I am questioning attitude of PHS when it comes to "neonatal deaths" You said it was" "doing a study for the millionth time doesn't mean that the public needs to be worried. This has already been researched, in depth, all around the world". When I ask for 3 links you said you provided me with 5. I am not sure you realise, but literally neither of those mention anything on neonatal deaths. I also asked for a link to research, you linked articles, there is a difference which one would boldly assume you understand.
Italic 2:
Again from the start:
On November 05 2022 03:28 Razyda wrote:
Also links you provided seem to further prove my point? All those confirm that vaccine taken by pregnant women actually affects the child?
On November 05 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Positively is not the same as negatively. They're opposites..
They either affect it, or not. You dont get to say that only positive effects affect them. That just not how it works.
" What you're (presumably) innocently asking about is a source of fearmongering and it creates unjustified vaccine hesitancy."
I am asking PHS to do their job correctly and not discarding things before even starting the research. Also did you ever thought, that this kind of attitude creates more vaccine hesitancy than antivaxxers ever could?
Edit: regarding last point:
https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/how-distrust-childhood-vaccines-could-lead-more-breakouts-preventable-diseases
“Academic institutions can answer scientific questions … [but] the majority aren’t [refusing vaccines] because there’s a specific scientific concern,” Offit says. “The data are there; the issue is this cultural issue” of distrusting the government and federal mandates."
|
Northern Ireland23322 Posts
On November 07 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 06:48 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 04:21 BlackJack wrote:On November 06 2022 19:40 Artisreal wrote:On November 06 2022 17:55 InDaHouse wrote:Well this faction of authoritarian Borg Drones in this thread are now trying to hold the line when their narrative is crashing down. They are the same people sitting alone in their car with a mask or takes a swin in the sea alone with a mask, lol. Are you completely delusional? You’re counterargument is comparing Covid that belongs to the Corona family viruses with Smallpox and Measles is ridicoulus. Covid has more in similarities with the common flu and that is the whole fucking point why it cannot be eradicated. When a virus can harbour in animals (READ COVID) it can also mutate and jump back to humans, thus it is impossible to eradicate Maybe in some other universe in the multiverse, but not here. MEASLES and SMALLPOX cannot infect animals therefore are mandatory vaccinationprograms effective in creating herd immunity. www.cdc.govwww.cdc.govSo the effort to vaccinate the entire world against Covid is useless with the aim to eradicate the virus. This fact is already known by epidemiologist. The mandates will never come back, the Governments will not risk severe civil unrest in the midst of shortage inflation and prelude to global war. Damn so many strawmen... Missing the field for the scarecrows. Strawmen? People are literally talking about eradicating COVID or getting to the point of virtually eliminating it. They are constantly talking about measles and smallpox and other diseases to imply that we can do the same with COVID that we did with them. Nobody is strawmanning this. As I said, I don’t think Sermakola actually said that, if he wishes to correct me and says actually, that’s what he meant then I will appreciate the clarification and go to disagree with him. If I am wrong, I am happy to stand corrected. My understanding is the thrust of the argument is ‘hey it’s still better than not vaccinating people and yeah, it won’t be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway, so why not’ BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?" Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now. BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." WombaT: I don't think he's arguing we could eliminate COVID from schools. The thrust of the argument is "hey it's still better than not vaccinating people and yeah it won't be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway so why not." Sorry but it's ridiculous. I'm not the one constantly talking about measles and polio and whatever else. It's Sermokala that's constantly referencing these other diseases and constantly referencing herd immunity and very clearly and plainly stating that we can virtually eliminate COVID from schools the way we have these other diseases. But you don't think he's arguing that we could eliminate COVID from schools.
As I’ve said, that’s my read.
If Sermakola wishes to correct the record and say ‘actually no WombaT, you’re wrong and I actually do think we can essentially eradicate COVID via this course of action’ then, he can make that correction.
And I can disagree with that position when such a clarification is forthcoming. Or indeed, pre-emptively disagree with it right now. No skin off my back
I don’t know what else you want here.
I’ve said in two separate posts that my interpretation of his position is ‘I think vaccination is a good idea, we already mandate all sorts of vaccinations for school kids so why not this one?’
And, I believe his threshold for ‘is a good idea’ is set far below de facto eradication. We can argue thresholds of suitability, because I think that is the disagreement here.
Not Sermakola thinking mandatory vaccination in schools will ultimately leave COVID as a non-factor.
As I said in previous posts, and have stressed again, I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. That’s my interpretation of his position here, and thus I am not arguing against the idea that ‘if we do this, covid can be de facto eradicated’.
If he wants to correct me and I’m misreading, I’m happy to be corrected.
Both of you guys seem to have serious issues in communicating with one another, and in misunderstanding one another, in interpreting one another’s posts in the least charitable way possible.
I’m adding this to a rather long list, least how I see it as a third party
|
On November 07 2022 08:34 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2022 11:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2022 09:47 Razyda wrote:On November 05 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2022 03:28 Razyda wrote:On November 04 2022 23:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2022 22:35 Razyda wrote:On November 04 2022 20:20 evilfatsh1t wrote:well in the context of politics tl is already becoming more of an echo chamber. isnt controversial political views like the #1 reason for bans for long time users? anyway for what its worth, in the context of this thread, there are several points that i agree with on blackjack. unfortunately for him, i dont have his kind of patience and cannot be fucked engaging in a neverending debate on an issue thats largely behind us already anyway. i dont even care to explain what the points i agreed with were, because that would require me to engage further in discussion. just wanted to point out that there are probably some people here who are like me. its less about being afraid to speak up, and more to do with not wanting to have to deal with people i consider to have a fundamental lack of reading comprehension ability and a lack of understanding of the fact that decisions in the real world involving mass amounts of people require more consideration than "what does this particular statistic suggest we do". reading this thread is honestly tiresome enough, i can only imagine how much worse it would be to have to take an active part. i swear the majority of probably like the last 50 pages of this thread is sermokala vs blackjack with other users chiming in here and there. off topic edit: wow this was a lame 8000th post. ive wanted the archon icon for a long time and then i got it randomly when tl got merged. my archon life has been so short lived On November 04 2022 21:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Last 50 pages is mostly just people debating whether previous actions taken 1-3 years ago were justified.It's all in the rear view mirror now, probably only 1% still masking here.
Still a few ridiculous rules, like needing to wear a mask in the dentist reception but obviously taking the mask off when you step inside the dentist's office and the dentist is working inside your mouth.Queensland just removed all mask requirements so I imagine these holdovers will be gone in other states by year end. Issue with that is that it encourages them more. If more people were arguing back then and/or keep arguing now, we may not be in the situation we are now. Even after being proven wrong on pretty much everything possible they are still doubling down. We are already living in ridiculous times where people not only approve but are also happy about: Censorship Repercussions for different views FDA being basically advertising department for Pfizer This kind of attitude: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23028843.covid-scotland-vaccines-ruled-cause-neonatal-deaths-spike/"Public Health Scotland (PHS) said its consultants had given “careful consideration” to the “potential benefits and harms” of carrying out such as analysis as part of its probe into the tragic deaths of 39 infants, but concluded against doing so because “it was not possible to identify a scenario that would have resulted in a change to public health policy or practice” given that vaccination policy was already “appropriately informed by good-quality population-level evidence and safety data”. [...} In a statement, PHS added that there was also a risk that “identifying the vaccination status of the mothers, even at aggregate level, would result in harm to those individuals and others close to them, through actual or perceived judgement of the effects of their personal vaccination decision”. Furthermore “ the outcomes of such analysis, whilst being uninformative for public health decision making, had the potential to be used to harm vaccine confidence at this critical time”. " If people ignore it, it will just going to go further downhill. 1. The word "censorship" is meaningless without context (social media? at work? against the law? and what's being said that's being censored?). 2. In response to "Repercussions for different views", again, it depends on context. What are the views? If two people had different perspectives that were both evidence-based, that might be a very different situation than, say, Kanye receiving repercussions/censorship for the "different view" that hating on Jews is okay. 3. As far as that article goes, there's no reason to raise any suspicion by speculating about a non-existent correlation between covid vaccines and miscarriages; we know that pregnant women getting vaccinated is a good and safe thing: 1. "Pregnant Women Who Receive COVID-19 Vaccination Pass Protection from the Virus to Their Newborns" https://nyulangone.org/news/pregnant-women-who-receive-covid-19-vaccination-pass-protection-virus-their-newborns 2. "COVID vaccine reduces risk of severe illness in pregnant women, protects newborns" https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/womens-health/covid-19-vaccine-during-pregnancy-protects-newborns 3. "If you’re pregnant, planning a pregnancy or breastfeeding, COVID-19 vaccination is recommended." https://raisingchildren.net.au/guides/coronavirus-covid-19-guide/covid-19-vaccinations-pregnancy-breastfeeding 4. "With the COVID-19 pandemic entering its third year, efforts to mitigate the risk for infection remain vitally important, especially for vulnerable populations. A recent study from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) showed vaccination during pregnancy resulted in more lasting antibody levels in infants, when compared to babies born to unvaccinated, COVID-infected mothers." https://www.massgeneral.org/news/press-release/study-shows-persistent-antibodies-in-infants-after-covid-19-vaccination-in-pregnancy 5. "Babies Better Protected From COVID if Mother Vaccinated During Pregnancy" https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/968674 1 - it actually isnt - censorship is censorship - I previously linked BMJ article how they were censored on Facebook and it wasnt separate accident. It is not like censorship is becoming something good, if it happens to censor people/opinions you disagree with/dont like. 2 - no it doesnt, we not talking about criminal activity, we talking about scientists having different opinions. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-022-09479-4Link to actually quite interesting article regarding first 2 points. Unfortunately, that article merely lists situations where someone got censored or received repercussions, without actually going into detail about what was said. The article says that Person X's tweet received a warning, for example, without actually saying what the tweet was. That article doesn't mention what was said, nor does it bother to analyze if certain videos or messages were "censored" because it was merely a different of legitimate scientific opinion, or for some other reason (like breaking ToS). If your position is "the context doesn't matter, it's all censorship/consequences so it's all necessarily bad", then we're going to have to fundamentally disagree on whether or not experiencing repercussions can ever be justified. 3 - I dont think you understood what is my issue with PHS regarding this article. I am not saying that vaccine is the cause. I am saying that this possibility should be investigated and not discarded beforehand. What should never ever have impact on this decision is this bit: "the outcomes of such analysis, whilst being uninformative for public health decision making, had the potential to be used to harm vaccine confidence at this critical time" So there is "no plausible link", or as you say "non-existent correlation" and yet somehow outcomes of such analysis had the potential to be used to harm vaccine confidence. That doesnt seem to make sense? Considering that over 5 billion people had vaccine ( https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations ) I would say that even slightest health abnormality should be analyzed with this angle in mind. Also links you provided seem to further prove my point? All those confirm that vaccine taken by pregnant women actually affects the child?Positively is not the same as negatively. They're opposites. And yes, of course that pointless analysis would harm vaccine confidence; why would pregnant people get vaccinated if they heard that scientists were suddenly wondering if the vaccine is causing miscarriages, despite all of the above resources showing positive effects? That would be the take-away from many people who don't understand correlation vs. causation and who don't realize that doing a study for the millionth time doesn't mean that the public needs to be worried. This has already been researched, in depth, all around the world, and the last thing that was needed during the height of the pandemic was more vaccine hesitancy about its safety. Bolded: "Study participants include 13 established doctors and scientists" and judging from the article authors seems to know what they doing, so i highly doubt that they included established doctors banned for posting videos of them dancing naked at crossroads at midnight. Italic: A bit out of order. Harm vaccine confidence - highly doubt it, those who wanted vaccine already had it, those who dont probably wont have it anyway. What about people who would understand, like you know doctors and scientists? they dont deserve to know because someone could misunderstood the data? Millionth time? Already researched in depth all around the world? could you please provide me with, lets say, 3 links to research about "neonatal deaths after Covid vaccination" On November 05 2022 03:28 Razyda wrote:
Also links you provided seem to further prove my point? All those confirm that vaccine taken by pregnant women actually affects the child?
On November 05 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Positively is not the same as negatively. They're opposites.. This two, my question and your answer I quoted separately, because in all honesty I dont even know what can be said here. I dont think anyone who finished high school would answer that. It is wrong, it is ignorant, it sounds more like religion than science. Bolded: You can assert that what someone said was probably fine, but the point still stands that we have no idea what was actually said. Italic: Becoming pregnant comes with an entire new set of concerns, including what food, medicines, and shots you end up getting (that you were previously fine with), to make sure they don't interfere with pregnancy. It's completely reasonable for a woman who is starting a vaccine/medicine regiment to wonder if she should continue it once she becomes pregnant, because her body is drastically changing in new ways. If she thinks that the vaccine will negatively affect her pregnancy, she may not continue with boosters (despite them actually being beneficial).
"could you please provide me with, lets say, 3 links to research about "neonatal deaths after Covid vaccination""
I literally just provided you with 5 links of information explaining why pregnant women ought to continue getting vaccinated, as a response to your post wondering if we should be concerned about pregnant women getting vaccinated. If that's not good enough for you, then I'm sorry. "This two, my question and your answer I quoted separately, because in all honesty I dont even know what can be said here. I dont think anyone who finished high school would answer that. It is wrong, it is ignorant, it sounds more like religion than science."
I don't know what this means. You're doing the Trump-esque "I'm just asking questions" nonsense about a non-existent link between vaccines and miscarriages, whereas the research shows that vaccines are healthy for both pregnant women and their babies. What you're (presumably) innocently asking about is a source of fearmongering and it creates unjustified vaccine hesitancy. Bolded: You know what, whatever , I get it opinions you not agree with getting censored, so censorship is fine and so are repercussions. So censoring this: https://www.aier.org/article/twitter-censors-famed-epidemiologist-martin-kulldorff/is fine, But this isnt and shouldnt be censored: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8tj7eWXIAAl0UK?format=jpg&name=largehttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fgaq5t4XkAApjgu?format=jpg&name=largeItalic: I know I am a father of 2. As for boosters being beneficial Paul Offit (which I dont think anyone will call antivax) openly said that he advised his son against taking booster and he himself wont be taking bivalent booster? Bolded 2: So I am questioning attitude of PHS when it comes to "neonatal deaths" You said it was" "doing a study for the millionth time doesn't mean that the public needs to be worried. This has already been researched, in depth, all around the world". When I ask for 3 links you said you provided me with 5. I am not sure you realise, but literally neither of those mention anything on neonatal deaths. I also asked for a link to research, you linked articles, there is a difference which one would boldly assume you understand. Italic 2: Again from the start: Show nested quote +On November 05 2022 03:28 Razyda wrote:
Also links you provided seem to further prove my point? All those confirm that vaccine taken by pregnant women actually affects the child?
Show nested quote +On November 05 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Positively is not the same as negatively. They're opposites.. They either affect it, or not. You dont get to say that only positive effects affect them. That just not how it works. " What you're (presumably) innocently asking about is a source of fearmongering and it creates unjustified vaccine hesitancy." I am asking PHS to do their job correctly and not discarding things before even starting the research. Also did you ever thought, that this kind of attitude creates more vaccine hesitancy than antivaxxers ever could? Edit: regarding last point: https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/how-distrust-childhood-vaccines-could-lead-more-breakouts-preventable-diseases“Academic institutions can answer scientific questions … [but] the majority aren’t [refusing vaccines] because there’s a specific scientific concern,” Offit says. “The data are there; the issue is this cultural issue” of distrusting the government and federal mandates."
"I get it opinions you not agree with getting censored, so censorship is fine and so are repercussions"
You had posted absolutely zero opinions or quotes, back when we were having this discussion, so how would I know what they were being censored for? You literally said the context and what was actually said didn't matter. I asked you what they said/did to get censored, and you said that you didn't know and it didn't matter because censorship is inherently bad. While you may have that position - that all censorship is bad, no matter what - that's not my position, so you'd have to actually give me context if you want to persuade me.
"So censoring this: https://www.aier.org/article/twitter-censors-famed-epidemiologist-martin-kulldorff/ is fine"
...Did you read the article you posted? It literally says "His tweet on how not everyone needs a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was not taken down. He had a warning slapped on it and users have been prevented from liking or retweeting the post."
So... A tweet receiving a warning is censorship? If that's what you're referring to, then fair enough; that tweet is the first example of you citing something that can actually be read, which I appreciate. Your article leaves out the reason why he received a warning, but if it was flagged for being anti-vaxx, then I would agree with you that his tweet isn't as bad as many of the more significant anti-vaxx tweets sent out by other public figures and celebrities. I don't think his tweet is anti-vaxx, and I don't think it should be flagged as anti-vaxx... although, again, we don't actually know why it was flagged.
"You dont get to say that only positive effects affect them."
You. Have. Not. Provided. Evidence. Of. Negative. Effects. I provided multiple links showing positive effects. You don't get to assert that vaccines harm pregnant women just because they already help pregnant women.
As for your last article, entitled "How distrust of childhood vaccines could lead to more breakouts of preventable diseases", the fact that you think it's the pro-vaxx side causing that instead of the anti-vaxx side is disturbing. *You should get vaccinated like the rest of us, because it's safe and it can help keep you (and the rest of us) safe* vs. *You shouldn't get vaccinated because vaccines don't work + what are the chances that you get seriously ill from covid + who cares if you spread it to others + vaccines are just a political/financial scheme created by people in power to keep you in line and get rich*. Hmmm, which side is more likely to perpetuate a distrust of childhood vaccines?
|
People still talk about this?
|
On November 07 2022 08:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 08:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2022 08:13 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 06:44 Symplectos wrote:
We don't have a ton of data to disprove for example that California couldn't open schools the same time Florida opened schools. If anything the data points the other way - Florida has more senior citizens than California, they have more people that have been chronically without health insurance, they have lower vaccination rates, etc.
This, however, is at the crux of why those discussions drag out for so many pages. The statement "Florida opened their schools early, thus California could have done that as well", is difficult for two reasons. It requires hindsight, but even if we ignore that, it is not how a logical argument is constructed. The problematic part is this: "We don't have a ton of data to disprove for example that California couldn't open schools the same time Florida opened schools." That brings no logical value, as failure of being able to disprove something does not equal a proof. Logically speaking, it is difficult to compare the situations in Florida and California, and even if we could, what about every other region in the world? I don't disagree with you. Nobody can prove one way or the other that the route not taken was the correct route. No matter how similar to localities are, proof that one could open schools is not proof that the other could (although I will insist that it is evidence). My grievance was that the other side thinks they have exclusive rights to declare that closing schools was the correct course of action and I'm obliged to disprove it with a preponderance of evidence. Magic Powers posted a source that said that the decision to close schools was not done based on a rigorous analysis of the factors but often driven by confirmation bias. Additionally we saw that the largest factors relating to reopening schools was not ICU bed availability or case rates or death rates. Instead the largest factors were completely political - i.e. areas with stronger teachers unions were slower to open, areas that are heavily Democrat were slower to reopen. If people want to agree to disagree because we're all just guessing about the optimal timeline for reopening schools I have no problem with that. But instead people want to insist without evidence that their position has the full faith and backing of "The Science" when the leading health experts in the world are urging kids to get back into school and liberal politicians attempting to not ruffle teacher's unions are the ones keeping them out. It's infuriating. Which liberal states/cities and teachers' unions are still currently keeping schools closed? Or are you referring to last school year? Yes I'm referring to last year
Gotcha. Thank you for the clarification.
|
On November 07 2022 10:34 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 06:48 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 04:21 BlackJack wrote:On November 06 2022 19:40 Artisreal wrote:On November 06 2022 17:55 InDaHouse wrote:Well this faction of authoritarian Borg Drones in this thread are now trying to hold the line when their narrative is crashing down. They are the same people sitting alone in their car with a mask or takes a swin in the sea alone with a mask, lol. Are you completely delusional? You’re counterargument is comparing Covid that belongs to the Corona family viruses with Smallpox and Measles is ridicoulus. Covid has more in similarities with the common flu and that is the whole fucking point why it cannot be eradicated. When a virus can harbour in animals (READ COVID) it can also mutate and jump back to humans, thus it is impossible to eradicate Maybe in some other universe in the multiverse, but not here. MEASLES and SMALLPOX cannot infect animals therefore are mandatory vaccinationprograms effective in creating herd immunity. www.cdc.govwww.cdc.govSo the effort to vaccinate the entire world against Covid is useless with the aim to eradicate the virus. This fact is already known by epidemiologist. The mandates will never come back, the Governments will not risk severe civil unrest in the midst of shortage inflation and prelude to global war. Damn so many strawmen... Missing the field for the scarecrows. Strawmen? People are literally talking about eradicating COVID or getting to the point of virtually eliminating it. They are constantly talking about measles and smallpox and other diseases to imply that we can do the same with COVID that we did with them. Nobody is strawmanning this. As I said, I don’t think Sermakola actually said that, if he wishes to correct me and says actually, that’s what he meant then I will appreciate the clarification and go to disagree with him. If I am wrong, I am happy to stand corrected. My understanding is the thrust of the argument is ‘hey it’s still better than not vaccinating people and yeah, it won’t be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway, so why not’ BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?" Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now. BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." WombaT: I don't think he's arguing we could eliminate COVID from schools. The thrust of the argument is "hey it's still better than not vaccinating people and yeah it won't be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway so why not." Sorry but it's ridiculous. I'm not the one constantly talking about measles and polio and whatever else. It's Sermokala that's constantly referencing these other diseases and constantly referencing herd immunity and very clearly and plainly stating that we can virtually eliminate COVID from schools the way we have these other diseases. But you don't think he's arguing that we could eliminate COVID from schools. As I’ve said, that’s my read. If Sermakola wishes to correct the record and say ‘actually no WombaT, you’re wrong and I actually do think we can essentially eradicate COVID via this course of action’ then, he can make that correction. And I can disagree with that position when such a clarification is forthcoming. Or indeed, pre-emptively disagree with it right now. No skin off my back I don’t know what else you want here. I’ve said in two separate posts that my interpretation of his position is ‘I think vaccination is a good idea, we already mandate all sorts of vaccinations for school kids so why not this one?’ And, I believe his threshold for ‘is a good idea’ is set far below de facto eradication. We can argue thresholds of suitability, because I think that is the disagreement here. Not Sermakola thinking mandatory vaccination in schools will ultimately leave COVID as a non-factor. As I said in previous posts, and have stressed again, I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. That’s my interpretation of his position here, and thus I am not arguing against the idea that ‘if we do this, covid can be de facto eradicated’. If he wants to correct me and I’m misreading, I’m happy to be corrected. Both of you guys seem to have serious issues in communicating with one another, and in misunderstanding one another, in interpreting one another’s posts in the least charitable way possible. I’m adding this to a rather long list, least how I see it as a third party
Sure, you can interpret it however you want.
But we are also supposed to have some collective understanding of what words mean.
If everyone in this thread thinks they are entitled to their own interpretation of "Herd Immunity" and their own interpretation of "eradicate COVID" and their own interpretation of "virtually eliminate COVID in schools the way we have measles and chicken pox" then this whole thread becomes an even bigger waste of time than it already is. Everyone gets to be right, because everyone gets to have their own definitions. Hurray. Maybe Symplectos is right after all and language is the problem.
|
Northern Ireland23322 Posts
On November 07 2022 11:30 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 10:34 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 06:48 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 04:21 BlackJack wrote:On November 06 2022 19:40 Artisreal wrote:On November 06 2022 17:55 InDaHouse wrote:Well this faction of authoritarian Borg Drones in this thread are now trying to hold the line when their narrative is crashing down. They are the same people sitting alone in their car with a mask or takes a swin in the sea alone with a mask, lol. Are you completely delusional? You’re counterargument is comparing Covid that belongs to the Corona family viruses with Smallpox and Measles is ridicoulus. Covid has more in similarities with the common flu and that is the whole fucking point why it cannot be eradicated. When a virus can harbour in animals (READ COVID) it can also mutate and jump back to humans, thus it is impossible to eradicate Maybe in some other universe in the multiverse, but not here. MEASLES and SMALLPOX cannot infect animals therefore are mandatory vaccinationprograms effective in creating herd immunity. www.cdc.govwww.cdc.govSo the effort to vaccinate the entire world against Covid is useless with the aim to eradicate the virus. This fact is already known by epidemiologist. The mandates will never come back, the Governments will not risk severe civil unrest in the midst of shortage inflation and prelude to global war. Damn so many strawmen... Missing the field for the scarecrows. Strawmen? People are literally talking about eradicating COVID or getting to the point of virtually eliminating it. They are constantly talking about measles and smallpox and other diseases to imply that we can do the same with COVID that we did with them. Nobody is strawmanning this. As I said, I don’t think Sermakola actually said that, if he wishes to correct me and says actually, that’s what he meant then I will appreciate the clarification and go to disagree with him. If I am wrong, I am happy to stand corrected. My understanding is the thrust of the argument is ‘hey it’s still better than not vaccinating people and yeah, it won’t be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway, so why not’ BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?" Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now. BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." WombaT: I don't think he's arguing we could eliminate COVID from schools. The thrust of the argument is "hey it's still better than not vaccinating people and yeah it won't be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway so why not." Sorry but it's ridiculous. I'm not the one constantly talking about measles and polio and whatever else. It's Sermokala that's constantly referencing these other diseases and constantly referencing herd immunity and very clearly and plainly stating that we can virtually eliminate COVID from schools the way we have these other diseases. But you don't think he's arguing that we could eliminate COVID from schools. As I’ve said, that’s my read. If Sermakola wishes to correct the record and say ‘actually no WombaT, you’re wrong and I actually do think we can essentially eradicate COVID via this course of action’ then, he can make that correction. And I can disagree with that position when such a clarification is forthcoming. Or indeed, pre-emptively disagree with it right now. No skin off my back I don’t know what else you want here. I’ve said in two separate posts that my interpretation of his position is ‘I think vaccination is a good idea, we already mandate all sorts of vaccinations for school kids so why not this one?’ And, I believe his threshold for ‘is a good idea’ is set far below de facto eradication. We can argue thresholds of suitability, because I think that is the disagreement here. Not Sermakola thinking mandatory vaccination in schools will ultimately leave COVID as a non-factor. As I said in previous posts, and have stressed again, I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. That’s my interpretation of his position here, and thus I am not arguing against the idea that ‘if we do this, covid can be de facto eradicated’. If he wants to correct me and I’m misreading, I’m happy to be corrected. Both of you guys seem to have serious issues in communicating with one another, and in misunderstanding one another, in interpreting one another’s posts in the least charitable way possible. I’m adding this to a rather long list, least how I see it as a third party Sure, you can interpret it however you want. But we are also supposed to have some collective understanding of what words mean. If everyone in this thread thinks they are entitled to their own interpretation of "Herd Immunity" and their own interpretation of "eradicate COVID" and their own interpretation of "virtually eliminate COVID in schools the way we have measles and chicken pox" then this whole thread becomes an even bigger waste of time than it already is. Everyone gets to be right, because everyone gets to have their own definitions. Hurray. Maybe Symplectos is right after all and language is the problem.
Specificity is important, amongst other things in communication.
At no point have I given any inkling that the kind of phrasings that you’ve quoted are things I see as ambiguous and open to much interpretation.
‘Eradicate COVID’ and ‘virtually eliminate’ are not identical, but functionally pretty close.
Either COVID is wiped off the earth entirely, as per the former, or it’s so close to being so that functionally it’s basically the same thing, in the latter.
I haven’t watered down those definitions and what they mean. I have merely asked Sermakola to clarify if he believes mandatory COVID vaccination in schools is a desirable policy because it will lead in part to that end goal, which is what you believe he claimed, or not.
I don’t think that is actually his position and there’s been crossed wires here, but it may well be. Hence my multiple posts seeking clarity on that specific point.
I am awaiting confirmation, nothing more, nothing less.
|
On November 07 2022 10:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 08:34 Razyda wrote:On November 05 2022 11:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2022 09:47 Razyda wrote:On November 05 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2022 03:28 Razyda wrote:On November 04 2022 23:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2022 22:35 Razyda wrote:On November 04 2022 20:20 evilfatsh1t wrote:well in the context of politics tl is already becoming more of an echo chamber. isnt controversial political views like the #1 reason for bans for long time users? anyway for what its worth, in the context of this thread, there are several points that i agree with on blackjack. unfortunately for him, i dont have his kind of patience and cannot be fucked engaging in a neverending debate on an issue thats largely behind us already anyway. i dont even care to explain what the points i agreed with were, because that would require me to engage further in discussion. just wanted to point out that there are probably some people here who are like me. its less about being afraid to speak up, and more to do with not wanting to have to deal with people i consider to have a fundamental lack of reading comprehension ability and a lack of understanding of the fact that decisions in the real world involving mass amounts of people require more consideration than "what does this particular statistic suggest we do". reading this thread is honestly tiresome enough, i can only imagine how much worse it would be to have to take an active part. i swear the majority of probably like the last 50 pages of this thread is sermokala vs blackjack with other users chiming in here and there. off topic edit: wow this was a lame 8000th post. ive wanted the archon icon for a long time and then i got it randomly when tl got merged. my archon life has been so short lived On November 04 2022 21:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Last 50 pages is mostly just people debating whether previous actions taken 1-3 years ago were justified.It's all in the rear view mirror now, probably only 1% still masking here.
Still a few ridiculous rules, like needing to wear a mask in the dentist reception but obviously taking the mask off when you step inside the dentist's office and the dentist is working inside your mouth.Queensland just removed all mask requirements so I imagine these holdovers will be gone in other states by year end. Issue with that is that it encourages them more. If more people were arguing back then and/or keep arguing now, we may not be in the situation we are now. Even after being proven wrong on pretty much everything possible they are still doubling down. We are already living in ridiculous times where people not only approve but are also happy about: Censorship Repercussions for different views FDA being basically advertising department for Pfizer This kind of attitude: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23028843.covid-scotland-vaccines-ruled-cause-neonatal-deaths-spike/"Public Health Scotland (PHS) said its consultants had given “careful consideration” to the “potential benefits and harms” of carrying out such as analysis as part of its probe into the tragic deaths of 39 infants, but concluded against doing so because “it was not possible to identify a scenario that would have resulted in a change to public health policy or practice” given that vaccination policy was already “appropriately informed by good-quality population-level evidence and safety data”. [...} In a statement, PHS added that there was also a risk that “identifying the vaccination status of the mothers, even at aggregate level, would result in harm to those individuals and others close to them, through actual or perceived judgement of the effects of their personal vaccination decision”. Furthermore “ the outcomes of such analysis, whilst being uninformative for public health decision making, had the potential to be used to harm vaccine confidence at this critical time”. " If people ignore it, it will just going to go further downhill. 1. The word "censorship" is meaningless without context (social media? at work? against the law? and what's being said that's being censored?). 2. In response to "Repercussions for different views", again, it depends on context. What are the views? If two people had different perspectives that were both evidence-based, that might be a very different situation than, say, Kanye receiving repercussions/censorship for the "different view" that hating on Jews is okay. 3. As far as that article goes, there's no reason to raise any suspicion by speculating about a non-existent correlation between covid vaccines and miscarriages; we know that pregnant women getting vaccinated is a good and safe thing: 1. "Pregnant Women Who Receive COVID-19 Vaccination Pass Protection from the Virus to Their Newborns" https://nyulangone.org/news/pregnant-women-who-receive-covid-19-vaccination-pass-protection-virus-their-newborns 2. "COVID vaccine reduces risk of severe illness in pregnant women, protects newborns" https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/womens-health/covid-19-vaccine-during-pregnancy-protects-newborns 3. "If you’re pregnant, planning a pregnancy or breastfeeding, COVID-19 vaccination is recommended." https://raisingchildren.net.au/guides/coronavirus-covid-19-guide/covid-19-vaccinations-pregnancy-breastfeeding 4. "With the COVID-19 pandemic entering its third year, efforts to mitigate the risk for infection remain vitally important, especially for vulnerable populations. A recent study from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) showed vaccination during pregnancy resulted in more lasting antibody levels in infants, when compared to babies born to unvaccinated, COVID-infected mothers." https://www.massgeneral.org/news/press-release/study-shows-persistent-antibodies-in-infants-after-covid-19-vaccination-in-pregnancy 5. "Babies Better Protected From COVID if Mother Vaccinated During Pregnancy" https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/968674 1 - it actually isnt - censorship is censorship - I previously linked BMJ article how they were censored on Facebook and it wasnt separate accident. It is not like censorship is becoming something good, if it happens to censor people/opinions you disagree with/dont like. 2 - no it doesnt, we not talking about criminal activity, we talking about scientists having different opinions. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-022-09479-4Link to actually quite interesting article regarding first 2 points. Unfortunately, that article merely lists situations where someone got censored or received repercussions, without actually going into detail about what was said. The article says that Person X's tweet received a warning, for example, without actually saying what the tweet was. That article doesn't mention what was said, nor does it bother to analyze if certain videos or messages were "censored" because it was merely a different of legitimate scientific opinion, or for some other reason (like breaking ToS). If your position is "the context doesn't matter, it's all censorship/consequences so it's all necessarily bad", then we're going to have to fundamentally disagree on whether or not experiencing repercussions can ever be justified. 3 - I dont think you understood what is my issue with PHS regarding this article. I am not saying that vaccine is the cause. I am saying that this possibility should be investigated and not discarded beforehand. What should never ever have impact on this decision is this bit: "the outcomes of such analysis, whilst being uninformative for public health decision making, had the potential to be used to harm vaccine confidence at this critical time" So there is "no plausible link", or as you say "non-existent correlation" and yet somehow outcomes of such analysis had the potential to be used to harm vaccine confidence. That doesnt seem to make sense? Considering that over 5 billion people had vaccine ( https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations ) I would say that even slightest health abnormality should be analyzed with this angle in mind. Also links you provided seem to further prove my point? All those confirm that vaccine taken by pregnant women actually affects the child?Positively is not the same as negatively. They're opposites. And yes, of course that pointless analysis would harm vaccine confidence; why would pregnant people get vaccinated if they heard that scientists were suddenly wondering if the vaccine is causing miscarriages, despite all of the above resources showing positive effects? That would be the take-away from many people who don't understand correlation vs. causation and who don't realize that doing a study for the millionth time doesn't mean that the public needs to be worried. This has already been researched, in depth, all around the world, and the last thing that was needed during the height of the pandemic was more vaccine hesitancy about its safety. Bolded: "Study participants include 13 established doctors and scientists" and judging from the article authors seems to know what they doing, so i highly doubt that they included established doctors banned for posting videos of them dancing naked at crossroads at midnight. Italic: A bit out of order. Harm vaccine confidence - highly doubt it, those who wanted vaccine already had it, those who dont probably wont have it anyway. What about people who would understand, like you know doctors and scientists? they dont deserve to know because someone could misunderstood the data? Millionth time? Already researched in depth all around the world? could you please provide me with, lets say, 3 links to research about "neonatal deaths after Covid vaccination" On November 05 2022 03:28 Razyda wrote:
Also links you provided seem to further prove my point? All those confirm that vaccine taken by pregnant women actually affects the child?
On November 05 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Positively is not the same as negatively. They're opposites.. This two, my question and your answer I quoted separately, because in all honesty I dont even know what can be said here. I dont think anyone who finished high school would answer that. It is wrong, it is ignorant, it sounds more like religion than science. Bolded: You can assert that what someone said was probably fine, but the point still stands that we have no idea what was actually said. Italic: Becoming pregnant comes with an entire new set of concerns, including what food, medicines, and shots you end up getting (that you were previously fine with), to make sure they don't interfere with pregnancy. It's completely reasonable for a woman who is starting a vaccine/medicine regiment to wonder if she should continue it once she becomes pregnant, because her body is drastically changing in new ways. If she thinks that the vaccine will negatively affect her pregnancy, she may not continue with boosters (despite them actually being beneficial).
"could you please provide me with, lets say, 3 links to research about "neonatal deaths after Covid vaccination""
I literally just provided you with 5 links of information explaining why pregnant women ought to continue getting vaccinated, as a response to your post wondering if we should be concerned about pregnant women getting vaccinated. If that's not good enough for you, then I'm sorry. "This two, my question and your answer I quoted separately, because in all honesty I dont even know what can be said here. I dont think anyone who finished high school would answer that. It is wrong, it is ignorant, it sounds more like religion than science."
I don't know what this means. You're doing the Trump-esque "I'm just asking questions" nonsense about a non-existent link between vaccines and miscarriages, whereas the research shows that vaccines are healthy for both pregnant women and their babies. What you're (presumably) innocently asking about is a source of fearmongering and it creates unjustified vaccine hesitancy. Bolded: You know what, whatever , I get it opinions you not agree with getting censored, so censorship is fine and so are repercussions. So censoring this: https://www.aier.org/article/twitter-censors-famed-epidemiologist-martin-kulldorff/is fine, But this isnt and shouldnt be censored: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8tj7eWXIAAl0UK?format=jpg&name=largehttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fgaq5t4XkAApjgu?format=jpg&name=largeItalic: I know I am a father of 2. As for boosters being beneficial Paul Offit (which I dont think anyone will call antivax) openly said that he advised his son against taking booster and he himself wont be taking bivalent booster? Bolded 2: So I am questioning attitude of PHS when it comes to "neonatal deaths" You said it was" "doing a study for the millionth time doesn't mean that the public needs to be worried. This has already been researched, in depth, all around the world". When I ask for 3 links you said you provided me with 5. I am not sure you realise, but literally neither of those mention anything on neonatal deaths. I also asked for a link to research, you linked articles, there is a difference which one would boldly assume you understand. Italic 2: Again from the start: On November 05 2022 03:28 Razyda wrote:
Also links you provided seem to further prove my point? All those confirm that vaccine taken by pregnant women actually affects the child?
On November 05 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Positively is not the same as negatively. They're opposites.. They either affect it, or not. You dont get to say that only positive effects affect them. That just not how it works. " What you're (presumably) innocently asking about is a source of fearmongering and it creates unjustified vaccine hesitancy." I am asking PHS to do their job correctly and not discarding things before even starting the research. Also did you ever thought, that this kind of attitude creates more vaccine hesitancy than antivaxxers ever could? Edit: regarding last point: https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/how-distrust-childhood-vaccines-could-lead-more-breakouts-preventable-diseases“Academic institutions can answer scientific questions … [but] the majority aren’t [refusing vaccines] because there’s a specific scientific concern,” Offit says. “The data are there; the issue is this cultural issue” of distrusting the government and federal mandates." "I get it opinions you not agree with getting censored, so censorship is fine and so are repercussions" You had posted absolutely zero opinions or quotes, back when we were having this discussion, so how would I know what they were being censored for? You literally said the context and what was actually said didn't matter. I asked you what they said/did to get censored, and you said that you didn't know and it didn't matter because censorship is inherently bad. While you may have that position - that all censorship is bad, no matter what - that's not my position, so you'd have to actually give me context if you want to persuade me. "So censoring this: https://www.aier.org/article/twitter-censors-famed-epidemiologist-martin-kulldorff/ is fine" ...Did you read the article you posted? It literally says "His tweet on how not everyone needs a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was not taken down. He had a warning slapped on it and users have been prevented from liking or retweeting the post." So... A tweet receiving a warning is censorship? If that's what you're referring to, then fair enough; that tweet is the first example of you citing something that can actually be read, which I appreciate. Your article leaves out the reason why he received a warning, but if it was flagged for being anti-vaxx, then I would agree with you that his tweet isn't as bad as many of the more significant anti-vaxx tweets sent out by other public figures and celebrities. I don't think his tweet is anti-vaxx, and I don't think it should be flagged as anti-vaxx... although, again, we don't actually know why it was flagged. "You dont get to say that only positive effects affect them." You. Have. Not. Provided. Evidence. Of. Negative. Effects. I provided multiple links showing positive effects. You don't get to assert that vaccines harm pregnant women just because they already help pregnant women. As for your last article, entitled "How distrust of childhood vaccines could lead to more breakouts of preventable diseases", the fact that you think it's the pro-vaxx side causing that instead of the anti-vaxx side is disturbing. *You should get vaccinated like the rest of us, because it's safe and it can help keep you (and the rest of us) safe* vs. *You shouldn't get vaccinated because vaccines don't work + what are the chances that you get seriously ill from covid + who cares if you spread it to others + vaccines are just a political/financial scheme created by people in power to keep you in line and get rich*. Hmmm, which side is more likely to perpetuate a distrust of childhood vaccines?
Bolded: If. There. Was. Evidence. Research. Wouldnt. Be. Needed. The fact that something have positive effect doesnt mean that it doesnt have negative too. I dont assert anything, I said that given amount of vaccinated people this (and as a matter of fact everything regarding vaccines) should be researched. Admittedly I cant really understand the resistance.
Italic: Pro-vaxx side, Anti-vaxx side, thing is I dont care about neither, quite frankly they are the same just on the opposite side of the spectrum, one believe that they got chipped with vaccine, another that vaccine can do no harm. There is however (I hope) majority of people in-between. And as in the part of article I quoted:
"The data are there; the issue is this cultural issue of distrusting the government and federal mandates"
And as the pandemic progresses only thing which goverments so far did splendidly was loosing credibility.
|
On November 07 2022 11:03 MineraIs wrote:
People still talk about this?
Based on the past 30+ pages, that's really generous of an interpretation. it's two guys arguing a very minor point of contention. Both their horses have been dead for a month or more. They're waling on each other to get the other to give up their last sliver of hp. Theres two more guys slogging out a much more covid related debate, Razyda and DPB, that's worth mentioning.
Like, everyone sees this right? No actual covid discussion is happening. Could we talk about mrna cancer vaccines making progress due to covid shots? Saw that on a post hidden in the ongoing battle but deserves more attention. How soon is reasonable to expect something like this to reach market thanks to pandemic related advances?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9201022/
|
On November 07 2022 12:24 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 10:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 07 2022 08:34 Razyda wrote:On November 05 2022 11:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2022 09:47 Razyda wrote:On November 05 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 05 2022 03:28 Razyda wrote:On November 04 2022 23:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2022 22:35 Razyda wrote:On November 04 2022 20:20 evilfatsh1t wrote:well in the context of politics tl is already becoming more of an echo chamber. isnt controversial political views like the #1 reason for bans for long time users? anyway for what its worth, in the context of this thread, there are several points that i agree with on blackjack. unfortunately for him, i dont have his kind of patience and cannot be fucked engaging in a neverending debate on an issue thats largely behind us already anyway. i dont even care to explain what the points i agreed with were, because that would require me to engage further in discussion. just wanted to point out that there are probably some people here who are like me. its less about being afraid to speak up, and more to do with not wanting to have to deal with people i consider to have a fundamental lack of reading comprehension ability and a lack of understanding of the fact that decisions in the real world involving mass amounts of people require more consideration than "what does this particular statistic suggest we do". reading this thread is honestly tiresome enough, i can only imagine how much worse it would be to have to take an active part. i swear the majority of probably like the last 50 pages of this thread is sermokala vs blackjack with other users chiming in here and there. off topic edit: wow this was a lame 8000th post. ive wanted the archon icon for a long time and then i got it randomly when tl got merged. my archon life has been so short lived On November 04 2022 21:10 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Last 50 pages is mostly just people debating whether previous actions taken 1-3 years ago were justified.It's all in the rear view mirror now, probably only 1% still masking here.
Still a few ridiculous rules, like needing to wear a mask in the dentist reception but obviously taking the mask off when you step inside the dentist's office and the dentist is working inside your mouth.Queensland just removed all mask requirements so I imagine these holdovers will be gone in other states by year end. Issue with that is that it encourages them more. If more people were arguing back then and/or keep arguing now, we may not be in the situation we are now. Even after being proven wrong on pretty much everything possible they are still doubling down. We are already living in ridiculous times where people not only approve but are also happy about: Censorship Repercussions for different views FDA being basically advertising department for Pfizer This kind of attitude: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23028843.covid-scotland-vaccines-ruled-cause-neonatal-deaths-spike/"Public Health Scotland (PHS) said its consultants had given “careful consideration” to the “potential benefits and harms” of carrying out such as analysis as part of its probe into the tragic deaths of 39 infants, but concluded against doing so because “it was not possible to identify a scenario that would have resulted in a change to public health policy or practice” given that vaccination policy was already “appropriately informed by good-quality population-level evidence and safety data”. [...} In a statement, PHS added that there was also a risk that “identifying the vaccination status of the mothers, even at aggregate level, would result in harm to those individuals and others close to them, through actual or perceived judgement of the effects of their personal vaccination decision”. Furthermore “ the outcomes of such analysis, whilst being uninformative for public health decision making, had the potential to be used to harm vaccine confidence at this critical time”. " If people ignore it, it will just going to go further downhill. 1. The word "censorship" is meaningless without context (social media? at work? against the law? and what's being said that's being censored?). 2. In response to "Repercussions for different views", again, it depends on context. What are the views? If two people had different perspectives that were both evidence-based, that might be a very different situation than, say, Kanye receiving repercussions/censorship for the "different view" that hating on Jews is okay. 3. As far as that article goes, there's no reason to raise any suspicion by speculating about a non-existent correlation between covid vaccines and miscarriages; we know that pregnant women getting vaccinated is a good and safe thing: 1. "Pregnant Women Who Receive COVID-19 Vaccination Pass Protection from the Virus to Their Newborns" https://nyulangone.org/news/pregnant-women-who-receive-covid-19-vaccination-pass-protection-virus-their-newborns 2. "COVID vaccine reduces risk of severe illness in pregnant women, protects newborns" https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/womens-health/covid-19-vaccine-during-pregnancy-protects-newborns 3. "If you’re pregnant, planning a pregnancy or breastfeeding, COVID-19 vaccination is recommended." https://raisingchildren.net.au/guides/coronavirus-covid-19-guide/covid-19-vaccinations-pregnancy-breastfeeding 4. "With the COVID-19 pandemic entering its third year, efforts to mitigate the risk for infection remain vitally important, especially for vulnerable populations. A recent study from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) showed vaccination during pregnancy resulted in more lasting antibody levels in infants, when compared to babies born to unvaccinated, COVID-infected mothers." https://www.massgeneral.org/news/press-release/study-shows-persistent-antibodies-in-infants-after-covid-19-vaccination-in-pregnancy 5. "Babies Better Protected From COVID if Mother Vaccinated During Pregnancy" https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/968674 1 - it actually isnt - censorship is censorship - I previously linked BMJ article how they were censored on Facebook and it wasnt separate accident. It is not like censorship is becoming something good, if it happens to censor people/opinions you disagree with/dont like. 2 - no it doesnt, we not talking about criminal activity, we talking about scientists having different opinions. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-022-09479-4Link to actually quite interesting article regarding first 2 points. Unfortunately, that article merely lists situations where someone got censored or received repercussions, without actually going into detail about what was said. The article says that Person X's tweet received a warning, for example, without actually saying what the tweet was. That article doesn't mention what was said, nor does it bother to analyze if certain videos or messages were "censored" because it was merely a different of legitimate scientific opinion, or for some other reason (like breaking ToS). If your position is "the context doesn't matter, it's all censorship/consequences so it's all necessarily bad", then we're going to have to fundamentally disagree on whether or not experiencing repercussions can ever be justified. 3 - I dont think you understood what is my issue with PHS regarding this article. I am not saying that vaccine is the cause. I am saying that this possibility should be investigated and not discarded beforehand. What should never ever have impact on this decision is this bit: "the outcomes of such analysis, whilst being uninformative for public health decision making, had the potential to be used to harm vaccine confidence at this critical time" So there is "no plausible link", or as you say "non-existent correlation" and yet somehow outcomes of such analysis had the potential to be used to harm vaccine confidence. That doesnt seem to make sense? Considering that over 5 billion people had vaccine ( https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations ) I would say that even slightest health abnormality should be analyzed with this angle in mind. Also links you provided seem to further prove my point? All those confirm that vaccine taken by pregnant women actually affects the child?Positively is not the same as negatively. They're opposites. And yes, of course that pointless analysis would harm vaccine confidence; why would pregnant people get vaccinated if they heard that scientists were suddenly wondering if the vaccine is causing miscarriages, despite all of the above resources showing positive effects? That would be the take-away from many people who don't understand correlation vs. causation and who don't realize that doing a study for the millionth time doesn't mean that the public needs to be worried. This has already been researched, in depth, all around the world, and the last thing that was needed during the height of the pandemic was more vaccine hesitancy about its safety. Bolded: "Study participants include 13 established doctors and scientists" and judging from the article authors seems to know what they doing, so i highly doubt that they included established doctors banned for posting videos of them dancing naked at crossroads at midnight. Italic: A bit out of order. Harm vaccine confidence - highly doubt it, those who wanted vaccine already had it, those who dont probably wont have it anyway. What about people who would understand, like you know doctors and scientists? they dont deserve to know because someone could misunderstood the data? Millionth time? Already researched in depth all around the world? could you please provide me with, lets say, 3 links to research about "neonatal deaths after Covid vaccination" On November 05 2022 03:28 Razyda wrote:
Also links you provided seem to further prove my point? All those confirm that vaccine taken by pregnant women actually affects the child?
On November 05 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Positively is not the same as negatively. They're opposites.. This two, my question and your answer I quoted separately, because in all honesty I dont even know what can be said here. I dont think anyone who finished high school would answer that. It is wrong, it is ignorant, it sounds more like religion than science. Bolded: You can assert that what someone said was probably fine, but the point still stands that we have no idea what was actually said. Italic: Becoming pregnant comes with an entire new set of concerns, including what food, medicines, and shots you end up getting (that you were previously fine with), to make sure they don't interfere with pregnancy. It's completely reasonable for a woman who is starting a vaccine/medicine regiment to wonder if she should continue it once she becomes pregnant, because her body is drastically changing in new ways. If she thinks that the vaccine will negatively affect her pregnancy, she may not continue with boosters (despite them actually being beneficial).
"could you please provide me with, lets say, 3 links to research about "neonatal deaths after Covid vaccination""
I literally just provided you with 5 links of information explaining why pregnant women ought to continue getting vaccinated, as a response to your post wondering if we should be concerned about pregnant women getting vaccinated. If that's not good enough for you, then I'm sorry. "This two, my question and your answer I quoted separately, because in all honesty I dont even know what can be said here. I dont think anyone who finished high school would answer that. It is wrong, it is ignorant, it sounds more like religion than science."
I don't know what this means. You're doing the Trump-esque "I'm just asking questions" nonsense about a non-existent link between vaccines and miscarriages, whereas the research shows that vaccines are healthy for both pregnant women and their babies. What you're (presumably) innocently asking about is a source of fearmongering and it creates unjustified vaccine hesitancy. Bolded: You know what, whatever , I get it opinions you not agree with getting censored, so censorship is fine and so are repercussions. So censoring this: https://www.aier.org/article/twitter-censors-famed-epidemiologist-martin-kulldorff/is fine, But this isnt and shouldnt be censored: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8tj7eWXIAAl0UK?format=jpg&name=largehttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fgaq5t4XkAApjgu?format=jpg&name=largeItalic: I know I am a father of 2. As for boosters being beneficial Paul Offit (which I dont think anyone will call antivax) openly said that he advised his son against taking booster and he himself wont be taking bivalent booster? Bolded 2: So I am questioning attitude of PHS when it comes to "neonatal deaths" You said it was" "doing a study for the millionth time doesn't mean that the public needs to be worried. This has already been researched, in depth, all around the world". When I ask for 3 links you said you provided me with 5. I am not sure you realise, but literally neither of those mention anything on neonatal deaths. I also asked for a link to research, you linked articles, there is a difference which one would boldly assume you understand. Italic 2: Again from the start: On November 05 2022 03:28 Razyda wrote:
Also links you provided seem to further prove my point? All those confirm that vaccine taken by pregnant women actually affects the child?
On November 05 2022 03:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Positively is not the same as negatively. They're opposites.. They either affect it, or not. You dont get to say that only positive effects affect them. That just not how it works. " What you're (presumably) innocently asking about is a source of fearmongering and it creates unjustified vaccine hesitancy." I am asking PHS to do their job correctly and not discarding things before even starting the research. Also did you ever thought, that this kind of attitude creates more vaccine hesitancy than antivaxxers ever could? Edit: regarding last point: https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/how-distrust-childhood-vaccines-could-lead-more-breakouts-preventable-diseases“Academic institutions can answer scientific questions … [but] the majority aren’t [refusing vaccines] because there’s a specific scientific concern,” Offit says. “The data are there; the issue is this cultural issue” of distrusting the government and federal mandates." "I get it opinions you not agree with getting censored, so censorship is fine and so are repercussions" You had posted absolutely zero opinions or quotes, back when we were having this discussion, so how would I know what they were being censored for? You literally said the context and what was actually said didn't matter. I asked you what they said/did to get censored, and you said that you didn't know and it didn't matter because censorship is inherently bad. While you may have that position - that all censorship is bad, no matter what - that's not my position, so you'd have to actually give me context if you want to persuade me. "So censoring this: https://www.aier.org/article/twitter-censors-famed-epidemiologist-martin-kulldorff/ is fine" ...Did you read the article you posted? It literally says "His tweet on how not everyone needs a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was not taken down. He had a warning slapped on it and users have been prevented from liking or retweeting the post." So... A tweet receiving a warning is censorship? If that's what you're referring to, then fair enough; that tweet is the first example of you citing something that can actually be read, which I appreciate. Your article leaves out the reason why he received a warning, but if it was flagged for being anti-vaxx, then I would agree with you that his tweet isn't as bad as many of the more significant anti-vaxx tweets sent out by other public figures and celebrities. I don't think his tweet is anti-vaxx, and I don't think it should be flagged as anti-vaxx... although, again, we don't actually know why it was flagged. "You dont get to say that only positive effects affect them." You. Have. Not. Provided. Evidence. Of. Negative. Effects. I provided multiple links showing positive effects. You don't get to assert that vaccines harm pregnant women just because they already help pregnant women. As for your last article, entitled "How distrust of childhood vaccines could lead to more breakouts of preventable diseases", the fact that you think it's the pro-vaxx side causing that instead of the anti-vaxx side is disturbing. *You should get vaccinated like the rest of us, because it's safe and it can help keep you (and the rest of us) safe* vs. *You shouldn't get vaccinated because vaccines don't work + what are the chances that you get seriously ill from covid + who cares if you spread it to others + vaccines are just a political/financial scheme created by people in power to keep you in line and get rich*. Hmmm, which side is more likely to perpetuate a distrust of childhood vaccines? Bolded: If. There. Was. Evidence. Research. Wouldnt. Be. Needed. The fact that something have positive effect doesnt mean that it doesnt have negative too. I dont assert anything, I said that given amount of vaccinated people this (and as a matter of fact everything regarding vaccines) should be researched. Admittedly I cant really understand the resistance. Italic: Pro-vaxx side, Anti-vaxx side, thing is I dont care about neither, quite frankly they are the same just on the opposite side of the spectrum, one believe that they got chipped with vaccine, another that vaccine can do no harm. There is however (I hope) majority of people in-between. And as in the part of article I quoted: "The data are there; the issue is this cultural issue of distrusting the government and federal mandates" And as the pandemic progresses only thing which goverments so far did splendidly was loosing credibility.
I strongly disagree with your assessment that the pro-vaxx and anti-vaxx sides are the same in terms of... pretty much anything. Pro-vaxx people are not perfect - I know I'm not perfect - but there's absolutely no comparison if we're looking at which side is causing more problems, either historically or within the past few years with covid.
|
On November 07 2022 12:27 Troutish wrote:Based on the past 30+ pages, that's really generous of an interpretation. it's two guys arguing a very minor point of contention. Both their horses have been dead for a month or more. They're waling on each other to get the other to give up their last sliver of hp. Theres two more guys slogging out a much more covid related debate, Razyda and DPB, that's worth mentioning. Like, everyone sees this right? No actual covid discussion is happening. Could we talk about mrna cancer vaccines making progress due to covid shots? Saw that on a post hidden in the ongoing battle but deserves more attention. How soon is reasonable to expect something like this to reach market thanks to pandemic related advances? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9201022/
This looks really promising! Depending on R&D and how backed up the pipeline is for evaluating other medicines and cures first, new treatments could take years and years before its their turn for potential approval. I'm not sure if cancer research will get to cut the line the same way covid vaccines did, given that the latter was extremely time-sensitive (emergency authorization) as we were in the middle of a pandemic, but cancer is certainly important too!
|
On November 07 2022 12:00 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 10:34 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 06:48 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 04:21 BlackJack wrote:On November 06 2022 19:40 Artisreal wrote:On November 06 2022 17:55 InDaHouse wrote:Well this faction of authoritarian Borg Drones in this thread are now trying to hold the line when their narrative is crashing down. They are the same people sitting alone in their car with a mask or takes a swin in the sea alone with a mask, lol. Are you completely delusional? You’re counterargument is comparing Covid that belongs to the Corona family viruses with Smallpox and Measles is ridicoulus. Covid has more in similarities with the common flu and that is the whole fucking point why it cannot be eradicated. When a virus can harbour in animals (READ COVID) it can also mutate and jump back to humans, thus it is impossible to eradicate Maybe in some other universe in the multiverse, but not here. MEASLES and SMALLPOX cannot infect animals therefore are mandatory vaccinationprograms effective in creating herd immunity. www.cdc.govwww.cdc.govSo the effort to vaccinate the entire world against Covid is useless with the aim to eradicate the virus. This fact is already known by epidemiologist. The mandates will never come back, the Governments will not risk severe civil unrest in the midst of shortage inflation and prelude to global war. Damn so many strawmen... Missing the field for the scarecrows. Strawmen? People are literally talking about eradicating COVID or getting to the point of virtually eliminating it. They are constantly talking about measles and smallpox and other diseases to imply that we can do the same with COVID that we did with them. Nobody is strawmanning this. As I said, I don’t think Sermakola actually said that, if he wishes to correct me and says actually, that’s what he meant then I will appreciate the clarification and go to disagree with him. If I am wrong, I am happy to stand corrected. My understanding is the thrust of the argument is ‘hey it’s still better than not vaccinating people and yeah, it won’t be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway, so why not’ BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?" Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now. BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." WombaT: I don't think he's arguing we could eliminate COVID from schools. The thrust of the argument is "hey it's still better than not vaccinating people and yeah it won't be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway so why not." Sorry but it's ridiculous. I'm not the one constantly talking about measles and polio and whatever else. It's Sermokala that's constantly referencing these other diseases and constantly referencing herd immunity and very clearly and plainly stating that we can virtually eliminate COVID from schools the way we have these other diseases. But you don't think he's arguing that we could eliminate COVID from schools. As I’ve said, that’s my read. If Sermakola wishes to correct the record and say ‘actually no WombaT, you’re wrong and I actually do think we can essentially eradicate COVID via this course of action’ then, he can make that correction. And I can disagree with that position when such a clarification is forthcoming. Or indeed, pre-emptively disagree with it right now. No skin off my back I don’t know what else you want here. I’ve said in two separate posts that my interpretation of his position is ‘I think vaccination is a good idea, we already mandate all sorts of vaccinations for school kids so why not this one?’ And, I believe his threshold for ‘is a good idea’ is set far below de facto eradication. We can argue thresholds of suitability, because I think that is the disagreement here. Not Sermakola thinking mandatory vaccination in schools will ultimately leave COVID as a non-factor. As I said in previous posts, and have stressed again, I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. That’s my interpretation of his position here, and thus I am not arguing against the idea that ‘if we do this, covid can be de facto eradicated’. If he wants to correct me and I’m misreading, I’m happy to be corrected. Both of you guys seem to have serious issues in communicating with one another, and in misunderstanding one another, in interpreting one another’s posts in the least charitable way possible. I’m adding this to a rather long list, least how I see it as a third party Sure, you can interpret it however you want. But we are also supposed to have some collective understanding of what words mean. If everyone in this thread thinks they are entitled to their own interpretation of "Herd Immunity" and their own interpretation of "eradicate COVID" and their own interpretation of "virtually eliminate COVID in schools the way we have measles and chicken pox" then this whole thread becomes an even bigger waste of time than it already is. Everyone gets to be right, because everyone gets to have their own definitions. Hurray. Maybe Symplectos is right after all and language is the problem. Specificity is important, amongst other things in communication. At no point have I given any inkling that the kind of phrasings that you’ve quoted are things I see as ambiguous and open to much interpretation. ‘Eradicate COVID’ and ‘virtually eliminate’ are not identical, but functionally pretty close. Either COVID is wiped off the earth entirely, as per the former, or it’s so close to being so that functionally it’s basically the same thing, in the latter. I haven’t watered down those definitions and what they mean. I have merely asked Sermakola to clarify if he believes mandatory COVID vaccination in schools is a desirable policy because it will lead in part to that end goal, which is what you believe he claimed, or not. I don’t think that is actually his position and there’s been crossed wires here, but it may well be. Hence my multiple posts seeking clarity on that specific point. I am awaiting confirmation, nothing more, nothing less.
Yeah no he got stunlocked when I asked him to compare the covid vaccine mandates with the vaccine mandates you are required to get to go to school. I never made any sort of claim that we would eradicate covid, that was him trying to squirrel out of answering another simple question. I made the argument that if we were really about eradicating diseases or virtually eliminating them that why he thought we still required them. He doesn't really understand how vaccines work so he is just unable to really process that line of questioning and has to cling to what he can process, vague fear-mongering and bad-faith representations of what other people say that he thinks makes a good argument.
BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?"
Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now.
BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that
Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples."
See he doesn't ever state what the faulty logic is or why I'm wrong. He just declares that he's right and trys to grandstand to the crowd about his latest gotcha that no one falls for. When someone presents an argument to him that he doesn't understand he gets frustrated and desperately tries to avoid answering the question so he doesn't get exposed to his inability to grasp basic concepts. He needed a citation for the claim "people get sick when near sick people" then dismissed it out of hand when someone presented it to him. He keeps trying to sneak in doubts about the efficacy of the vaccine when no one has taken that seriously for years now. He keeps sneaking it in because he doesn't understand how a vaccine works or why its good in any way at all. He doesn't understand the concept of adults being in schools or children leaving schools to be with other adults
He could ask me basic questions that he's confused about. But he's incapable of processing them like a normal person and just tries to search for a gotcha that isn't there. He makes up these run on stories of arguments no one makes and acts like that has to be what other people think.
|
On November 07 2022 12:27 Troutish wrote:Based on the past 30+ pages, that's really generous of an interpretation. it's two guys arguing a very minor point of contention. Both their horses have been dead for a month or more. They're waling on each other to get the other to give up their last sliver of hp. Theres two more guys slogging out a much more covid related debate, Razyda and DPB, that's worth mentioning. Like, everyone sees this right? No actual covid discussion is happening. Could we talk about mrna cancer vaccines making progress due to covid shots? Saw that on a post hidden in the ongoing battle but deserves more attention. How soon is reasonable to expect something like this to reach market thanks to pandemic related advances? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9201022/
One of the things that saw the covid vaccines come out so fast was the rapid approval of human trials for the vaccines. I have little doubt that a lot of people died from taking bad vaccines, or weren't saved by the bad vaccines. The bar for moving to human trials is normally very high but I do have hope that they can combine the types of cures that are delivered conventionally and instead deliver them directly with MRNA targeting. My hope is that we continue to see funding for covid vaccines as they're developed to target the parts of the virus that isn't mutating like the rest of it. From what I've read the dominant variants arn't entirely new branches but splinterings of the omicron branch of the virus.
Having a method of delivery that bypasses it having to go through your system, I hope at least, will clean up the kinds of symptoms from the nastier, but more effective drugs. HIV and cancers have seen developments that make them not the death sentence that they were in the past.
|
On November 07 2022 13:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 12:00 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 10:34 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 06:48 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 04:21 BlackJack wrote:On November 06 2022 19:40 Artisreal wrote:On November 06 2022 17:55 InDaHouse wrote:Well this faction of authoritarian Borg Drones in this thread are now trying to hold the line when their narrative is crashing down. They are the same people sitting alone in their car with a mask or takes a swin in the sea alone with a mask, lol. Are you completely delusional? You’re counterargument is comparing Covid that belongs to the Corona family viruses with Smallpox and Measles is ridicoulus. Covid has more in similarities with the common flu and that is the whole fucking point why it cannot be eradicated. When a virus can harbour in animals (READ COVID) it can also mutate and jump back to humans, thus it is impossible to eradicate Maybe in some other universe in the multiverse, but not here. MEASLES and SMALLPOX cannot infect animals therefore are mandatory vaccinationprograms effective in creating herd immunity. www.cdc.govwww.cdc.govSo the effort to vaccinate the entire world against Covid is useless with the aim to eradicate the virus. This fact is already known by epidemiologist. The mandates will never come back, the Governments will not risk severe civil unrest in the midst of shortage inflation and prelude to global war. Damn so many strawmen... Missing the field for the scarecrows. Strawmen? People are literally talking about eradicating COVID or getting to the point of virtually eliminating it. They are constantly talking about measles and smallpox and other diseases to imply that we can do the same with COVID that we did with them. Nobody is strawmanning this. As I said, I don’t think Sermakola actually said that, if he wishes to correct me and says actually, that’s what he meant then I will appreciate the clarification and go to disagree with him. If I am wrong, I am happy to stand corrected. My understanding is the thrust of the argument is ‘hey it’s still better than not vaccinating people and yeah, it won’t be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway, so why not’ BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?" Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now. BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." WombaT: I don't think he's arguing we could eliminate COVID from schools. The thrust of the argument is "hey it's still better than not vaccinating people and yeah it won't be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway so why not." Sorry but it's ridiculous. I'm not the one constantly talking about measles and polio and whatever else. It's Sermokala that's constantly referencing these other diseases and constantly referencing herd immunity and very clearly and plainly stating that we can virtually eliminate COVID from schools the way we have these other diseases. But you don't think he's arguing that we could eliminate COVID from schools. As I’ve said, that’s my read. If Sermakola wishes to correct the record and say ‘actually no WombaT, you’re wrong and I actually do think we can essentially eradicate COVID via this course of action’ then, he can make that correction. And I can disagree with that position when such a clarification is forthcoming. Or indeed, pre-emptively disagree with it right now. No skin off my back I don’t know what else you want here. I’ve said in two separate posts that my interpretation of his position is ‘I think vaccination is a good idea, we already mandate all sorts of vaccinations for school kids so why not this one?’ And, I believe his threshold for ‘is a good idea’ is set far below de facto eradication. We can argue thresholds of suitability, because I think that is the disagreement here. Not Sermakola thinking mandatory vaccination in schools will ultimately leave COVID as a non-factor. As I said in previous posts, and have stressed again, I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. That’s my interpretation of his position here, and thus I am not arguing against the idea that ‘if we do this, covid can be de facto eradicated’. If he wants to correct me and I’m misreading, I’m happy to be corrected. Both of you guys seem to have serious issues in communicating with one another, and in misunderstanding one another, in interpreting one another’s posts in the least charitable way possible. I’m adding this to a rather long list, least how I see it as a third party Sure, you can interpret it however you want. But we are also supposed to have some collective understanding of what words mean. If everyone in this thread thinks they are entitled to their own interpretation of "Herd Immunity" and their own interpretation of "eradicate COVID" and their own interpretation of "virtually eliminate COVID in schools the way we have measles and chicken pox" then this whole thread becomes an even bigger waste of time than it already is. Everyone gets to be right, because everyone gets to have their own definitions. Hurray. Maybe Symplectos is right after all and language is the problem. Specificity is important, amongst other things in communication. At no point have I given any inkling that the kind of phrasings that you’ve quoted are things I see as ambiguous and open to much interpretation. ‘Eradicate COVID’ and ‘virtually eliminate’ are not identical, but functionally pretty close. Either COVID is wiped off the earth entirely, as per the former, or it’s so close to being so that functionally it’s basically the same thing, in the latter. I haven’t watered down those definitions and what they mean. I have merely asked Sermakola to clarify if he believes mandatory COVID vaccination in schools is a desirable policy because it will lead in part to that end goal, which is what you believe he claimed, or not. I don’t think that is actually his position and there’s been crossed wires here, but it may well be. Hence my multiple posts seeking clarity on that specific point. I am awaiting confirmation, nothing more, nothing less. Yeah no he got stunlocked when I asked him to compare the covid vaccine mandates with the vaccine mandates you are required to get to go to school. I never made any sort of claim that we would eradicate covid, that was him trying to squirrel out of answering another simple question. I made the argument that if we were really about eradicating diseases or virtually eliminating them that why he thought we still required them. He doesn't really understand how vaccines work so he is just unable to really process that line of questioning and has to cling to what he can process, vague fear-mongering and bad-faith representations of what other people say that he thinks makes a good argument. Show nested quote +BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?"
Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now.
BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that
Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." See he doesn't ever state what the faulty logic is or why I'm wrong. He just declares that he's right and trys to grandstand to the crowd about his latest gotcha that no one falls for. When someone presents an argument to him that he doesn't understand he gets frustrated and desperately tries to avoid answering the question so he doesn't get exposed to his inability to grasp basic concepts. He needed a citation for the claim "people get sick when near sick people" then dismissed it out of hand when someone presented it to him. He keeps trying to sneak in doubts about the efficacy of the vaccine when no one has taken that seriously for years now. He keeps sneaking it in because he doesn't understand how a vaccine works or why its good in any way at all. He doesn't understand the concept of adults being in schools or children leaving schools to be with other adults He could ask me basic questions that he's confused about. But he's incapable of processing them like a normal person and just tries to search for a gotcha that isn't there. He makes up these run on stories of arguments no one makes and acts like that has to be what other people think.
BJ strictly does not engage in good faith argumentation if it means that he can't win the argument and would have to concede that the other person's point is valid.
As an example, back when he argued about myocarditis he absolutely refused to accept "safe" as an equatable term to "risk-free". If you say that you've been using these terms interchangeably and your words should be read accordingly, he will refuse to engage with your argument and resort to attacking your questionable use of language (when in fact it's him who's using language questionably).
Furthermore, he will not explain how exactly these two words are effectively different in meaning. If something contains a risk, that means it can't possibly be safe. If something is safe, it can't possibly contain a risk. The only thing then left to do for BJ is to declare that "nothing in this world is perfectly safe".
If he argues that, then his refusal to equate "safe" to "risk-free" becomes pointless, because it'd mean they are both equatable in the sense that they're used for the same level of risk (i.e. as close to zero as can be). That would mean BJ was arguing a philosophical position (that nothing can be perfectly safe), not a factual one, and him not mentioning that early during the discussion is bad faith argumentation.
But that isn't even the case, because clearly he does make a distinction between "safe" and "risk-free", such that "safe" means "safer than risk-free" (or the other way around). Ergo he's not arguing philosophically, he's also not arguing factually, he's only arguing to not lose the argument.
It's never-ending grandstanding and not a shred of good faith. He wants people to use language his way and only his way, regardless of whether that serves the argument, and even regardless of whether that is the appropriate use of language.
|
On November 07 2022 13:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 12:00 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 10:34 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 06:48 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 04:21 BlackJack wrote:On November 06 2022 19:40 Artisreal wrote:On November 06 2022 17:55 InDaHouse wrote:Well this faction of authoritarian Borg Drones in this thread are now trying to hold the line when their narrative is crashing down. They are the same people sitting alone in their car with a mask or takes a swin in the sea alone with a mask, lol. Are you completely delusional? You’re counterargument is comparing Covid that belongs to the Corona family viruses with Smallpox and Measles is ridicoulus. Covid has more in similarities with the common flu and that is the whole fucking point why it cannot be eradicated. When a virus can harbour in animals (READ COVID) it can also mutate and jump back to humans, thus it is impossible to eradicate Maybe in some other universe in the multiverse, but not here. MEASLES and SMALLPOX cannot infect animals therefore are mandatory vaccinationprograms effective in creating herd immunity. www.cdc.govwww.cdc.govSo the effort to vaccinate the entire world against Covid is useless with the aim to eradicate the virus. This fact is already known by epidemiologist. The mandates will never come back, the Governments will not risk severe civil unrest in the midst of shortage inflation and prelude to global war. Damn so many strawmen... Missing the field for the scarecrows. Strawmen? People are literally talking about eradicating COVID or getting to the point of virtually eliminating it. They are constantly talking about measles and smallpox and other diseases to imply that we can do the same with COVID that we did with them. Nobody is strawmanning this. As I said, I don’t think Sermakola actually said that, if he wishes to correct me and says actually, that’s what he meant then I will appreciate the clarification and go to disagree with him. If I am wrong, I am happy to stand corrected. My understanding is the thrust of the argument is ‘hey it’s still better than not vaccinating people and yeah, it won’t be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway, so why not’ BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?" Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now. BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." WombaT: I don't think he's arguing we could eliminate COVID from schools. The thrust of the argument is "hey it's still better than not vaccinating people and yeah it won't be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway so why not." Sorry but it's ridiculous. I'm not the one constantly talking about measles and polio and whatever else. It's Sermokala that's constantly referencing these other diseases and constantly referencing herd immunity and very clearly and plainly stating that we can virtually eliminate COVID from schools the way we have these other diseases. But you don't think he's arguing that we could eliminate COVID from schools. As I’ve said, that’s my read. If Sermakola wishes to correct the record and say ‘actually no WombaT, you’re wrong and I actually do think we can essentially eradicate COVID via this course of action’ then, he can make that correction. And I can disagree with that position when such a clarification is forthcoming. Or indeed, pre-emptively disagree with it right now. No skin off my back I don’t know what else you want here. I’ve said in two separate posts that my interpretation of his position is ‘I think vaccination is a good idea, we already mandate all sorts of vaccinations for school kids so why not this one?’ And, I believe his threshold for ‘is a good idea’ is set far below de facto eradication. We can argue thresholds of suitability, because I think that is the disagreement here. Not Sermakola thinking mandatory vaccination in schools will ultimately leave COVID as a non-factor. As I said in previous posts, and have stressed again, I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. That’s my interpretation of his position here, and thus I am not arguing against the idea that ‘if we do this, covid can be de facto eradicated’. If he wants to correct me and I’m misreading, I’m happy to be corrected. Both of you guys seem to have serious issues in communicating with one another, and in misunderstanding one another, in interpreting one another’s posts in the least charitable way possible. I’m adding this to a rather long list, least how I see it as a third party Sure, you can interpret it however you want. But we are also supposed to have some collective understanding of what words mean. If everyone in this thread thinks they are entitled to their own interpretation of "Herd Immunity" and their own interpretation of "eradicate COVID" and their own interpretation of "virtually eliminate COVID in schools the way we have measles and chicken pox" then this whole thread becomes an even bigger waste of time than it already is. Everyone gets to be right, because everyone gets to have their own definitions. Hurray. Maybe Symplectos is right after all and language is the problem. Specificity is important, amongst other things in communication. At no point have I given any inkling that the kind of phrasings that you’ve quoted are things I see as ambiguous and open to much interpretation. ‘Eradicate COVID’ and ‘virtually eliminate’ are not identical, but functionally pretty close. Either COVID is wiped off the earth entirely, as per the former, or it’s so close to being so that functionally it’s basically the same thing, in the latter. I haven’t watered down those definitions and what they mean. I have merely asked Sermakola to clarify if he believes mandatory COVID vaccination in schools is a desirable policy because it will lead in part to that end goal, which is what you believe he claimed, or not. I don’t think that is actually his position and there’s been crossed wires here, but it may well be. Hence my multiple posts seeking clarity on that specific point. I am awaiting confirmation, nothing more, nothing less. Yeah no he got stunlocked when I asked him to compare the covid vaccine mandates with the vaccine mandates you are required to get to go to school. I never made any sort of claim that we would eradicate covid, that was him trying to squirrel out of answering another simple question. I made the argument that if we were really about eradicating diseases or virtually eliminating them that why he thought we still required them. He doesn't really understand how vaccines work so he is just unable to really process that line of questioning and has to cling to what he can process, vague fear-mongering and bad-faith representations of what other people say that he thinks makes a good argument. Show nested quote +BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?"
Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now.
BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that
Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." See he doesn't ever state what the faulty logic is or why I'm wrong. He just declares that he's right and trys to grandstand to the crowd about his latest gotcha that no one falls for. When someone presents an argument to him that he doesn't understand he gets frustrated and desperately tries to avoid answering the question so he doesn't get exposed to his inability to grasp basic concepts. He needed a citation for the claim "people get sick when near sick people" then dismissed it out of hand when someone presented it to him. He keeps trying to sneak in doubts about the efficacy of the vaccine when no one has taken that seriously for years now. He keeps sneaking it in because he doesn't understand how a vaccine works or why its good in any way at all. He doesn't understand the concept of adults being in schools or children leaving schools to be with other adults He could ask me basic questions that he's confused about. But he's incapable of processing them like a normal person and just tries to search for a gotcha that isn't there. He makes up these run on stories of arguments no one makes and acts like that has to be what other people think.
So after all of BJ's insistence that his interpretation of your statements is the only accurate one possible, and that the rest of us are crazy or insincere... His interpretation was wrong?
|
On November 07 2022 16:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 13:48 Sermokala wrote:On November 07 2022 12:00 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 10:34 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 06:48 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 04:21 BlackJack wrote:On November 06 2022 19:40 Artisreal wrote:On November 06 2022 17:55 InDaHouse wrote:Well this faction of authoritarian Borg Drones in this thread are now trying to hold the line when their narrative is crashing down. They are the same people sitting alone in their car with a mask or takes a swin in the sea alone with a mask, lol. Are you completely delusional? You’re counterargument is comparing Covid that belongs to the Corona family viruses with Smallpox and Measles is ridicoulus. Covid has more in similarities with the common flu and that is the whole fucking point why it cannot be eradicated. When a virus can harbour in animals (READ COVID) it can also mutate and jump back to humans, thus it is impossible to eradicate Maybe in some other universe in the multiverse, but not here. MEASLES and SMALLPOX cannot infect animals therefore are mandatory vaccinationprograms effective in creating herd immunity. www.cdc.govwww.cdc.govSo the effort to vaccinate the entire world against Covid is useless with the aim to eradicate the virus. This fact is already known by epidemiologist. The mandates will never come back, the Governments will not risk severe civil unrest in the midst of shortage inflation and prelude to global war. Damn so many strawmen... Missing the field for the scarecrows. Strawmen? People are literally talking about eradicating COVID or getting to the point of virtually eliminating it. They are constantly talking about measles and smallpox and other diseases to imply that we can do the same with COVID that we did with them. Nobody is strawmanning this. As I said, I don’t think Sermakola actually said that, if he wishes to correct me and says actually, that’s what he meant then I will appreciate the clarification and go to disagree with him. If I am wrong, I am happy to stand corrected. My understanding is the thrust of the argument is ‘hey it’s still better than not vaccinating people and yeah, it won’t be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway, so why not’ BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?" Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now. BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." WombaT: I don't think he's arguing we could eliminate COVID from schools. The thrust of the argument is "hey it's still better than not vaccinating people and yeah it won't be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway so why not." Sorry but it's ridiculous. I'm not the one constantly talking about measles and polio and whatever else. It's Sermokala that's constantly referencing these other diseases and constantly referencing herd immunity and very clearly and plainly stating that we can virtually eliminate COVID from schools the way we have these other diseases. But you don't think he's arguing that we could eliminate COVID from schools. As I’ve said, that’s my read. If Sermakola wishes to correct the record and say ‘actually no WombaT, you’re wrong and I actually do think we can essentially eradicate COVID via this course of action’ then, he can make that correction. And I can disagree with that position when such a clarification is forthcoming. Or indeed, pre-emptively disagree with it right now. No skin off my back I don’t know what else you want here. I’ve said in two separate posts that my interpretation of his position is ‘I think vaccination is a good idea, we already mandate all sorts of vaccinations for school kids so why not this one?’ And, I believe his threshold for ‘is a good idea’ is set far below de facto eradication. We can argue thresholds of suitability, because I think that is the disagreement here. Not Sermakola thinking mandatory vaccination in schools will ultimately leave COVID as a non-factor. As I said in previous posts, and have stressed again, I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. That’s my interpretation of his position here, and thus I am not arguing against the idea that ‘if we do this, covid can be de facto eradicated’. If he wants to correct me and I’m misreading, I’m happy to be corrected. Both of you guys seem to have serious issues in communicating with one another, and in misunderstanding one another, in interpreting one another’s posts in the least charitable way possible. I’m adding this to a rather long list, least how I see it as a third party Sure, you can interpret it however you want. But we are also supposed to have some collective understanding of what words mean. If everyone in this thread thinks they are entitled to their own interpretation of "Herd Immunity" and their own interpretation of "eradicate COVID" and their own interpretation of "virtually eliminate COVID in schools the way we have measles and chicken pox" then this whole thread becomes an even bigger waste of time than it already is. Everyone gets to be right, because everyone gets to have their own definitions. Hurray. Maybe Symplectos is right after all and language is the problem. Specificity is important, amongst other things in communication. At no point have I given any inkling that the kind of phrasings that you’ve quoted are things I see as ambiguous and open to much interpretation. ‘Eradicate COVID’ and ‘virtually eliminate’ are not identical, but functionally pretty close. Either COVID is wiped off the earth entirely, as per the former, or it’s so close to being so that functionally it’s basically the same thing, in the latter. I haven’t watered down those definitions and what they mean. I have merely asked Sermakola to clarify if he believes mandatory COVID vaccination in schools is a desirable policy because it will lead in part to that end goal, which is what you believe he claimed, or not. I don’t think that is actually his position and there’s been crossed wires here, but it may well be. Hence my multiple posts seeking clarity on that specific point. I am awaiting confirmation, nothing more, nothing less. Yeah no he got stunlocked when I asked him to compare the covid vaccine mandates with the vaccine mandates you are required to get to go to school. I never made any sort of claim that we would eradicate covid, that was him trying to squirrel out of answering another simple question. I made the argument that if we were really about eradicating diseases or virtually eliminating them that why he thought we still required them. He doesn't really understand how vaccines work so he is just unable to really process that line of questioning and has to cling to what he can process, vague fear-mongering and bad-faith representations of what other people say that he thinks makes a good argument. BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?"
Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now.
BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that
Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." See he doesn't ever state what the faulty logic is or why I'm wrong. He just declares that he's right and trys to grandstand to the crowd about his latest gotcha that no one falls for. When someone presents an argument to him that he doesn't understand he gets frustrated and desperately tries to avoid answering the question so he doesn't get exposed to his inability to grasp basic concepts. He needed a citation for the claim "people get sick when near sick people" then dismissed it out of hand when someone presented it to him. He keeps trying to sneak in doubts about the efficacy of the vaccine when no one has taken that seriously for years now. He keeps sneaking it in because he doesn't understand how a vaccine works or why its good in any way at all. He doesn't understand the concept of adults being in schools or children leaving schools to be with other adults He could ask me basic questions that he's confused about. But he's incapable of processing them like a normal person and just tries to search for a gotcha that isn't there. He makes up these run on stories of arguments no one makes and acts like that has to be what other people think. So after all of BJ's insistence that his interpretation of your statements is the only accurate one possible, and that the rest of us are crazy or insincere... His interpretation was wrong?
lmfao, "I'm going to walk back the dumbass shit I was saying earlier since people are doing the mental gymnastics to give me an out." And the clown show continues.
|
On November 07 2022 13:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 12:00 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 10:34 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 06:48 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 04:21 BlackJack wrote:On November 06 2022 19:40 Artisreal wrote:On November 06 2022 17:55 InDaHouse wrote:Well this faction of authoritarian Borg Drones in this thread are now trying to hold the line when their narrative is crashing down. They are the same people sitting alone in their car with a mask or takes a swin in the sea alone with a mask, lol. Are you completely delusional? You’re counterargument is comparing Covid that belongs to the Corona family viruses with Smallpox and Measles is ridicoulus. Covid has more in similarities with the common flu and that is the whole fucking point why it cannot be eradicated. When a virus can harbour in animals (READ COVID) it can also mutate and jump back to humans, thus it is impossible to eradicate Maybe in some other universe in the multiverse, but not here. MEASLES and SMALLPOX cannot infect animals therefore are mandatory vaccinationprograms effective in creating herd immunity. www.cdc.govwww.cdc.govSo the effort to vaccinate the entire world against Covid is useless with the aim to eradicate the virus. This fact is already known by epidemiologist. The mandates will never come back, the Governments will not risk severe civil unrest in the midst of shortage inflation and prelude to global war. Damn so many strawmen... Missing the field for the scarecrows. Strawmen? People are literally talking about eradicating COVID or getting to the point of virtually eliminating it. They are constantly talking about measles and smallpox and other diseases to imply that we can do the same with COVID that we did with them. Nobody is strawmanning this. As I said, I don’t think Sermakola actually said that, if he wishes to correct me and says actually, that’s what he meant then I will appreciate the clarification and go to disagree with him. If I am wrong, I am happy to stand corrected. My understanding is the thrust of the argument is ‘hey it’s still better than not vaccinating people and yeah, it won’t be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway, so why not’ BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?" Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now. BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." WombaT: I don't think he's arguing we could eliminate COVID from schools. The thrust of the argument is "hey it's still better than not vaccinating people and yeah it won't be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway so why not." Sorry but it's ridiculous. I'm not the one constantly talking about measles and polio and whatever else. It's Sermokala that's constantly referencing these other diseases and constantly referencing herd immunity and very clearly and plainly stating that we can virtually eliminate COVID from schools the way we have these other diseases. But you don't think he's arguing that we could eliminate COVID from schools. As I’ve said, that’s my read. If Sermakola wishes to correct the record and say ‘actually no WombaT, you’re wrong and I actually do think we can essentially eradicate COVID via this course of action’ then, he can make that correction. And I can disagree with that position when such a clarification is forthcoming. Or indeed, pre-emptively disagree with it right now. No skin off my back I don’t know what else you want here. I’ve said in two separate posts that my interpretation of his position is ‘I think vaccination is a good idea, we already mandate all sorts of vaccinations for school kids so why not this one?’ And, I believe his threshold for ‘is a good idea’ is set far below de facto eradication. We can argue thresholds of suitability, because I think that is the disagreement here. Not Sermakola thinking mandatory vaccination in schools will ultimately leave COVID as a non-factor. As I said in previous posts, and have stressed again, I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. That’s my interpretation of his position here, and thus I am not arguing against the idea that ‘if we do this, covid can be de facto eradicated’. If he wants to correct me and I’m misreading, I’m happy to be corrected. Both of you guys seem to have serious issues in communicating with one another, and in misunderstanding one another, in interpreting one another’s posts in the least charitable way possible. I’m adding this to a rather long list, least how I see it as a third party Sure, you can interpret it however you want. But we are also supposed to have some collective understanding of what words mean. If everyone in this thread thinks they are entitled to their own interpretation of "Herd Immunity" and their own interpretation of "eradicate COVID" and their own interpretation of "virtually eliminate COVID in schools the way we have measles and chicken pox" then this whole thread becomes an even bigger waste of time than it already is. Everyone gets to be right, because everyone gets to have their own definitions. Hurray. Maybe Symplectos is right after all and language is the problem. Specificity is important, amongst other things in communication. At no point have I given any inkling that the kind of phrasings that you’ve quoted are things I see as ambiguous and open to much interpretation. ‘Eradicate COVID’ and ‘virtually eliminate’ are not identical, but functionally pretty close. Either COVID is wiped off the earth entirely, as per the former, or it’s so close to being so that functionally it’s basically the same thing, in the latter. I haven’t watered down those definitions and what they mean. I have merely asked Sermakola to clarify if he believes mandatory COVID vaccination in schools is a desirable policy because it will lead in part to that end goal, which is what you believe he claimed, or not. I don’t think that is actually his position and there’s been crossed wires here, but it may well be. Hence my multiple posts seeking clarity on that specific point. I am awaiting confirmation, nothing more, nothing less. Yeah no he got stunlocked when I asked him to compare the covid vaccine mandates with the vaccine mandates you are required to get to go to school. I never made any sort of claim that we would eradicate covid, that was him trying to squirrel out of answering another simple question. I made the argument that if we were really about eradicating diseases or virtually eliminating them that why he thought we still required them. He doesn't really understand how vaccines work so he is just unable to really process that line of questioning and has to cling to what he can process, vague fear-mongering and bad-faith representations of what other people say that he thinks makes a good argument. Show nested quote +BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?"
Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now.
BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that
Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." See he doesn't ever state what the faulty logic is or why I'm wrong. He just declares that he's right and trys to grandstand to the crowd about his latest gotcha that no one falls for. When someone presents an argument to him that he doesn't understand he gets frustrated and desperately tries to avoid answering the question so he doesn't get exposed to his inability to grasp basic concepts. He needed a citation for the claim "people get sick when near sick people" then dismissed it out of hand when someone presented it to him. He keeps trying to sneak in doubts about the efficacy of the vaccine when no one has taken that seriously for years now. He keeps sneaking it in because he doesn't understand how a vaccine works or why its good in any way at all. He doesn't understand the concept of adults being in schools or children leaving schools to be with other adults He could ask me basic questions that he's confused about. But he's incapable of processing them like a normal person and just tries to search for a gotcha that isn't there. He makes up these run on stories of arguments no one makes and acts like that has to be what other people think.
"See he doesn't ever state what the faulty logic is or why I'm wrong."
You're just a miserably dishonest person. I posted exactly why your logic was faulty in regards to virtually eliminating COVID in schools like we have with measles and chicken pox using vaccine mandates.
https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=645#12883
That's the entire explanation. I didn't include it in the post you quoted for the sake of brevity and you used it as an opportunity to tell a lie: "he just says I'm wrong with no explanation."
You on the other hand have never posted a single link to any academic journal or reputable source. All you do is pull claims out of your ass like "we can reach herd immunity against COVID after a few decades of vaccinating children." Which you obviously can't defend so then you launch ad hominem attacks at anyone that questions it. You're a complete waste of space here but people will go out of their way to defend you for no other reason than you are on "their side."
|
On November 07 2022 14:59 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2022 13:48 Sermokala wrote:On November 07 2022 12:00 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 10:34 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On November 07 2022 06:48 WombaT wrote:On November 07 2022 04:21 BlackJack wrote:On November 06 2022 19:40 Artisreal wrote:On November 06 2022 17:55 InDaHouse wrote:Well this faction of authoritarian Borg Drones in this thread are now trying to hold the line when their narrative is crashing down. They are the same people sitting alone in their car with a mask or takes a swin in the sea alone with a mask, lol. Are you completely delusional? You’re counterargument is comparing Covid that belongs to the Corona family viruses with Smallpox and Measles is ridicoulus. Covid has more in similarities with the common flu and that is the whole fucking point why it cannot be eradicated. When a virus can harbour in animals (READ COVID) it can also mutate and jump back to humans, thus it is impossible to eradicate Maybe in some other universe in the multiverse, but not here. MEASLES and SMALLPOX cannot infect animals therefore are mandatory vaccinationprograms effective in creating herd immunity. www.cdc.govwww.cdc.govSo the effort to vaccinate the entire world against Covid is useless with the aim to eradicate the virus. This fact is already known by epidemiologist. The mandates will never come back, the Governments will not risk severe civil unrest in the midst of shortage inflation and prelude to global war. Damn so many strawmen... Missing the field for the scarecrows. Strawmen? People are literally talking about eradicating COVID or getting to the point of virtually eliminating it. They are constantly talking about measles and smallpox and other diseases to imply that we can do the same with COVID that we did with them. Nobody is strawmanning this. As I said, I don’t think Sermakola actually said that, if he wishes to correct me and says actually, that’s what he meant then I will appreciate the clarification and go to disagree with him. If I am wrong, I am happy to stand corrected. My understanding is the thrust of the argument is ‘hey it’s still better than not vaccinating people and yeah, it won’t be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway, so why not’ BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?" Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now. BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." WombaT: I don't think he's arguing we could eliminate COVID from schools. The thrust of the argument is "hey it's still better than not vaccinating people and yeah it won't be as effective but there is a precedent of mandatory vaccination anyway so why not." Sorry but it's ridiculous. I'm not the one constantly talking about measles and polio and whatever else. It's Sermokala that's constantly referencing these other diseases and constantly referencing herd immunity and very clearly and plainly stating that we can virtually eliminate COVID from schools the way we have these other diseases. But you don't think he's arguing that we could eliminate COVID from schools. As I’ve said, that’s my read. If Sermakola wishes to correct the record and say ‘actually no WombaT, you’re wrong and I actually do think we can essentially eradicate COVID via this course of action’ then, he can make that correction. And I can disagree with that position when such a clarification is forthcoming. Or indeed, pre-emptively disagree with it right now. No skin off my back I don’t know what else you want here. I’ve said in two separate posts that my interpretation of his position is ‘I think vaccination is a good idea, we already mandate all sorts of vaccinations for school kids so why not this one?’ And, I believe his threshold for ‘is a good idea’ is set far below de facto eradication. We can argue thresholds of suitability, because I think that is the disagreement here. Not Sermakola thinking mandatory vaccination in schools will ultimately leave COVID as a non-factor. As I said in previous posts, and have stressed again, I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. That’s my interpretation of his position here, and thus I am not arguing against the idea that ‘if we do this, covid can be de facto eradicated’. If he wants to correct me and I’m misreading, I’m happy to be corrected. Both of you guys seem to have serious issues in communicating with one another, and in misunderstanding one another, in interpreting one another’s posts in the least charitable way possible. I’m adding this to a rather long list, least how I see it as a third party Sure, you can interpret it however you want. But we are also supposed to have some collective understanding of what words mean. If everyone in this thread thinks they are entitled to their own interpretation of "Herd Immunity" and their own interpretation of "eradicate COVID" and their own interpretation of "virtually eliminate COVID in schools the way we have measles and chicken pox" then this whole thread becomes an even bigger waste of time than it already is. Everyone gets to be right, because everyone gets to have their own definitions. Hurray. Maybe Symplectos is right after all and language is the problem. Specificity is important, amongst other things in communication. At no point have I given any inkling that the kind of phrasings that you’ve quoted are things I see as ambiguous and open to much interpretation. ‘Eradicate COVID’ and ‘virtually eliminate’ are not identical, but functionally pretty close. Either COVID is wiped off the earth entirely, as per the former, or it’s so close to being so that functionally it’s basically the same thing, in the latter. I haven’t watered down those definitions and what they mean. I have merely asked Sermakola to clarify if he believes mandatory COVID vaccination in schools is a desirable policy because it will lead in part to that end goal, which is what you believe he claimed, or not. I don’t think that is actually his position and there’s been crossed wires here, but it may well be. Hence my multiple posts seeking clarity on that specific point. I am awaiting confirmation, nothing more, nothing less. Yeah no he got stunlocked when I asked him to compare the covid vaccine mandates with the vaccine mandates you are required to get to go to school. I never made any sort of claim that we would eradicate covid, that was him trying to squirrel out of answering another simple question. I made the argument that if we were really about eradicating diseases or virtually eliminating them that why he thought we still required them. He doesn't really understand how vaccines work so he is just unable to really process that line of questioning and has to cling to what he can process, vague fear-mongering and bad-faith representations of what other people say that he thinks makes a good argument. BJ: Do you still believe we can achieve herd immunity against COVID and virtually eliminate it from our schools the way we have chicken pox and measles, or...? What?"
Sermokala: Yes. Thats what people were saying back in 2020 and what they're saying now.
BJ: Well you're wrong and you're using faulty logic to believe that
Sermokala: "The logic I'm using is the same logic that has been used successfully in other examples." See he doesn't ever state what the faulty logic is or why I'm wrong. He just declares that he's right and trys to grandstand to the crowd about his latest gotcha that no one falls for. When someone presents an argument to him that he doesn't understand he gets frustrated and desperately tries to avoid answering the question so he doesn't get exposed to his inability to grasp basic concepts. He needed a citation for the claim "people get sick when near sick people" then dismissed it out of hand when someone presented it to him. He keeps trying to sneak in doubts about the efficacy of the vaccine when no one has taken that seriously for years now. He keeps sneaking it in because he doesn't understand how a vaccine works or why its good in any way at all. He doesn't understand the concept of adults being in schools or children leaving schools to be with other adults He could ask me basic questions that he's confused about. But he's incapable of processing them like a normal person and just tries to search for a gotcha that isn't there. He makes up these run on stories of arguments no one makes and acts like that has to be what other people think. BJ strictly does not engage in good faith argumentation if it means that he can't win the argument and would have to concede that the other person's point is valid. As an example, back when he argued about myocarditis he absolutely refused to accept "safe" as an equatable term to "risk-free". If you say that you've been using these terms interchangeably and your words should be read accordingly, he will refuse to engage with your argument and resort to attacking your questionable use of language (when in fact it's him who's using language questionably). Furthermore, he will not explain how exactly these two words are effectively different in meaning. If something contains a risk, that means it can't possibly be safe. If something is safe, it can't possibly contain a risk. The only thing then left to do for BJ is to declare that "nothing in this world is perfectly safe". If he argues that, then his refusal to equate "safe" to "risk-free" becomes pointless, because it'd mean they are both equatable in the sense that they're used for the same level of risk (i.e. as close to zero as can be). That would mean BJ was arguing a philosophical position (that nothing can be perfectly safe), not a factual one, and him not mentioning that early during the discussion is bad faith argumentation. But that isn't even the case, because clearly he does make a distinction between "safe" and "risk-free", such that "safe" means "safer than risk-free" (or the other way around). Ergo he's not arguing philosophically, he's also not arguing factually, he's only arguing to not lose the argument. It's never-ending grandstanding and not a shred of good faith. He wants people to use language his way and only his way, regardless of whether that serves the argument, and even regardless of whether that is the appropriate use of language.
Go find a single reputable source that says the COVID vaccines are "risk-free" or "without risk" and I will say the same. How easy is that? Oh, you can't? Is it because every single reputable source says the same thing I do regarding vaccines: They are safe, effective, the risks are very small and the benefits outweigh the risks.
Yet again here I am regurgitating what the CDC and WHO say and yet again the hive-mind is taking issue with it.
Your argument that you gave me in PMs is "I used a thesaurus and it showed 'safe' and 'risk-free' are synonyms so if you don't admit they are the same you don't understand English"
I already explained to you that synonyms are words that are the same or nearly the same. "Safe" and "Without risk" are nearly the same. They are not the same.
|
On November 07 2022 17:23 BlackJack wrote:
Is it because every single reputable source says the same thing I do regarding vaccines: They are safe, effective, the risks are very small and the benefits outweigh the risks.
Citation needed.
PS: yes, citation of "every single reputable source", or - because I feel like being nice - only a significantly large sample of them. I'll ask for five reputable sources, which seems reasonable since there are at least a few dozen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
