| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada413 Posts
nah dude everyone was gonna wait to the last minute of course that's how it works.. Like when I wait till there is literally no food in the house (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en_vR_sI9uw) to go get groceries. FWIW you should all watch the clip because it's a good chuckle. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10089 Posts
On January 25 2023 20:10 JimmiC wrote: So if we cut through all what you have said and make a factual statement it would be something along the lines of. Out of the hundreds of millions of Americans and the millions of healthcare workers, hundreds or perhaps thousands were pressured to take the boosters under threat of mandate. Only one state followed through impactings maybe a 100ish workers. Massive voluntary uptake due to the science and recommondatiom of the medical experts and practocioners, as well voluntary uptakr in the general population along with the new dominant variants being less lethal rendered future mandates currently uneeded. Like I said, you are entitled to your own version of reality | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28528 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43580 Posts
 Reducing infection rate and severity!New booster works against dominant Covid strain Only 15.3 percent of eligible Americans — or about 50 million people — have received the bivalent vaccine. A new CDC study has found that the Covid-19 bivalent booster reduces the risk of symptomatic infection from the most common subvariant circulating in the U.S. right now by about half. Additional new data, set to be published on the CDC website on Wednesday, also shows that individuals who received an updated vaccine reduced their risk of death by nearly 13 fold, when compared to the unvaccinated, and by two fold when compared to those with at least one monovalent vaccine but no updated booster. CDC officials said during a briefing on Wednesday that the new findings were “reassuring.” But only 15.3 percent of eligible Americans — or about 50 million people — have received the new shot, which was rolled out in September. Meanwhile, the highly transmissible Omicron subvariant XBB.1.5 — nicknamed “the Kraken” by some — is now the dominant SARS-CoV-2 strain in the U.S., projected by the CDC to make up just over 49 percent of cases in the country as of last week. Earlier this month, the WHO said XBB.1.5 is the most transmissible variant to date, and is circulating in dozens of countries. Though a catastrophic wave has not emerged in the U.S. yet, there has nevertheless been a spike in deaths this month, with an average of 564 people dying of Covid-19 each day as of Jan. 18, compared with an average of 384 around the same time in December. The new vaccine efficacy study, which used data from the national pharmacy program for Covid testing, found that the bivalent booster provided 48 percent greater protection against symptomatic infection from the XBB and XBB.1.5 subvariants among people who had the booster in the previous two to three months, compared with people who had only previously received two to four monovalent doses. It also provided 52 percent greater protection against symptomatic infection from the BA.5 subvariant, though according to CDC estimates, BA.5 only accounted for about 2 percent of U.S. cases last week. CDC officials cautioned that the findings reflected a population-level rate of protection, and that individual risk of infection varies. “It’s hard to interpret it as an individual’s risk, because every individual is different,” said Ruth Link-Gelles, the author of the vaccine effectiveness study published in MMWR Wednesday. “Their immune system is different, their past history of prior infection is different. They may have underlying conditions that put them at more or less risk of COVID-19 disease.” She also said it was unclear, given the limitations of the study, how long the bivalent booster protection will last. “It’s too early to know how waning will happen with the bivalent vaccine,” she said. “What we’ve seen in the past is that your protection lasts longer for more severe illness. So even though you may have diminished protection over time against symptomatic infection, you’re likely still protected against more severe disease for a longer period of time.” https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/25/bivalent-covid-booster-xbb-1-5-00079451 From the actual study on the CDC site: "What is added by this report? Using spike (S)-gene target presence as a proxy for BA.2 sublineages, including XBB and XBB.1.5, during December 2022–January 2023, the results showed that a bivalent mRNA booster dose provided additional protection against symptomatic XBB/XBB.1.5 infection for at least the first 3 months after vaccination in persons who had previously received 2–4 monovalent vaccine doses. What are the implications for public health practice? As new SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge, continued vaccine effectiveness monitoring is important. All persons should stay up to date with recommend COVID-19 vaccines, including receiving a bivalent booster dose when eligible." https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7205e1.htm?s_cid=mm7205e1_e&ACSTrackingID=USCDC_921-DM97925&ACSTrackingLabel=MMWR Early Release - Vol. 71, January 25, 2023&deliveryName=USCDC_921-DM97925 | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10089 Posts
So I tried googling the name of the supposed Pfizer R&D guy and something funny happened. Almost all the results I got were from obscure news outlets or conspiracy youtube/twitter channels with very few subscribers. I couldn't find much of anything from say NYTimes, Washington Post, Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, etc. Although I did see that CNN India covered it on their youtube channel. There must be something to the story as Pfizer felt the need to release a statement saying they don't do gain-of-function research in response although they didn't directly address the allegations in the video of the guy working for them. Internet web sleuths supposedly found an archived and now deleted LinkedIn-type page for a Jordon Trishton Walker with the title "Director, Worldwide R&D Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning at Pfizer." James O'Keefe says that the video has received 16 million+ views so it's obviously something that should have the clout now where it should be investigated and the truth should come out. One of the few reputable publications that have posted about it is Forbes that gave us this hard hitting piece of journalism Well, a Google search didn’t really reveal any legitimate source that could verify the person’s name and title. Similarly, a search on LinkedIn doesn’t reveal any such verifiable profiles either, just some accounts trying to spread his name. Some of these accounts are spelling the name slightly differently such as “Jordon Triston Walker” or “Jordan Triston Walker.” Of note, a search for “Triston” without the “h” did return an Urban Dictionary entry that described “Triston” as “a very hot and cute boy who always wants to disagree. Who has the softest hair in the entire world.” So if you are looking for someone hot, disagreeable, and really soft-haired, there is that. Surely they will win a pulitzer for that. Although I guess that explains why I had a hard time googling any credible information on this - because the people tasked with obtaining the credible information aren't bothering to investigate and are instead just googling it themselves? Possibly something to do with the US being one of only a couple countries where pharmaceutical companies can advertise their prescription drugs and almost every other commercial on cable news is an advertisement for prescription drugs? Makes you think. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11258 Posts
Also, i want to note that you are very close to falling into a massive conspiracy theory rabbit hole with the way you deal with information. "I cannot find anything, thus it must be surpressed and thus legitimate" is one of the worst lines of reasoning you can possibly apply. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43580 Posts
On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote: Last night I came across a Project Veritas video ... Almost all the results I got were from obscure news outlets or conspiracy youtube/twitter channels with very few subscribers. If you find any corroborating evidence from actual journalists or reputable news sources, please let us know. The absence of real references is not evidence of a cover-up. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10089 Posts
On January 30 2023 06:51 Simberto wrote: Project Veritas has very clearly shown that nothing they produce is worth interacting with. Thus, you shouldn't. Also, i want to note that you are very close to falling into a massive conspiracy theory rabbit hole with the way you deal with information. "I cannot find anything, thus it must be surpressed and thus legitimate" is one of the worst lines of reasoning you can possibly apply. That "line of reasoning" seems to be something you invented. I didn't say the story was "legitimate." My big complaint, if you re-read the post, is that I can't find any credible information on it from reputable sources. "Not credible" and "Legitimate" are not the same. In fact, they are a lot closer to being opposite. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17743 Posts
On January 30 2023 07:06 BlackJack wrote: That "line of reasoning" seems to be something you invented. I didn't say the story was "legitimate." My big complaint, if you re-read the post, is that I can't find any credible information on it from reputable sources. "Not credible" and "Legitimate" are not the same. In fact, they are a lot closer to being opposite. Why should anybody spend their time refuting the trash that Project Veritas puts out? Next you'll want the NYT to refute that there's a flying teapot in space... | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10089 Posts
On January 30 2023 07:10 Acrofales wrote: Why should anybody spend their time refuting the trash that Project Veritas puts out? Next you'll want the NYT to refute that there's a flying teapot in space... What's your idea? Just let everyone retreat to their own corners of the internet and propagate whatever ideas they want without anyone credible in the middle to challenge them? You think that's going to end well? Edit: The context is that the original twitter video now has 25 million views. If a video about a flying teapot in space had enough people believing it that it went viral enough to get 25 million views then yes the NYT should refute that as well. In fact I'd be pretty confident that if the teapot space video got 25 million views then there would indeed be plenty of ad-click driven media companies posting stories fact-checking it, don't you agree? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11258 Posts
On January 30 2023 07:06 BlackJack wrote: That "line of reasoning" seems to be something you invented. I didn't say the story was "legitimate." My big complaint, if you re-read the post, is that I can't find any credible information on it from reputable sources. "Not credible" and "Legitimate" are not the same. In fact, they are a lot closer to being opposite. That is how i read your post. Maybe i am mistaken. Maybe you didn't mean "legitimate", but you definitively want to make it relevant in some way. The best reaction to a Project Veritas Video is to not view it. The second best reaction is to ignore it. The third best reaction is trying to verify it, and concluding it is nonsense upon not finding anything You chose to try to verify it, didn't find anything, and now want to start a discussion about why you didn't find anything, and how that smells weird to you. You also apparently want to sling some general doubt into the direction of media for not covering the bullshit a lying piece of shit like O'Keefe turns out. All of your sources are weird 5 steps removed stuff. "Some guy said they found a website which said X" Then you end with some weird JAQing off while implying corruption. "Maybe this has something to do with money from X going to Y" O'Keefe simply does not have enough credibility left to warrant any reaction. That does not require corruption or some conspiracy. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10089 Posts
On January 30 2023 07:25 Simberto wrote: That is how i read your post. Maybe i am mistaken. Maybe you didn't mean "legitimate", but you definitively want to make it relevant in some way. The best reaction to a Project Veritas Video is to not view it. The second best reaction is to ignore it. The third best reaction is trying to verify it, and concluding it is nonsense upon not finding anything You chose to try to verify it, didn't find anything, and now want to start a discussion about why you didn't find anything, and how that smells weird to you. You also apparently want to sling some general doubt into the direction of media for not covering the bullshit a lying piece of shit like O'Keefe turns out. All of your sources are weird 5 steps removed stuff. "Some guy said they found a website which said X" Then you end with some weird JAQing off while implying corruption. "Maybe this has something to do with money from X going to Y" O'Keefe simply does not have enough credibility left to warrant any reaction. That does not require corruption or some conspiracy. Yeah, the bolded is a good summation. The context being that the original video has 25 million+ views just on Twitter. When you add in mirrors and alternate platforms you'd probably easily double that. There's an obvious virality here and considering how much of the MSM is profit driven, your theory that they just can't be bothered here seems hard to believe. I also don't know of any difficulty finding MSM articles debunking any of O'Keefe's previous work. That's actually exactly how we know his work is often dubious: from reputable publications refuting what he puts out. According to wikipedia the previus "notable recording" by Project Veritas ended in a guilty plea and 90-day suspended jail sentence for a man for voting twice in an election. Unfortunately for that man he didn't have you there to tell the prosecutor to "not view it" and "ignore it" regarding the video that persuaded them to prosecute the case. Is it possible that O'Keefe just ran out of credibility to the point that nobody wants to even fact check him anymore as you suggest? Sure, it's plausible. Is it possible that CNN India covered the story but not CNN America because CNN India is just less scrupulous with the stories they decide to cover? Sure, also plausible. I guess the difference here is that I accept several theories as plausible for why this story isn't covered in the MSM and you accept all theories except 1 as plausible. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10089 Posts
On January 30 2023 08:58 JimmiC wrote: Creepy how many people are watching this crap given how everything else has been debunked and that it "makes people think". That is a massive problem you would think being consistenly wrogn and self serving would matter. How much does fact checking even help if known liars and manipulators get a clean slate with each new production. When you were considering options did you considee that legitimate journalism and fact checking takes time and that if they do not get ot 100% that will "prove" to people "they" are hiding something. Edit: the forbes article is much better than you gave it credit for, noy shockingly the quotes you chose to pick paint the narrative you want and do acurately represent the source matetial. It also does not shock me that tucker is promoting it, which helps to why it has so many views. Interstingly you and tucker have the exact same view on the "media blackout". https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2023/01/28/no-project-veritas-video-doesnt-prove-pfizer-is-mutating-covid-19-who-is-jordon-trishton-walker/?sh=148e27fc623d You think that forbes article offers literally anything? The so-called "journalist" that wrote that article put in exactly as much effort into investigating this as I did: we both googled the name of the guy in the video. Good thing the author wasn't a journalist in the 70s. He would have had some serious chafing if he investigated the Watergate break-in by googling everything he could find on Deep Throat. At the absolute bare minimum he could ask pfizer if the guy is even an employee of theirs. How many stories do you see with the sentence "We reached out to X for comment but they did not immediately respond." Evidently that was too much to ask. Or maybe reach out to Project Veritas who claim they have internal documents from pfizer that shows this guy is an employee of theirs? But don't worry, he does close the article with: Sure, journalists are open to hearing more about this Walker person, if that indeed is his name, and whatever Pfizer may be doing as long as that info is supported by verifiable sources. The gall of such a statement from a self-proclaimed journalist to write an article that essentially says "I'm open to hearing more about it but google hasn't returned any reputable results." Like where the hell does he think the reputable results come from? Well obviously not from him. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17743 Posts
On January 30 2023 07:22 BlackJack wrote: What's your idea? Just let everyone retreat to their own corners of the internet and propagate whatever ideas they want without anyone credible in the middle to challenge them? You think that's going to end well? Edit: The context is that the original twitter video now has 25 million views. If a video about a flying teapot in space had enough people believing it that it went viral enough to get 25 million views then yes the NYT should refute that as well. In fact I'd be pretty confident that if the teapot space video got 25 million views then there would indeed be plenty of ad-click driven media companies posting stories fact-checking it, don't you agree? While I'm appalled Tucker Carlson got 25m people clicking on O'Keefe's garbage, I have to agree that refuting something that amount of people are looking at is probably for the best. Luckily, Pfizer put out that presser doing exactly that refutation. As Jimmy pointed out, that Forbes piece is also a lot better than you give it credit for. Not being able to find *anything* on the internet about someone in what sounds like a rather senior position at a multinational pharmaceutical company is weird. I tried googling myself and I find my LinkedIn profile instantly. I also found those of a bunch of friends who work in different industries. I then Googled some research positions at Pfizer and found LinkedIn profiles for a bunch of people. The Forbes article nails it that someone with a high-profile job like the Project Veritas one mentions should not have the same internet footprint as my 80-year-old mother (none whatsoever). Either way, fact checking takes some time. Newsweek got around to posting their take on it today: they couldn't find any corroborating evidence... and obviously PV isn't going to share the unedited video, so we're stuck with their suggestive editing as well as their word that this "director of research" is actually a real person with a real job at Pfizer. https://www.newsweek.com/project-veritas-covid-mutations-pfizer-fact-check-1776845 | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8596 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11258 Posts
On January 31 2023 01:55 JimmiC wrote: Proving a negative is very hard. People who think that not being able to prove the negative makes it true are easily manipulated. Project veritas holds all the cards. They could release the uncut video, they could confirm this persons credentials. That they choose not too says its not honest as does their entire history. That so many people get caught up in the nonsense is sad and very frustrating. There is enough real problems to deal with, without wading through all the made up ones. I also think that it is very important that this is not just any source. It is Project Veritas. They have negative credibility. I would believe a random source that i have never heard about before more than i would believe project veritas. I don't think they ever had a story that didn't turn out to be massively manipulated afterwards. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Sea Stormgate 2368Dewaltoss  141firebathero 105Zeus 99PianO 72Mind 39Sexy 33scan(afreeca)  20Yoon  16Beast 11Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Grubby3484 FrodaN2393 ScreaM2220 Liquid`RaSZi1213 hiko1173 Beastyqt805 ceh9258 QueenE230 Livibee219 ArmadaUGS148 Trikslyr88 |
|
Master's Coliseum
herO vs Astrea
Reynor vs Spirit
Korean StarCraft League
Master's Coliseum
Zoun vs MaxPax
Serral vs GuMiho
Red Clan Cup
Master's Coliseum
OSC
OlimoLeague
LiuLi Cup
SKillous vs Solar
MaxPax vs SHIN
OSC
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
