Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Like you could do any better.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

M, m, m, my Carona.

[marked-for-distribution]
  (+7, -4)
(+7, -4)
  [vote for,
against]

On one hand a lawn ornament shaped like the Covid virus to water one's lawn, perhaps virulently.

On the other hand an excuse to continue discussions deleted because they did not have an idea associated with them.

I can't decide which so...


UK Gestapo https://www.youtube...watch?v=9D6RG4n5ocg
All for a disease little worse than the flu [bigsleep, Apr 14 2021]

Halfbakery idea "Blatantly Apolitical Predictions for 2021" Blatantly_20Apoliti...ctions_20for_202021
I think me & 8th covered this ground already. It didn't take long. (scroll down to anno). [DrBob, Apr 14 2021]

This https://c.shld.net/...ei=64&wid=64&qlt=50
Coronavirus hose lawn ornament [wjt, Apr 17 2021]

or this?? wtf funny but not https://www.google....AB&biw=1261&bih=902
[xandram, Apr 18 2021]

windows on a chip https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/vaccine
[pertinax, Apr 19 2021]

Waterslides are open here too. https://xkcd.com/1081/
[AusCan531, Apr 20 2021]

Pub landlord kicks idiot politician out of pub https://www.youtube...watch?v=oGuLJvY9ApE
[bigsleep, Apr 20 2021]

Conspiracy Theorists https://xkcd.com/258/
[AusCan531, Apr 20 2021]

Bill and Melinda Gates give 1 billion to MHRA https://www.gov.uk/...health-organisation
If they weren't lining the pockets of the key organisations we are trying to trust right now. [bigsleep, Apr 20 2021]

Dr Fauci's Conspiracy https://imgur.com/cw27Y5V
[AusCan531, Apr 20 2021]

I've done my own research! https://imgur.com/L3amprJ
[AusCan531, Apr 20 2021]

Real Conspiracy N#1 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56667960
[zen_tom, Apr 20 2021]

Real Conspiracy N#2 https://www.indepen...donor-b1818645.html
[zen_tom, Apr 20 2021]

Real Conspiracy N#3 https://www.theguar...r-run-ferry-service
[zen_tom, Apr 20 2021]

Real Conspiracy N#s4, 5, ... n https://www.theguar...-in-covid-19-crisis
1 billion in untendered contracts [zen_tom, Apr 20 2021]

Real Conspiracy list goes on... https://www.theguar...-hacker-house-grant
[zen_tom, Apr 20 2021]

...and on... https://www.opendem...sed-tribunal-rules/
[zen_tom, Apr 20 2021]

Waffle about embedded ID's and vaccine passports https://blogs.times...microchip-implants/
Obviously a very silly idea [bigsleep, Apr 20 2021]

Ted Nugent WAKES UP https://www.thedail...ke?via=twitter_page
Although his ever-present insanity persists [AusCan531, Apr 20 2021]

fullfact on deaths after vaccination https://fullfact.or...hs-after-a-vaccine/
Why you can’t compare deaths after a positive Covid-19 test with deaths after a vaccine [Loris, Apr 20 2021]

British Columbia Covid Dashboard https://experience....bfa989e3cda29297ded
All a misdirection plot by the Lizard People of course. [AusCan531, Apr 21 2021]

The Real Cost of Covid https://www.bbc.com...in-america-56696907
...but, the economy. [AusCan531, Apr 21 2021]

(?) Norwegian Covid Denier no longer holds that opinion https://www.newshub...-house-parties.html
or anything else. [AusCan531, Apr 21 2021]

Newsweek Article https://www.newswee...ck-966-died-1574447
"it is false to say that COVID vaccines have caused 966 deaths, because the VAERS database is not designed to give this information." [AusCan531, Apr 21 2021]

Herd Immunity is a valid goal https://www.vanityf...ccine-herd-immunity
Unfortunately, the burden won't be shared and shirkers will shirk. [AusCan531, Apr 22 2021]

LOTs of people question the validity of Covid https://www.reddit....ium=web2x&context=3
[AusCan531, Apr 22 2021]

How AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 Vaccine Is Linked to Blood Clots https://time.com/59...lood-clots-studies/
[bigsleep, Apr 24 2021]

"Just a cold." https://m.huffpost....537e4b0ee126f670cca
[RayfordSteele, Apr 24 2021]

The tragedy is .. https://books.googl...ription&redir_esc=y
... That even when all the facts are correct, bias is still inevitable. The only mitigation is to keep the conversation going, to keep adding those missing facts which you think are important. [pertinax, Apr 25 2021]

Believe Dr. Fauci https://www.youtube...watch?v=ZPgVf9F44HU
[bigsleep, Apr 26 2021]

70-90% of Indians including 84% pregnant women and 88% Mumbaikars are Vitamin D deficient https://www.indiato...-1593102-2019-08-29
"Our study also investigated co-occurrence of deficiency with hypothyroidism and obesity or overweight condition. A majority (76 percent) of hypothyroid patients had low levels of vitamin D," [bigsleep, Apr 26 2021]

Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity? https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563
"At least six studies have reported T cell reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 in 20% to 50% of people with no known exposure to the virus" [bigsleep, Apr 26 2021]

First Nurse in BC dies of Covid https://bc.ctvnews....ed-in-b-c-1.5403475
Not everyone can be vaccinated so rely upon their community to step up. [AusCan531, Apr 27 2021]

Report on Covid in Delhi https://www.afr.com...AEST&jobid=29303937
From the original NYT article. [AusCan531, Apr 28 2021]

India Daily deaths https://www.worldom...#graph-deaths-daily
[bigsleep, Apr 28 2021]

Air India flight to Hong Kong https://amp.news.co...fca89fbd95b87d756d2
[AusCan531, Apr 28 2021]

Viral shedding https://en.wikipedi...wiki/Viral_shedding
Doesn't mean what bigsleep thinks [Loris, Apr 28 2021]

Why I HAVEN'T yet taken the COVID VACCINE https://www.youtube...watch?v=gAumCeqiU_8
Religious cardiologist talks about immune system etc [bigsleep, Apr 28 2021]

Dr John Lee; Covid is the cure worse than the disease? https://www.youtube...watch?v=spmPax0rq5A
Youtube link [bigsleep, May 05 2021]

Dr John Lee; Covid is the cure worse than the disease? https://www.bitchut.../video/btWfAXQ8wYg/
Bitchute link [bigsleep, May 05 2021]

Cancer and the gut microbiota: An unexpected link https://www.ncbi.nl...rticles/PMC4690201/
[bigsleep, May 06 2021]

What I've Learned https://www.youtube...hGiB9tkShZorfgcL2lA
Thought provoking channel with plausible evidence. [bigsleep, May 06 2021]

Impact of two oral doses of 100,000 IU of vitamin D3 in preschoolers with viral-induced asthma https://trialsjourn...6/s13063-019-3184-z
[bigsleep, May 07 2021]

The novel coronavirus’ spike protein plays additional key role in illness https://www.salk.ed...ey-role-in-illness/
"They showed that the spike protein damaged the cells by binding ACE2" [bigsleep, May 13 2021]

Open letter from Michael Yeadon https://www.aier.or...ormer-vp-of-pfizer/
[bigsleep, May 13 2021]

Fauci Spars With Sen. Rand Paul Over Origins Of Covid-19 | NBC News https://www.youtube...watch?v=rLJ1JpnkVc8
[bigsleep, May 13 2021]

Nature.com : The time is ripe to reform the World Health Organization https://www.nature....rganization-1.21394
"One problem is that the WHO has become dangerously dependent on voluntary contributions, which now make up more than 80% of its overall budget. Most of this money comes with strings attached by the funders to their own priorities, making it next to impossible for the WHO to have much of a say in its own agenda." " There is a plethora of new players with much greater financial clout, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation" [bigsleep, May 13 2021]

Who Pays For PolitiFact? https://www.politif...ays-for-politifact/
Organizations that contributed more than 5 percent of total PolitiFact revenues in the previous calendar year will be listed here: Facebook, TikTok [bigsleep, May 13 2021]

The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan? https://thebulletin...doras-box-at-wuhan/
[Loris, May 14 2021]

CoVID-19 did not come from the Wuhan Institute of Virology: A discussion about theories of origin with your friendly neighborhood virologist. https://www.reddit....wuhan_institute_of/
Counterpoint to the above [Loris, May 14 2021]

laowhy86: I Found The Source of the Coronavirus https://www.youtube...watch?v=bpQFCcSI0pU
[bigsleep, May 15 2021]

Dr Cate Shanahan on seed oils https://www.youtube...watch?v=58aGiekcwRA
Dr Cate Shanahan, omega 3 vs omega 6 benefits, Is Saturated Fat Bad For You? [bigsleep, May 15 2021]

Dr. Cate Shanahan - 'Practical Lipid Management for LCHF Patients' https://www.youtube...watch?v=YbpX41oCi1M
Everything you need to know about cholesterol and heart disease. [bigsleep, May 15 2021]

Dr. Mike Yeadon Canterbury freedom rally https://odysee.com/@FwapUK:1/mike:9
You're all being lied to (Speech starts at 6 min 20) [bigsleep, May 16 2021]

Retraction request letter to Eurosurveillance editorial board https://cormandrost...ce-editorial-board/
"After careful consideration, our international consortium of Life Science scientists found the Corman-Drosten paper is severely flawed with respect to its biomolecular and methodological design." [bigsleep, May 16 2021]

Cat video ! https://www.youtube...watch?v=PuE4PGbE5ZY
25 minutes of a cross-section of humanity. Enjoy ! [bigsleep, May 17 2021]

This is the 'soil' from which Conspiracy Theories Grow https://www.psypost...eater-egotism-60776
[AusCan531, May 17 2021]

How coronavirus kills "HEALTHY" people with Dr. Cate Shanahan. https://www.youtube...watch?v=hbKB5kAArk8
[bigsleep, May 17 2021]

Short Video on India Situation: What does the Current Data Say? https://www.youtube...watch?v=vg4aUqjH4N4
I presented similar statistics [bigsleep, May 17 2021]

Telegraph: Use of fear to control behaviour in Covid crisis was ‘totalitarian’, admit scientists https://www.telegra...ol-behaviour-covid/
Needs subscription. See below for UK Column's coverage. [bigsleep, May 18 2021]

UK Column talking about Telegraph article and government fear-mongering https://www.ukcolum...-news-17th-may-2021
Skip to 57:53 for Telegraph fear segment. Skip to 27:43 for "Full Fact Full Of It!" [bigsleep, May 18 2021]

Dr. Sam Bailey - Asymptomatic Transmission https://odysee.com/...sion-Small-Video-:e
[bigsleep, May 18 2021]

Fox & Friends : Why does Biden keep saying he can't answer questions? https://www.youtube...watch?v=I99RRaY0GuE
"I'm not allowed to answer questions" [bigsleep, May 18 2021]

PJW : Modernity 3 https://www.youtube...watch?v=LF6yyuJGspM
For [pertinax] [bigsleep, May 18 2021]

Humber Bridge board seeks solution over path closures https://www.bbc.com...and-humber-56651376
"A number of recent deeply troubling suicides at the Humber Bridge prompted a decision to close its footpaths, the board which runs the bridge has said." [bigsleep, May 18 2021]

False Positives in PCR Tests for COVID-19 https://www.icd10mo...-tests-for-covid-19
"40% of positive results are wrong" [bigsleep, May 18 2021]

UK Gov on false positives. https://www.ons.gov...rveypilot/14may2021
[bigsleep, May 18 2021]

BBC Media Action: Subversion From Broadcasting House https://www.ukcolum...ng-house-kazakhstan
[bigsleep, May 19 2021]

BBC Media Action in India https://www.bbc.co....-we-work/asia/india
BBC's own page [bigsleep, May 19 2021]

Wikipedia: Hijra (South Asia) https://en.wikipedi...h_Asia)#In_religion
Mahabharata includes an episode in which Arjuna, a hero of the epic, is sent into an exile. There he assumes an identity of a eunuch-transvestite and performs rituals during weddings and childbirths that are now performed by hijras.[22] [bigsleep, May 19 2021]

Motorway bridge built around Chinese woman's house after she refused to move https://www.9news.c...6-ad98-074166cb158d
Aparently compulsory purchase orders are not a thing in China. [bigsleep, May 19 2021]

Bill Maher on Covid (April 2021) https://www.youtube...watch?v=Qp3gy_CLXho
[bigsleep, May 22 2021]

London PR firm paying money to spread fake online disinformation on vaccines https://twitter.com...1396719090321010688
Follow the money... [zen_tom, May 25 2021]

On nearly worthless "intel" articles https://twitter.com...77153232379904?s=19
[RayfordSteele, May 25 2021]

Magical Thinking https://en.m.wikipe...ki/Magical_thinking
Examples include the idea [...] that objects must be causally connected if they resemble each other or came in contact with each other in the past. [pertinax, May 28 2021]

Dr. John Campbell : Good long term immunity https://www.youtube...watch?v=mzOf6Cj3T-8
[bigsleep, Jun 03 2021]

Blood clot deaths https://www.stamfor...accination-9198171/
[bigsleep, Jun 04 2021]

Anti-vaccine passport protesters storm Westfield mall in London https://www.theguar...ield-mall-in-london
Search for 'thousands' in the article. [bigsleep, Jun 04 2021]

AAMC : How are COVID-19 deaths counted? It’s complicated https://www.aamc.or...ed-it-s-complicated
[bigsleep, Jun 04 2021]

Vaccines: A Measured Response https://www.youtube...watch?v=8BIcAZxFfrc
tldw: Andrew Wakefield is corrupt [Loris, Jun 06 2021]

BMJ: Put to the test: use of rapid testing technologies for covid-19 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n208
[bigsleep, Jun 06 2021]

Behind the headlines: Counting COVID-19 deaths https://publichealt...ng-covid-19-deaths/
gov.uk blog post which vexes bigsleep (linked to from fullfact article) [Loris, Jun 08 2021]

UK Gov Corona Virus Testing https://coronavirus....uk/details/testing
[bigsleep, Jun 09 2021]

ZOE - Hyper-infectious Delta Variant https://www.youtube...watch?v=OHBua3aXQ7c
Official channel for the Zoe symptom tracker app [bigsleep, Jun 10 2021]

John McWhorter book https://www.amazon....rever/dp/0593188799
The shot really hits the fan by chapter 3 [a1, Jun 11 2021]

NHS told to identify patients actually sick from Covid-19 separately to those testing positive https://www.indepen...-data-b1862804.html
"The move would reduce the overall number of patients in hospital for coronavirus as until now data from hospitals has included all patients who tested positive for Covid-19, regardless of whether they had symptoms or not." [bigsleep, Jun 11 2021]

Theresa May attacks Government's travel ban: 'global Britain shut for business' https://www.youtube...watch?v=Q-0g1qM3sHU
"I couldn't get a holiday this year, so I knitted this hideous cardigan" [bigsleep, Jun 12 2021]

Vaccine side effects https://www.gocomic...itycheck/2021/06/12
[a1, Jun 12 2021]

Vaccine for pets https://www.gocomic...fthemark/2021/06/12
Because animals can be carriers also [a1, Jun 12 2021]

Please log in.
If you're not logged in, you can see what this page looks like, but you will not be able to add anything.
Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee
Destination URL. E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)






       What I think is going on here is, [jutta] doesn't want to host endless covid debates here, and that's why they're getting deleted.   

       Now, I think that there are some interesting things touched on in those debates - but that doesn't mean [jutta] has to host them, if she doesn't want to. So, [with-respect-suggested-for- deletion].
pertinax, Apr 14 2021
  

       Yeah. The HB isn't the place for it. But unfortunately what's going on could define society forever.   

       We could have had an honest conversation about terrorism, bioterroism, population control, climate change, social credits, but instead the measures are coming in through the back door. [link]
bigsleep, Apr 14 2021
  

       I choose to read this idea as "a lawn ornament and sprayer shaped like the coronavirus in order to foster discussion between neighbors".
Voice, Apr 14 2021
  

       That's the spirit...   

       If the lawn ornament is over powered, and went running around the garden, you might catch it.
pocmloc, Apr 15 2021
  

       I have had enough of this common cold.   

       I'm hoping that the whole fiasco massively backfires and that countries realize just how self sufficient they really are, and how un-reliant we need be on certain other countries, (which shall remain un-named so as to stave off deletion).   

       [Make Plywood Cheap Again]   

       Just another two weeks...   

       Meh, on a completely unrelated note, I went to a football game with 54,000+ other people on the weekend. No restrictions or masks whatsoever. It was nice.
AusCan531, Apr 19 2021
  

       //Windows forcibly installed on every device.//   

       Wait; that was the 1990s: it's much less of a threat now, what with the revival of Apple, the emergence of Android, etc.
pertinax, Apr 19 2021
  

       See link.
pertinax, Apr 19 2021
  

       //Windows forcibly installed on every device// - I assume for Macs this will be done in a Boot Camp partition so that the user can dual boot? This could be quite useful.
hippo, Apr 19 2021
  

       It's an away game for the football this weekend so I might go to a waterslide instead. [link]
AusCan531, Apr 20 2021
  

       All I know is that the east end of Canada is getting shut down and the west end is about to follow suit even though nothing seems to have changed here other than ever growing restrictions on our rights.   

       It's just so frustrating being right all the time.
Y'know?
  

       //Take the lockdowns which will flare up when there's a new variant breakout//   

       At least there won't be an Australian or New Zealand variant. We took care of business like rational adults :)
AusCan531, Apr 20 2021
  

       I watched that same pub landlord video this morning, [bigsleep]. My first thought was, "That's not a landlord, that looks more like an angry choreographer. Clearly, *they* have faked this encounter, but their Al Murray lookalike called in sick that day."
pertinax, Apr 20 2021
  

       What about variant secondies?
They know about those don't they?
  

       Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I was kidding, [bigs].   

       Meanwhile, we had a whole other thread about the statistics. They were unconvincing, because they all depended on assumptions about what would have happened if [some other policy option] (and other, more detailed reasons, which I won't go over here).   

       I actually agree with you that there's a bad trend, internationally, towards over-reach in governmental power. There's been an increase in surveillance. There have been infringements on the capacity of journalists to investigate and report abuses. There have been infringements on rights to protest. Those things are all real and have been happening, gradually, at least since 9/11, if not earlier.   

       I just don't think repeating "coronavirus is a con" will help with any of that. This is because the problem is not that the external threats (disease, terrorism, etc.) are imaginary - they're not - rather, it is that the opportunistic responses to real threats have tended to ratchet up government power.
pertinax, Apr 20 2021
  

       //Prove me wrong//   

       It's logically impossible to disprove assumptions about counterfactual situations, where those situations are too complex to confine to a lab (that is, you can't run controlled experiments on chunks of history). However, it's equally impossible to prove those assumptions. So we're left with relative plausibility.
pertinax, Apr 20 2021
  

       3) It'll cause trouble at lambing time too, no doubt. Mark my words.   

       (And do *things* to the cow's milk, by cracky.)
AusCan531, Apr 20 2021
  

       //Australia will not escape those kind of measures eventually.//   

       Australia DID NOT escape 'those kinds of measures'. Our success didn't 'just happen'. We had more stringent measures than Canada (I know because I talk to family and friends in Canada daily) and we had a higher level of public compliance where we ignored the naysayers, foot-draggers and conspiracy aficionados. We paid the price and got the reward. Yet we will STILL be at risk from those who dragged the chain. You're right about variants breeding up in the giant petri dishes of countries who didn't do what it takes. There won't be an Australian variant but the dangerous mutations will come from countries like yours. There won't be a Singaporean or Japanese variant either.   

       I have plenty of friends and family in Canada and my wife's family is all in the UK. I do think about them a lot. That's why I'm pissed off with all the "it's just the flu" and "it's a govt conspiracy to oppress us to wear masks" types [link]. These people are dangerous to themselves and others. This isn't a discussion about the merits of Brexit or National Debt or which flavour of religion is 'the correct one'. It's much more important than that. It's life and death. Go hard, go thorough and put the flames out entirely. Doing a half-assed job and leaving a few embers smouldering here and there just prolongs the problem. Even if you're tired and cranky about all the fire-fighting efort and the kids are whining that they want to go back into the house.   

       I would deal with foot-draggers and skeptics the same as a parent deals with a toddler having a tantrum about being buckled into a car seat. I would NOT punch them in the guts but nor would I put up with their shit. If it was just themselves being affected, I might be content to let Darwin sort'em out if rational argument failed. But it's not just them. The longer it takes to sort the problem the more people die and the longer lockdowns and other mitigation measures are in place and more variants arise. The goal should be to keep as many people alive as possible until there's a large enough percentage of the population vaccinated to make a difference. I'm VERY happy my state has had 10 deaths instead of 4,500. Those 4,490 people are still alive and can take advantage of the fact that all lockdown measures are gone and everything has completely opened up. We went hard, we went early and got the reward.
AusCan531, Apr 20 2021
  

       //the merits of Brexit// since you mention it, there's been a far deal greater and more permanent loss of freedoms brought about in the name of Brexit - and people voted for that! In comparison any of these temporary Corona measures are miniscule. Why not get all worked up about that? I don't see the crazy brigade complaining about any of those factual losses of personal freedom. It strikes me as slightly hypocritical - even cult-like - that the same anti-vaccination people are also often the QAnon/Brexit/conspiracy theory folks - it's almost as though all those narratives are coming from the same source - irrespective, they're all equally nonsense.   

       Also, just for the record, is anyone serious about microchips in vaccines? That's just satire, right? I mean nobody is seriously suggesting they put microchips in vaccines. You have to ask, given all the other batshit stuff they spread around the internet.   

       Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Lockdowns in 2020 were designed to stop hospitals from getting overrun by runaway infection rates. 1% of 65 million is a lot of people needing care. Far more than would be manageable without absolute carnage. Now we're a year in, and vaccinations are rolling out (I just had my second jab today) then Covid will become just another flu-like disease that will continue to kill many thousands of people a year. Flu kills. The systematic problem wasn't that, it was that the rate of infection in a completely unprepared population would have been such that hospitals wouldn't have been able to deal with the spike in cases. No conspiracy, just reasoned public resource management based on facts and projections.   

       We've had flu vaccines for decades, we eradicated polio with a vaccine, and smallpox and controlled mumps, measles and rubella and all the rest. Vaccines work. They're not used to control people, never have, and there's no mechanism by which they could be in the future. It's just not that big a deal. *   

       What is a big deal is how all this misinformation has infected people and made them do stupid things, like that idiot pub landlord who doesn't know how government works. It's almost as though his ability to think critically had been eroded by all this online nonsense. He must be feeling pretty embarrassed by now.   

       * What *is* a big deal, isn't wankers throwing the wrong people out of pubs, it's how the govt has handed out public funds to their mates for the supply of imaginary goods and services. The corruption utterly stinks, and all this conspiracy theorising gets in the way of any serious conversation being had over actual real problems and failures of government.
zen_tom, Apr 20 2021
  

       [bigs] - you can no longer live across the border (even if you own property there) without first getting permission (you could before), you can no longer move across the border freely without permission, you can no longer trade across the border without permission. All those freedoms were freely given up by people by choice. Those freedoms to make choices about where to live and trade across a pool of member states have been revoked permanently.   

       vs a temporary slowdown of the economy for a few months and some encouragement to wear facemasks.   

       It's no competition, wake up!!   

       As for vaccines for kids, maybe not flu, but plenty of others - what's wrong with vaccines? If it was ok for wiping out polio and smallpox, and could be used to safely immunise a majority of people to safe aggregate levels, such that corona occupies the same kind of status as flu, again, no big deal. I truthfully don't understand what the supposed end-game is here. In another year, pretty much everything will be back to normal. Meanwhile, fisheries in Cornwall will still have lost their family businesses, manufacturing jobs will still be sent overseas and people will no longer be able to easily trade across borders without first paying for government permissions.   

       If you want to argue for freedoms, stop tilting at fake Corona windmills and maybe start looking at the real and active assault on your rights that's already happened. To do anything less would be starkly hypocritical.   

       I am becalmed by the no microchips in vaccines thing - it's difficult to separate what people are really getting upset about from the made up stuff- they all make about the same amount of sense.
zen_tom, Apr 20 2021
  

       I know at least 8 people who went on foreign holidays this year, so the no holiday thing is yet to be enacted. Flights have continued pretty much non-stop all year round. So if they're planning to put the kibosh on foreign travel, they've not got around to telling anyone yet. Meanwhile, post Brexit, wait and see how many UK airlines go out of business or how many regional routes are closed down as increased bureaucracy costs make them uneconomical.
zen_tom, Apr 20 2021
  

       //So did you get your head around how the Grim Reaper actually works ? He kills waves up of people every year, some bigger waves, some smaller waves.// Yes. And?   

       We've already established that the controls were to stop the initial wave from working through an un- prepared (i.e. susceptible, corona-naïve in antibody terms) population. That situation will have come to an end sometime this summer. Controls most likely over forever after that. It's a one time event. It was never about stopping individuals from dying at all. It was about stopping lots of individuals dying at once, filling up hospitals.   

       It's like a processing system. The throughput of the system is only able to cope with x number of ill people at once, if the number goes over x then people start dying in corridors and piled up in car parks. That's never a good look for a government or hospital admins. The lockdowns were there to spread things out to more manageable rates. And now, with y% of the population immunised (either through exposure, or vaccination or both), those danger rates are never going to be seen again. If an entirely new virus comes out that the population is unexposed to, then maybe it'll all happen again, but based on evidence, that seems to happen once every 100 years or so.
zen_tom, Apr 20 2021
  

       Well prove me wrong? It all is based on simple reasoning and common sense. Why resort to crazy conspiracy theories?   

       But seriously - if you care about freedoms, then don't blind yourself to the loss of rights and freedoms given up by all British people through Brexit. As I said before, if you really *do* care about freedom - then don't be a hypocrite - we suffered a far greater and more permanent loss of freedom due to that than any temporary health management policy enacted in the last 12 months.   

       That's got nothing to do with the BBC, CNN or any other news source. That's just plain old straight-forward common sense, based on the principle of Occam's razor and all that jazz.   

       Corona sensationalism is kind of fun, but it'll all be over by Christmas. Other things however, which are real, will still be dragging on.   

       Meanwhile, hysteria sells clicks. One thing that (I guess) the BBC doesn't yet have to worry about. Not sure about CNN, but I don't live over there, so I don't really know.   

       If I wanted to make money by generating clicks and didn't mind the ethical implications, I'd be free to generate all sorts of exciting content for people to obsess over and curate into their own warped world-views. I'm not in that game, but we know that many people out there are into precisely that game. How do we discourage this kind of fake "news"? I don't know the answer to that question, but it's one reason I deleted Facebook for example - it's full of nonsense and garbage - and people get stoked up by it and consumed by weird and crazy ideas as a result.   

       Maybe ghosts are real, who can prove it one way or the other? And maybe there is a secret government conspiracy to do something or other (it's not clear what the intended thing actually is) and this conspiracy is both amazingly effective, and simultaneously hopelessly flawed. As a coherent narrative, it doesn't work. There's nothing holding it together. But if you can fling up enough disconnected weird goings on it is possible to shield the recipient from that fact with sheer volume of information.   

       The facts of the matter are, yes -it's been a tough year. And yes, it's affected people disproportionately who have been less wealthy. But it will all be over fairly soon, and the click-baiters will have to come up with another new bogeyman to make shit up about for people to click on.   

       If I don't reply any time soon, it's because I've got to go out and pick the kids up from school. My wife's picking up a new car from the garage so I have to walk and I've got to pick up some stuff from the shops on the way. As you walk down the street teeming with people going about their everyday business, you can almost imagine their rights under lockdown aren't really that adversely affected at all.
zen_tom, Apr 20 2021
  

       While you're out [zen-tom] you may as well visit a waterslide like I suggested. It's more fun and just as fruitful.
AusCan531, Apr 20 2021
  

       So I was tempted to ignore this, but...   

       //Doctors do not recommend giving flu vaccines to kids.//   

       Are you sure? Because in the UK it's offered every year from 2..10 years old.   

       //Prove me wrong//   

       a) It's not really supposed to work like that. You're supposed to prove yourself right.
b)I don't think it's worth it any more. With enormous effort you may be persuaded of any individual point, but you'll just go off and pick other fallacies to replace it. You're a lost cause.
Loris, Apr 20 2021
  

       [a1] // get your Intel-based Macs while you can. M1 chips don't and probably won't ever support Bootcamp// - that's a good point; I hadn't thought of that.
hippo, Apr 20 2021
  

       The Flying Spaghetti Monster lives on Mars and has accomplices at NASA working to shield his existence. Prove me wrong.   

       Exercise your grips on reality, bigs and 2f. It seems weak. I recommend doing something that involves group participation with your fellow humans. They won't bite. I promise.   

       My 6 and 7 year olds got flu vaccines in 2019 at the local pharmacy. They have vaccines for babies as young as 6 months.   

       I'm at a loss at how microchips are supposed to function inside a vaccine, and what precisely they are supposed to do. Do they have their own incredibly small superbatteries that run them your whole life? Do they get in your bloodstream? Are they supposed to broadcast something on the power generated by these incredibly small superbatteries? On what frequency? Do they sample your DNA and report it out? Using what chemical analysis method? Do they magically replace your DNA with some other proteins? Again, how? How does a chip mechanically or chemically or magically create a protein in a wet environment? If this technique is so incredible to change my DNA in hundreds of millions of cells without my detection by a few dozen or so chips smaller than what can be detected inside a needle shot, why isn't it being used in Oxford or another DNA research lab as a seriously superior technique rather than the expensive, crude, and awkward CRISPR methods currently touted? And why aren't the people who invented it working on other things like instantly curing trisomy 21 and cystic fibrosis?   

       Let's ask someone who spouts this who seems reliable...   

       ...searching...   

       ...still searching...   

       Ooh, we found Kanye West. hmmm... pass. Still searching...
RayfordSteele, Apr 20 2021
  

       //There is only one viable protocol for Covid19 and that's to offer the vaccine to those who want it and let the rest get the disease, because its going to spread anyway ... eventually.//   

       If this is true - and I tend to believe it is - then sorry, but what's the controversy about? Broadly speaking, this is precisely what is going to happen. And when it does, that spread will be manageable because of the steps taken to prepare the population to date. If those steps hadn't been taken, you'd have seen worse results than we already have seen, thank goodness. A colleague of mine, his brother and mother and father in law all went into hospital with Covid back in November. Only he came out alive. His life will have been changed irrevocably. But most of us have been far luckier. Systemically, lockdowns did protect stretched services from being overwhelmed. Now much of that danger is gone (or likely to be going soon, pending extensions caused by variants being spawned in less controlled environments) and controls are being lightened up. They worked, and did their jobs, and now they're being loosened.   

       [AusCan] no waterslides unfortunately, but the kids have been enjoying their Monday swimming lessons here in the UK for the last few weeks. They got their 5m and 10m badges this week, so they're doing quite well. And the other mums and dads at the school gates today seem to be doing reasonably well, and today there were lots of new puppies I'd not seen before, which is another unexpected consequence of 2020. That's not BBC or CNN bias. That's just this afternoon, outside.
zen_tom, Apr 20 2021
  

       //// I don't think it's worth it any more // [loris], was it ever worth it? Have you ever convinced a conspiracy believer that they are wrong? At best you might plant an alternate conspiracy theory in their heads.//   

       I dunno. I think I did persuade bigsleep over PCR testing, in the Tarantino thread.
Hmm. Back when the internet existed but tabloids were still the primary vector of fake news, I considered setting up a website which would manufacture and publish the most egregious "scare stories" (as they were called at the time) it could get away with. It seemed like a lot of trouble for not enough... well, 4chan would say lols. A few years later I found The Onion was doing it far better than I could have hoped. Now, though, the entire sector has been weaponised and commercialised, and that all seems quaint.
Loris, Apr 20 2021
  

       Are you lot not all dead yet? Do hurry up.
pocmloc, Apr 20 2021
  

       //Definitely not a pandemic//   

       What exactly would you call a few million dead?   

       RNA does what RNA does. You have lots and lots and lots of it.
RayfordSteele, Apr 20 2021
  

       If you were to look at all of humanity as a single being then what we are being subjected to is the equivalent of the body-politic going through anaphylactic shock from a single bee sting.   

       The overreaction far exceeds the stimulus and my con-dar has been going off since before this ever started.
They've just given the cops here the right to spontaneously pull over any vehicle without reason just to make sure you haven't left your "Health Region".
  

       I give folks two... maybe three more stolen rights before they are going to completely lose their shit on the power hungry bastards... and the deaths caused can be blamed on covid.   

       Ted Nugent, Covid denier, WAKES UP [link]
AusCan531, Apr 20 2021
  

       //Not really. In a controlled setting it works well, but in the kinds of labs doing mass testing there's lots of contamination (BBC piece). The counts and paperwork can be fudged through pool testing and faulty instructions to the lab. There also does not seem to be a discount in the numbers when considering 50% of the positives from shedding inactive virus.//   

       Well, The first part of that is actually quite nuanced. (I saw that program as well, and think it does raise concerns over cross-contamination in at least /that/ big testing centre). I'm not sure you realise quite how far you've come.
But you clearly still have conspiratorial concerns, even on that.
  

       So it's like this- you, bigsleep, punt out a lot of 'evidence', all of it basically bullshit. But you're not spending any time actually validating any of it - you don't even realise when the stuff you're citing undermines your position.
For example, while looking at the PCR conversation, I found this:
  

       //[...]Newsweek is reporting today that 1000 people have died from the vaccine in the US.//
So I thought... well, I'll go and look at that.
And I found an article on newsweek.com "Fact Check: Have 966 People Died After Receiving the COVID vaccine?".
So I read that. ... And you know what it said?
Well, they looked at how many people have died in the US after receiving one of the two covid19 vaccines.
And they found that :
//Our VAERS result showed 970 people died after being given a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine shot.// So they rated the claim as "Mostly True".
But then... and this is the important bit... they went on to say:
::However, it is false to say that COVID vaccines have caused 966 deaths, because the VAERS database is not designed to give this information.::
  

       You know how you're complaining that the 'death within 28 days of a positive test' stat includes car-crash victims and so on? Well, you're doing that, only much more so.   

       ::For example, in the dataset published by The Epoch Times, one of the people who died after getting a vaccine had also been injured in a car crash between getting the jab and the date of their death, but the case was still included in the dataset.::   

       ::The CDC said on its adverse events page, updated March 1: "To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines."::   

       The basic problem you're having is addressed in an article on fullfact.org. I'll provide a link. Go and read it- it explains what you're not understanding, and why none of the experts are worried about that like you are.   

       /Please/ learn to evaluate your sources. This sort of error should be embarrassing.
Loris, Apr 20 2021
  

       Collectively destroying the economy over the latest variation if the common cold should be embarrassing.   

       Sending covid positive patients back to their care-homes to make space for a massive influx threatening our entire hospital system, which never materialized, should be embarrassing.   

       Extorting the population of Earth to take a vaccine, (somehow not subjected to the same FDA regs as every other drug), or else lose more rights, which programs RNA to fight a specific virus at the cost of losing wide-spread immune response should be more than embarrassing. It is criminal.   

       ^ Once again, I live in the best performing economy in the world. Because. We. Took. Care. Of. Business.   

       You guys half-assing it and not extinguishing the flames can't complain about the ongoing fire-fighting efforts. Canada did a better job than the States (duh) and have a much lower infection rate per capita as a result. Many many thousands of Canadians are still alive to reap the benefit of the vaccine rollout and subsequent re-opening of the economy.   

       And just calling it like 'the common cold' is a dangerous, disingenuous lie. It prolongs the problem because 'believers' don't feel the need to take strong pro-active measures. They then complain because the problem hasn't gone away.
AusCan531, Apr 21 2021
  

       We have no fucking Covid here. We're just being further and further squeazed... because... damned if I know why.
Apparently because we've been told so
  

       ...for our health.   

       ...or else.   

       //damned if I know why.//   

       Obviously it's all a plot by the people running things to crash the economy and become extremely unpopular because.... umm... reasons. And the whole world across the political spectrum is in on it. Damned if I know why either. You could almost say it's unbelievable.   

       By the way, [2 Fries], while you can have your own opinions, you can't have your own facts. [link] There's waay too much Covid in BC with over 1,500 deaths. Not to mention those who didn't quite actually die but will have lingering issues.
AusCan531, Apr 21 2021
  

       So... again, it's a variant of the common cold.   

       The, (ever increasing numbers thrown at us), do not warrant the over response.   

       Were he alive today, Max would tell you you're a damn fool.   

       [marked-for-deletion- with-extreme-prejudice]
RayfordSteele, Apr 21 2021
  

       I would never presume to speak for someone after their death when they can't speak for themselves... but I also wish he was here to shed some light. He wasn't one of my favorite teachers for nothing.   

       We'd have had a rousing debate with names flung and much consternation and fact checking.   

       I would have learned much more than I have about this since he left us.   

       [un-marked-for-deletion]   

       Valid posting.   

       //The, (ever increasing numbers thrown at us)//   

       Did you expect the numbers of dead to... go down?
AusCan531, Apr 21 2021
  

       [m-f-d] [link]
AusCan531, Apr 21 2021
  

       I expected the numbers presented to be unbiased as numbers are supposed to be, but they are not are they?   

       Now it's just total number of covid deaths, total number of hospitalizations, total number of intensive care patients... and oh yeah, another mass shooting, and another cop shooting somebody... over to you Jim.   

       Where's the other news?
Why do I have to search for it?
  

       How exactly has the fifth estate been manipulated to this extent if conspiracies are not the new-normal?   

       un[m-f-d]'d   

       A lawn ornament to virulently water your lawn is a perfectly valid posting which does not exist.   

       That you dislike the turn the discussion has taken on said posting is not a reason for deletion.   

       We've met [AusCan]. I like you. One of us needs to question the assumptions they've made. I am willing to admit that it might be me.   

       Are you?   

       If not, then... your emotions have been used to override your scientific reasoning because you are not questioning this.   

       //I like you. One of us needs to question the assumptions they've made. I am willing to admit that it might be me.//   

       :::::::applause:::::::   

       In this case, [2 fries], I think [AusCan] is right and you are wrong - but one of the things we learned from Marshall McLuhan back in the 1960s is that the way we debate may end up being more important than which side we're on. The worst thing we can do is divide people into "Fearless Warriors for Truth" vs. "Mindless Dupes of Dark Forces" - even though the algorithms which recommend content to us in YouTube and other places tend to promote exactly that habit.
pertinax, Apr 21 2021
  

       I've met and liked you too [2 Fries] and still intend to stand in that purple room at your new place someday - when Canada gets Covid under control :) I just feel that this discussion about world conspiracies, secret plans to subjugate the population, pedophilia and whatever else is just polluting an otherwise fun website. I don't want to subject the others to this stuff but, as you have my email address, we can continue offline if you like.   

       Just pick which topic is under discussion first:   

       The doctors and scientists are lying to us,   

       there's a conspiracy to destroy the economy,   

       there's a conspiracy to subjugate the populace through lockdown,   

       Covid is no worse than the flu.   

       Covid doesn't exist,   

       microchips are being injected vaccines don't work,   

       this is some sort of move by pedophiliacs   

       It seems to me that you and [bigsleep] have reached your nefarious-flavoured conclusions first then look to find theories and justifications later. It's real tinfoil hat stuff beyond a joke while people are dying.   

       Everyone else is tired of listening to this crap, I'm sure, as we're only going in circles. Like I say. Offline is fine.
AusCan531, Apr 21 2021
  

       Okay... so that was everything I've never said used to manipulate me into taking this conversation off-line so that it can't be seen by others without answering my question.   

       Are you willing to admit that it might be you who is mistaken?
It's a simple question.
  

       Can you conceive of such a scenario?   

       Yes, or no?   

       Absolutely. You and [bigs] are the only ones marching in step in the marching band. Everyone else is out of step.   

       YES That includes me, the CDC, WHO, Medical Health agencies from almost every country in the world as well as all the doctors and scientists who spend their lives studying this stuff. We could be wrong and you two right - it's all a conspiracy.   

       Meanwhile, I'm off to the waterslides again.
AusCan531, Apr 21 2021
  

       [Pert] I swear... I hope to God I am wrong. I can easily live with that.. the alternative... not so much.   

       Y'all just never lived through it to be able to feel it coming.   

       Fuck I hope I'm wrong... but I've also sacrificed twenty some odd years of my life trying to find a place that has a snowballs chance in hell of surviving what I see coming to be where I now am.   

       All because my gut wouldn't let me sleep at night until I listened to it.   

       Yep. I'm just that crazy.   

       ...   

       Doesn't mean I'm wrong and if you, any of you, can not conceive of that...   

       ...then I'm right.   

       I'm tired of being right all the time.   

       alone   

       I think you should actually read the link I gave, because it explains why you're wrong.   

       //Many countries have banned the AZ vaccine because some adverse reactions are strongly suspected to be the vaccine.//   

       The AstraZeneca vaccine does seem to confer a small risk of serious complication, and a smaller risk of death from that - it's something like one in a million.
However, that's so low compared to the risk conferred by covid-19 it's still worth it. I'm hoping to be offered it at some point soon. I think the countries which banned it have overreacted; more people will die because that will slow down their vaccination programme.
Of course, the newsweek article wasn't about the AstraZeneca vaccine at all.
  

       I'm starting to think you just don't get quite how damaging spamming out mistakes and errors is to your case. It's entirely possible that you have a valid point, somewhere, but if it's trivial to rebut the first few points of yours someone looks at, it's easy to assume that you're wrong on everything.
Loris, Apr 21 2021
  

       //A lawn ornament to virulently water your lawn is a perfectly valid posting which does not exist.//   

       The "idea" here practically admits what its purpose is. Sorry but no court judge would buy this. "Yes, judge, I brought this dufflebag with me because I needed to give this stick of chewing gum to Mr. Gotti because he asked for a piece, I didn't notice the wads of hundred dollar bills that also happened to be in it."
RayfordSteele, Apr 21 2021
  

       Jesus we've been over this.   

       Did you forget that there was a lockdown?   

       Did you forget that our hospitals were operating on fumes?   

       Did you forget that we had ventilator shortages?   

       Did you forget about the nurses who have been worked to exhaustion?   

       And 2f, let me ease your burden. You are not right all of the time.
RayfordSteele, Apr 21 2021
  

       //It says the 28 day rule is not precise.//   

       It says more than that. It says things like:   

       ::[...] even if some people who did not die of Covid are included in deaths after a positive test, the measure has actually tended to undercount the true number of deaths that Covid causes.::   

       //"Can you explain how an adjuvant is associated with the spike protein ? (that is created after human cells have been infiltrated with anti-freeze coated mRNA)"
I know you are not responsible for the vaccines, but in your opinion how does that work ?//
  

       Okay, but only with the corollary I'm only a layperson in the field, and it's probably the last time in this conversation.   

       Adjuvants, I have heard about. They're chemicals added to vaccines to 'draw the attention' of the immune system and make the vaccine actually work. As far as I know, most vaccines have them, and of course they're carefully scrutinised for safety, as are all ingredients of medicine.   

       "anti-freeze coated mRNA" - well, that sounds wierd, but I infer you're talking about something specific. Obviously it's to do with the RNA vaccines, i.e. the Moderna or Pfizer ones.
A quick google search later, I think this might be that mRNA vaccines contain small amounts of polyethylene glycol (PEG). "Polyethylene glycol is not the same substance as ethylene glycol, a potentially deadly compound commonly found in antifreeze."
I think it's something to do with maintaining the structure of the lipid nanoparticles which help get the mRNA into cells.
  

       So, apart from that - looking at the question again, I think your concern here might be that the mRNA encodes the virus' spike protein and also some other protein as an adjuvant?
I don't know about this, let me have a look...
Couldn't find anything on that. As far as I know that isn't the case.
  

       However, I did find hits mentioning PEG as a potential cause of the (very rare) allergic reactions to these vaccines. The article I read said it might be that, or it might be the adjuvant. I actually don't know what the adjuvant of these vaccines are, but from a list of ingredients suspect it might be the salts...   

       Found an article which says the Pfizer covid vaccine doesn't have an adjuvant.:
:: Dr. Malvestutto says [...] "It doesn't have the adjuvants [an ingredient that creates a stronger immune response] or other materials that are usually needed in other vaccines,"::
I found another article which corroborates that. No adjuvant in Pfizer.
  

       I didn't find an explicit statement that the Moderna vaccine doesn't have an adjuvant, but I did find an article listing and describing the ingredients of these two RNA vaccines (and the J&J vaccine too), and no adjuvant was mentioned.   

       So the upshot is that it looks like the premise of your question is wrong:
There is /no/ adjuvant associated with the spike protein in Pfizer or Moderna Covid-19 vaccines.
Loris, Apr 21 2021
  

       This is the part where normally someone mature would admit that they were wrong and move on with life.
RayfordSteele, Apr 21 2021
  

       //It's what the mRNA is wrapped in - a tiny bubble of PEG. On encountering a cell the lipids allow access to the cell innards and protein manufacture can begin.//   

       yeNO.
The mRNA is in a lipid emulsion. (Tiny droplets, or 'bubbles' of lipid in water)
PEG isn't a lipid. It's a hydrophylic molecule.
I'm not an expert, but as I understand it:
Molecules can be made of PEG attached to lipid. Such a hybrid molecule has a hydrophylic ("water-liking") and hydrophobic ("water-hating") parts, and so is "amphipathic". These can stabilise emulsions, as I understand it by essentially by preventing the droplets of oil from touching each other and glomming together. Depending on the desired characteristics, you don't necessarily have to PEGylate every oil molecule, and possibly you may not need to link the two types of molecule at all.
  

       //So auto-immune adverse reactions are pretty much down to the spike protein. Obviously if those spikes get manufactured in or associated with blood cells you're going to get clotting.//   

       I think you're using technical words and phrases without understanding what they mean. You're trying to draw inferences with a woefully poor knowledge of the material.
Loris, Apr 21 2021
  

       From dear old Wikipedia:   

       PEG is the basis of a number of laxatives (as MiraLax). Whole bowel irrigation with polyethylene glycol and added electrolytes is used for bowel preparation before surgery or colonoscopy. PEG is also used as an excipient in many pharmaceutical products. PEG used in medicines for treating disimpaction and maintenance therapy for children with constipation. When attached to various protein medications, polyethylene glycol allows a slowed clearance of the carried protein from the blood. The possibility that PEG could be used to fuse axons is being explored by researchers studying peripheral nerve and spinal cord injury. An example of PEG hydrogels (see "Biological uses" section) in a therapeutic has been theorized by Ma et al. They propose using the hydrogel to address periodontitis (gum disease) by encapsulating stem cells in the gel that promote healing in the gums. The gel and encapsulated stem cells was to be injected to the site of disease and crosslinked to create the microenvironment required for the stem cells to function.
RayfordSteele, Apr 21 2021
  

       ^ I am in agreement with you here [bigsleep] it’s only common sense.   

       my definition of this pandemic is not a disease around the entire world but part of the world that is controlled by media. propaganda is on both sides and it’s difficult to weed out what is truth and maybe we will never know for sure. You either live in fear or you don’t.
xandram, Apr 21 2021
  

       //* The government running a fear campaign doesn't build trust//   

       What exactly _would_ build trust amongst the conspiratorially-bent? Some sort of 'This is your brain. This is your brain on COVID' campaign? 'Yes, we operate the Men in Black, but we are the good guys' messaging?   

       //* Media not mentioning the other 80% of leading causes of death doesn't build trust//   

       Is it their job to make sure you're completely informed about all of the hazards of life, or is it yours?   

       //* The vaccines were not fully tested. AZ Phase 3 trials concluded 31st March this year. Not sure if further trials are running on the public.//   

       Yeah no shit. Full trials take more time than what would be wise.   

       //* Getting an unnecessary vaccine is like playing russian roulette.//   

       At roughly the odds of getting struck by lightning.   

       //* Drug companies don't have a good track record of having users' best interests at heart. (Prozac, Oxycontin, Statins ...)//   

       I think you're conflating general drugs and vaccines quite a bit though, and you're making Max roll over.
RayfordSteele, Apr 21 2021
  

       (Disclaimer: I've mostly been reading this for the comedy value; I'm not a biochemist.)
This first question to ask if you think there's a conspiracy is "what is the gain, & who gains it?".
For Covid:
It's not money: the whole world's economy has tanked.
It's not control: there's (seems to be, in the USA at least) MORE anarchy, not less.
It's not China: most of the vaccines are manufactured elsewhere (the "create problem then sell solution" angle).
It's not "the vaccine is a microchip" or some similar garbage: everyone already has a phone in their pocket; governments don't NEED to do anything else to track people...
  

       I agree that there are/have been some questionable things, but I don't see any "global conspiracy". If 2 can keep a secret if 1 is dead, how do <whoever is "behind" this> convince tens of thousands of health workers etc etc to keep quiet?   

       As for the vaccines "being rushed & untested", the "normal" testing system involves a lot of waiting, paperwork, and bureaucracy. THAT is the part that has been fast-tracked. The "poke needles in test subjects" part is more-or-less the same.
neutrinos_shadow, Apr 21 2021
  

       //Is it their job to make sure you're completely informed about all of the hazards of life, or is it yours?//   

       Theirs. That's the job they signed up for. Everything but disinformation. That's literally their job if they don't want to become a laughing stock.   

       //It's not China: most of the vaccines are manufactured elsewhere (the "create problem then sell solution" angle).//   

       Hold up now.
You're not thinking like a centuries old dictatorship. You can not jump into that mans' head, and I can.
China leased Hong Kong to the UK for 99 years after the war between the two so that the UK could peddle their drugs which caused the war in the first place.
When the take back was to happen suddenly everybody was up in arms to protest the subjugation and re-communization of that which rightfully belongs to China.
  

       This can not be allowed.   

       "I" as the ruler of the last dictatorship on the planet would not allow such a thing.
You would cause me to lose face at your own peril.
My people make all of your goods. My people keep your economies running... and now you want to vilify and protest me taking back what is mine?...
  

       How about no?   

       How about that?
You will capitulate or the next virus released will wipe out 60% of your population and the one after that will wipe out 80%...
  

       ...and I will still have millions of subjects and your countries will be ripe for conquest.   

       Why bomb what you can buy for cheap still standing?   

       Fucking idiots running this show.   

       [2 fries], I think there are two things wrong with the scenario you describe.   

       First, threats are no use if the person you're threatening doesn't know you're threatening them. This is why terrorist groups claim responsibility for their bombs. Since China has not claimed responsibility for covid-19, although we cannot rule out the remote possibility that they created it on purpose for some reason as yet unknown to us, we *can* rule out the possibility that they created it so that we would shut up about Hong Kong.   

       Second, suppose, for the sake of argument, that covid-19 were an instrument of Chinese state policy; in that case, by far the best policy response for western countries would be to practise civil defense measures so as to be better prepared for future outbreaks. In other words, that would be an argument in favour of lockdowns, not against them, wouldn't it?
pertinax, Apr 22 2021
  

       I don't want you to feel you are threatened. I am not a terrorist.   

       You will just desist... and I will let you go about your business once you have learned your lesson.   

       ...or not.   

       What can you do about it?   

       //What can you do about it?//   

       See my second paragraph.
pertinax, Apr 22 2021
  

       If you mean your first second paragraph and not some other random second paragraph then I get it.   

       ...but I sure as shit don't have to like it.   

       These things need to be discussed by fringe folks... and those folks are here.   

       I like to think that they are under my protection... absolutely anyone is welcome to try and prove me wrong.   

       Mama always said; "Life is like a box of chocolates ... it'll kill your dog."   

       Sorry, I seem to have lost the ability to count up to three ...   

       Hang on ...   

       I meant the paragraph on my recent annotation which begins with the word "Second", but is in fact the third paragraph of that annotation.   

       Do you think I could get away with muttering something about "zero-based arrays"? No, never mind. But that was the paragraph I was referring to, anyway.
pertinax, Apr 22 2021
  

       Got my invite for a vaccination today.
No nearby vaccination centres available on the website this morning, but just tried again and managed to get a slot for tomorrow afternoon.
Loris, Apr 22 2021
  

       Had my second shot last Sunday.
RayfordSteele, Apr 23 2021
  

       They can jab me with their untested shit only when they give me no other choice... which I pray never comes because I can't predict my reaction to that happening.   

       Enough of you should have been vaccinated by then that I will no longer be perceived as a threat for not having done so... since I will no longer be able make you ill as I allow my own body to fight the way it has evolved to fight viruses and illness.   

       By all means protect those most at risk... (should have been a first place priority in my mind... but I was not consulted), while not fucking over my life... thank you very much...
signed;
The General Public.
  

       Can anyone answer why those most at risk were not protected in the first place?   

       Why entire societies were bankrupted when the cost of placing all at-risk individuals in 5-star hotels for the duration of the pandemic would have been a fraction of the cost to society?   

       Why we've been lied to about... well every-fucking-thing since this shit started?   

       ...   

       Anyone?   

       //That's unfair. I have a pretty good grasp of enough stuff to make an informed decision. I'm not a black and white decision person so several things can inform e.g. [snip list of essentially political shit]//   

       It's absolutely fair, because I'm not talking about that - I'm talking about the pseudoscience you've been spewing in this thread (and others).   

       You went on about antifreeze in vaccines, when I pointed out it wasn't antifreeze you still went on about it.   

       //So auto-immune adverse reactions[...]//   

       The clotting isn't an auto-immune reaction. It's actually the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine which appears to confer a (very small) increased risk of a particular blood clot, not the mRNA ones. Having Covid-19 actually gives a much higher clotting risk, but never mind that.   

       And that's just from the last few posts!   

       By all means continue to complain about political issues, but don't try to underwrite your argument with fallacious claims.   

       . . .   

       //They can jab me with their untested shit only when they give me no other choice... which I pray never comes because I can't predict my reaction to that happening.//   

       Stop being such a twat. You're in ... Canada right?
So any vaccine you're likely to be given will have been /heavily/ tested. Some parts of Canada already have some vaccine requirements, so it's not entirely unprecedented, and I'm not interested in researching another countries law, but unless you're directly exposing people to risk (such as being a medical worker) I think it's unlikely to be required.
  

       //Can anyone answer why those most at risk were not protected in the first place?//   

       Incompetence?   

       //Why entire societies were bankrupted when the cost of placing all at-risk individuals in 5-star hotels for the duration of the pandemic would have been a fraction of the cost to society?//   

       I don't accept the premise, but perhaps because putting over a third of adults[1] up in 5-star hotels indefinitely is a) impractical, due to insufficient capacity, b) unlikely to be much safer at scale, c) probably not actually cheaper.   

       //Why we've been lied to about... well every-fucking- thing since this shit started?//   

       You have been, but not by the people you think.   

       //Enough of you should have been vaccinated by then that I will no longer be perceived as a threat for not having done so... since I will no longer be able make you ill as I allow my own body to fight the way it has evolved to fight viruses and illness.//   

       By all means continue freeloading off the more responsible members of society.   

       [1] "About four in ten adults (37.6%) ages 18 and older in the U.S. (92.6 million people) have a higher risk of developing serious illness if they become infected with coronavirus, due to their older age (65 and older) or health condition"
I doubt Canada has particularly superior demographics.
Loris, Apr 24 2021
  

       //Could it be I was on to something about blood clotting ?//   

       Dude, we were talking about exactly the vaccines which /don't/ cause clotting!   

       Because I believe in disclosing everything, I will say I found an article (with a publication date 22nd Apr, so after your post) which says the clotting in the AstraZeneca vaccine (and possibly Janssen/Johnson&Johnson vaccine) may be a short-lived auto-immune effect, /but/ suggests it involves the viral vector (an adenovirus in both cases).   

       So no, you wern't on to anything.
Loris, Apr 24 2021
  

       //We are talking about everything.//   

       /You/ are talking about random things in whatever order you feel like, and without regard for clarity or validity.
/I/ am trying to be correct.
  

       In 2015, in the Afghan city of Kunduz, a US aircraft attacked a government building that had been seized by Taliban fighters. It precisely, neatly destroyed an entirely different building - a Medecins Sans Frontieres clinic, killing at least 30 civilians.
Was this a success, or a failure?
Because that's what you did there.
Loris, Apr 24 2021
  

       Ok, I'll say it. Bigs, do shut up.
RayfordSteele, Apr 24 2021
  

       //By all means continue freeloading off the more responsible members of society.//   

       That sentence says a lot about how the many can be trained to shame the few into doing just about anything.   

       I stand by what I said and if that makes me a Canadian twat then so be it... but I will be an un-vaccinated Canadian twat eh.   

       I like to travel lightly, so I only bring what's necessary. In this case, as its all been said and done, it should be done.   

       So yes, this pointy object I hold is a pitchfork. You might think of me as a hired goon. But I prefer the term "social awareness adjustment facilitator." The pay is low, but the work is oddly satisfying.
RayfordSteele, Apr 24 2021
  

       "Discoveries" is a loaded term. Unless you have your own lab space you aren't "discovering" anything.   

       Black people here in America also largely live in what are essentially food deserts, where the only fruits and vegetables are the ketchup and sliced apples at McDonald's. That might have something to do with the state of their health.   

       Like I mentioned elsewhere. Florida has plenty of vitamin D.
RayfordSteele, Apr 24 2021
  

       //Why we've been lied to about... well every-fucking-thing//   

       Please listen, [2 fries], because this is important: when I read an article from, say, the BBC, about something of which I happen to have some prior knowledge, I often notice that I am being "nudged" in a particular direction, but I have never yet found a direct, explicit lie.   

       The way the nudging works is by selective reporting of real facts, and careful framing of perfectly factual narratives. The nudging can be annoying, but it is very, very different from lying - not least because it is largely done in good faith.   

       This matters because the right way to respond to someone with a selective-but-accurate narrative in their head is very different from the right way to respond to someone who is cynically lying to you.   

       See link.
pertinax, Apr 25 2021
  

       pertinax wins.
blissmiss, Apr 25 2021
  

       {blushes}
pertinax, Apr 25 2021
  

       //when I read an article from, say, the BBC//
//Why we've been lied to about... well every-fucking-thing//

I agree with both of you on this. Is the BBC the best source for news in the UK? I would say so. At least it's a good starting point for further investigation of news stories. But that doesn't mean you should turn off your critical faculties when reading/watching/listening to its content. Or neglect to check out other sources of information. Especially the ones whose content you generally disagree with. In my view, it is important to understand what others are thinking & what their agenda is, even if you think they are talking rubbish.

So, rather than getting angry at the lying press/government/social media, read what they are saying, marshall your arguments against them & then tell everyone who will listen about how much they are wrong & *propose a constructive alternative*.

That is the core of politics and if enough people listen you might even get traction & start a movement. It's slow & energy sapping but forming opinions at grass roots level is the only way to create *sustainable* momentum for change.
DrBob, Apr 25 2021
  

       //If you don't find what I'm saying interesting. Ok. You correct about everything. Maybe it would be simpler if my opinions were silenced.//   

       a) "You correct about everything." - Did you not notice me observing and publically acknowledging an error in the previous post?
b) "Maybe it would be simpler if my opinions were silenced." - If I thought that, I'd be doing a xenzag and demanding your account be deleted.
  

       //you took away that I was talking about the wrong vaccine, whereas my takeaway was that its not a problem with one specific vaccine but of all mRNA type vaccines for coronavirus, and all future mRNA vaccines.//   

       I take away from /that/ that you're /still/ confused about which vaccines are mRNA-based.   

         

       //What we have is differing opinions, so don't going trying to label that as me always be wrong and you always being right.//   

       No, as others have said this isn't about opinions, it's about facts. There /is/ a continuum, but it's right, through nearly right, 'close enough', to wrong and disastrously wrong.
Opinions are /extra/.
  

       //That just makes you pretty darn arrogant. And I'm not going to construct my arguments in legalese so that you can't nitpick. Just take the arguments in good faith for gods sake.//   

       I agree. But I think this should apply to everyone - including you.
How about this - be explicit in what you're talking about. Don't vacillate between topics without clarifying what you're doing. Also, make sure to read - and think about - what other people have written, rather than dismissing it.
  

         

         

         

       ////By all means continue freeloading off the more responsible members of society.////
//That sentence says a lot about how the many can be trained to shame the few into doing just about anything.//
  

       a) Of course it does. One of the few tools which makes civilisation work is disapproval of bad-for-society behavours, such as dangerous driving, criminal negligence, industrial pollution or whatever.
b) You say that 'the many' who do this here are trained, i.e. sheep. A common disparagement. But who here is /actually/ looking at the information available and thinking things through for themselves, and who is failing at that?
  

         

         

       Regarding vitamin D: //Yes and you usefully included the sentence where Fauci says Vitamin D helps fight infections. If you couple that with the fact that Fauci takes 10x the recommended dose of Vitamin D and that many studies are emerging with multiple benefits of Vitamin D and bingo! you start to get the idea Vitamin D is linked to all sorts of things.//   

       Why do all your concerns about statistics and epidemiology instantly go out of the window when Vitamin D is concerned?
Indeed, the current state of the research seems to suggest that the initial strongly positive indications in a (very small; n=76) trial didn't replicate. The advice seems to continue to be to try not be deficient, because that's bad /anyway/, and it can't hurt.
  

       I've also looked at your claim that Fauci is taking 10x the recommended dose. He certainly seems to have stated that he's taking supplements, and online multiple sources say a high dose (6000 IU).
However, there doesn't seem to actually be a standard recommended daily dose for vitamin D.
I have in front of me some "one a day" vitamin D tablets, with 25micrograms per pill.
since 1 microgram is 40 IU for this vitamin, each one is 1000 IU. So the implication is Dr Fauci could take 6 of those a day. ((Don't ragepost yet, I'm not disputing that Fauci's stated dose is pretty significantly more, I'm really not nitpicking your multiplier.))
  

       Did you know that there's a Vitamin D society?
Maybe if one were conspiracy-inclined, could argue that they're "big vitamin", making money off pill sales or something, but I can't fault them, because in their news section they've got a link to an article "Sunlight Linked With Lower COVID-19 Deaths – And NOT Because of Vitamin D".
Anyway, here's a line from a november press-release on vitamindsociety.org
::"Adults need a daily vitamin D intake of 4,000 IU/day (100 mcg) from all sources, according to vitamin D experts. Dr. Anthony Fauci, America’s top infectious disease expert, recommends vitamin D to reduce the risk of COVID-19. It was reported that Dr. Fauci takes 6,000 IU/day of vitamin D."
  

       I also found other sources, including a youtube video "Fauci Takes How Much Vitamin D??" of a doctor boggling at how much he's stated to be taking, saying it's 8-10 times the recommended dose.   

       So it looks like Fauci is taking a /high/ dose of vitaminD - or, at least, was at one point. But I want to add a bit of a caution.
Have you heard of vitamin poisoning?
Vitamin D is a fat soluble vitamin, which in general means it can accumulate in the body. (conversely, an excess of water soluble vitamins like vitamin C tend to get pissed away).
  

       If you google this, you should be able to find descriptions of the effects of an excess. To reassure, I don't think a short-term small excess is much of an issue, but a big excess might long-term start to be an issue - it starts to strip calcium from the bones.   

       My guess on this is that Fauci took a test, found out he was rather vitamin D deficient, and went on a course of reasonably high doses to get back to the ideal range. At this point he made a comment somewhere to this effect, which maybe wasn't well-stated, or perhaps not reported in full. Later perhaps he reduced the dose to a maintenance level..
I suppose it's also possible that Fauci has some atypical metabolism, or perhaps can't absorb it well from the gut, or something which means he's still not actually got an above-normal vitamin D concentration.
Loris, Apr 26 2021
  

       4 out of a team of 10 people in India that I work with are currently off either sick themselves or caring for parents or family members who are sick, the remaining 6 are naturally worried at the systematic collapse of the health system over there in the last 2 weeks or so (the team are spread across the North, mostly between Kolkata and Delhi). That's not biased BBC reporting or conspiracy based bad-faith brain-washing, that's real people being affected by a very real virus that seems to have taken hold after a general relaxation of lockdown etc. I don't know how advanced the deployment of vaccination has been over there to date, some of the people in the team have had their vaccines, but as a total % of the population, I don't know. I mention that because you might hope that after enough people become immune, that should reduce infection rates.   

       I suppose the take away is; Either
  

       i) Covid is real
ii) I'm a stooge of big-pharma/The Illuminati/The Guardian
or iii) all of my India team are
  

       I tend to favour i) in which case, what's happening in India now is what any society would ideally be working together to avoid happening. Hospitals overwhelmed, shortages of oxygen, beds, facilities etc and temporary car-park crematoria being setup to deal a great deal more death than normal. I don't think anyone sets up car-park crematoria for any other reason than they absolutely have to - it's just not something you'd do after having been radicalised by something you read in social media.
zen_tom, Apr 26 2021
  

       ^ Interesting.   

       //a) Of course it does. One of the few tools which makes civilization work is disapproval of bad-for-society behaviours, such as dangerous driving, criminal negligence, industrial pollution or whatever.//   

       True, but it also can be used to cause societies to turn blind eyes towards things they normally wouldn't. Things like genocide of another culture, sociopaths in power, and pedophilia in the ranks of their upper class.   

       //b) You say that 'the many' who do this here are trained, i.e. sheep. A common disparagement. But who here is /actually/ looking at the information available and thinking things through for themselves, and who is failing at that?//   

       But... that's my line.
When misinformation outweighs information is when intuition becomes invaluable at navigating the flung bullshit.
  

       Most people reject their own intuition because that's what society has taught them to do.
...shamed them into rejecting actually.
  

       I reject their shaming and have kept my intuition intact.
Getting thrown into and then emerging from shit pits smelling like a rose is my forte, and if this isn't pandemic isn't a shit flinging fest then I don't know what is.
  

       Your intuition has led you down some very wrong roads recently, 2f. It led you to believe that you're a tetrachromate and that fluoride is some weird conspiracy. Both are false.   

       "Intuition" is what Trumpers claim tells them that the election was stolen. It's all b.s.   

       Hospitals aren't run at 99% of capacity. That's just grasping at straws.
RayfordSteele, Apr 26 2021
  

       oh my god he's got an intuition, boys RUUUN!!!!   

       //Most people reject their own intuition because that's what society has taught them to do.//   

       I see the development of science as the process of learning to keep an eye on one's intuition at all times. Because it's a pernicious, perfidious bastard.   

       //Of course Covid is real, it killed an extra 10% of people last year.//   

       So apparently, current estimates are that about one person in 50 has been infected. If the remaining 49 were all infected, what sort of death rate would we expect?
A conservative estimate is easy - 10%*49=490%
So about an additional five-fold increase of the death-rate, if it all happened within one year. If we removed all restrictions (and no-one was protected through vaccination) that would probably be the case.
Maybe we can live with that, right?
  

       Now, suppose the bulk of those infections happened over a short period. If healthcare is saturated, and there are insufficient ventilators, oxygen, medicine, doctors, nurses etc - what would be a reasonable estimate then?   

       I've done a fairly significant amount of research in this thread, including questions you've asked of me. I'd very much like to see you investigate that and try to work out a reasonable answer.
Loris, Apr 26 2021
  

       //Your intuition has led you down some very wrong roads recently, 2f. It led you to believe that you're a tetrachromate and that fluoride is some weird conspiracy. Both are false.//   

       Not true. Acing a test designed to determine if someone is a tetrachromat over and over again made me think that, not intuition. I didn't even know what 'tetrachromat' meant, just that the test said I was one.   

       I see far beyond the range of colours which human males are supposed to be able to distinguish between.   

       Fluoride collects within the pineal gland causing pre-calcification at an early age.
This calcification causes people to no longer regulate their melatonin/ serotonin/ tryptophan/ dimethyltripitamine cycles, which in turn causes depression, anxiety, and an inability to heal properly. You get sick and you die young.
  

       It's evil shit and yes I will admit that I was led to that information intuitively and stand by my words that our dentists and doctors not being taught about the hazards of that crap is a huge conspiracy.   

       That Pineal gland calcification was not mentioned once during the fluoride debunking seems to be alright with the brainwashed masses.   

       Anything else my intuition has led me astray on?..   

       Anyone up for a piss-up sometime in late June in London? I'll have had both Covid vaccinations by then. The hospitals won't be busy. If we do get hog-whimperingly drunk and fall down a hole or something, there's an excellent chance that the medical care will be focused on our care and won't be bothered with all this Covid nonsense.
DenholmRicshaw, Apr 26 2021
  

       //To start with there is an unknown mechanism in the immune system that rejects e.g. coronavirus before even producing anti-bodies. It's why many kids are hardly affected and don't transmit. So 1 in 50 is probably a gross underestimate. I've also seen estimates of e.g. 50% cross-immunity at the start of the pandemic.//   

       Estimates of total infections do vary, and quite significantly. I wouldn't have minded if you'd chosen a different estimate, if you'd justified it.
I /do/ mind you handwaving it away.
  

       //In that we are talking deaths, once the frailest have died, it becomes harder and harder to be killed by a mild disease.//   

       Your claim is basically that the surviving 'frailest' who apparently haven't been exposed to coronavirus - actually have been, but they fought it off without anyone noticing, due to their magnificently ultra-powerful immune systems having extra secret functions hidden from all science.
It's... audacious.
  

       //I'm not going to stick a precise number on it, but just point out that 490% extra deaths would have been ridiculously over-simplistic and pessimistic.//   

       It would have been nice of you to make some sort of good-faith attempt.
You could have invoked anything - all those medical gains the world has fought for up to now. But no, you couldn't be fucking bothered.
Loris, Apr 26 2021
  

       //So you're admitting your figure is total BS.//   

       No. It's one of a number of existing estimates.
Do some fucking research.
Loris, Apr 26 2021
  

       That's a good idea, [bigs]; it'll let us compare three different number sequences, namely, (1) overall mortality by year in countries with prompt, effective lockdowns, (2) overall mortality by year in countries with patchy and widely sabotaged lockdowns and (3) overall mortality by year in countries which couldn't really afford to lock down at all (such as India and Brazil). Do you agree that such a comparison (whatever it shows, once the numbers are in) would be significant?
pertinax, Apr 26 2021
  

       //What does it become if someone agrees with you ?//   

       It becomes two people's opinion, obviously.   

       //Hey Loris, RayfordSteele, Auscan531, anyone else? What's your opinion of bigsleep's ... um ... thought processes, research, and methods of presentation?//   

       If I had to be diplomatic, I would say that I couldn't fault their tenacity, and their performance has a professionalism worthy of Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf.   

       I admit I struggle to see the logic of favouring vitamin D as a panacea, on the basis of an outlying positive low quality trial with 76 participants[1], while rejecting vaccines for being "not fully tested"[*] (in all cases tested on more than 20,000 recipients [2]), but the confidence with which these assertions are made is really something you don't see every day.   

       I mean, just today, and completely unprompted, he brought up ivermectin as a "miracle preventative and treatment for covid". Now I'm not saying this drug definitely won't be found to have any effect at all, but since he remains unimpressed by Dexamethasone [3], he must assign it a strong effect indeed. Which is bold when a metareview of 16 small randomised clinical trials rated any beneficial effect as being of “very low certainty”[4], which I would describe as nature's way of telling you that the effect is minimal at best.   

       I hope this clarifies my opinion sufficiently.
I think I will attempt to take this opportunity to take my leave from this thread.
  

         

       [1] Source - BMJ article online "Vitamin D and covid-19"   

       [2] Source - my NHS vaccination leaflet   

       [3] which reportedly cuts the chance of dying on ventilation by a third, and for patients on oxygen prevents one death in five. Source -BBC article, "Covid: The London bus trip that saved maybe a million lives"   

       [4] Source - who.int website article "WHO advises that ivermectin only be used to treat COVID-19 within clinical trials"   

       [*] edit - quote fixed. Previously was "untested shit" (-2 fries shy of a happy meal).
Loris, Apr 26 2021
  

       Slight aside:
Indian hospitals are "running out of oxygen".
Considering that the atmosphere conveniently provides a nice 21% oxygen everywhere, I presume that producing "medical grade" oxygen is a difficult thing to do. The question is, why? Perhaps hospitals should have on-site oxygen production as a matter of course; unless it really is exceptionally hard...
neutrinos_shadow, Apr 26 2021
  

       [dexamethasone] //We haven't discussed this at all.//   

       We have. Well, I brought it up twice in the Tarantino thread, once explicitly vs Vitamin D, you totally blanked it the first time, and acknowledged the trial in a single sentence the second time, before bigging up vitamin D /again/ and scaremongering about vaccines.   

       //And you seem to be confusing things I and [2fries] have said.//   

       Apologies for that. I've changed the quote to a phrase you used, which is similar in effect if not tone.   

         

       //Considering that the atmosphere conveniently provides a nice 21% oxygen everywhere, I presume that producing "medical grade" oxygen is a difficult thing to do.//   

       It's not enormously hard, but you need to store it, you need to not run out, and you need to not present a fire hazard.
Oxygen concentrators (which just remove nitrogen from air) are good enough for some purposes.
  

       //When I was running short of breath when I got it, I gave in and used my partners asthma inhaler which was all I needed.//
I saw something which suggested that asthma inhalers were thought to be useful and were in the process of getting recognised as suitable for convalescence and supplied for this purpose by the NHS. Should be more information online.
  

         

       But I was trying to leave this thread, I only came back to see responses and to fix my error.
Loris, Apr 27 2021
  

       I would just like to go on record as having said that these vaccines are untested shit not [bigs].   

       By that I mean that they have been pushed through too quickly using public fear mongering to force it past FDA or any other rules.   

       As for deriding intuition... you guys do know that every one of the actual inventions I've posted here as well as the ones tucked away in my head were all intuited right?   

       That a tornado can be turned into a vortex ring.
That a gyroscope can be controlled from the inside using oscillation.
That an Archimedes screw could be internally ballasted and then steered using gyroscopic precession.
How I know how to make a lightning bolt from thin air.
That the friggin Universe is spinning,
...and why the dinosaurs died, (yet to be proven and was deleted as a theory rather than invention)
  

       All of it.   

       "Popped" into my head...   

       ...and 'then' I learned the words to explain the things I know without having been taught.   

       All of it!   

       Yet I do not exist in your world. Like I've said before;   

       I'm the fucking Easter Bunny.   

       2_fries, you might be the Easter Bunny, you might be delusional - but at least you’re creative and fun. More than I would say for your partner in crime here.
a1, Apr 27 2021
  

       As far as I can tell he's trying to have a rational conversation and having shit flung at him.   

       I get that everyone has an opinion, but historically speaking, the majority has almost always been wrong.   

       That's why I'm so damned fringe.   

       Torches and pitchforks are wrong, m'kay?   

       You just annoed before I did [bigsleep]. My comment was directed at [a1].   

       You and I seem to be the one's everyone has decided to vote off the island for having disparate views.   

       Sorry if I'm not the castaway you'd have chosen...   

       ...but did you know that if you pack sugar in a coconut shell and bury it for six months it will turn into rum?   

       We'll be fine.   

       //little sceptical bone everyone is born with//   

       We're all sceptical, [bigs], just not about the same things.
pertinax, Apr 27 2021
  

       //Most people still don't equate Critical (Race) Theory (e.g. BLM) with Marxism//

bigsleep, you say that like it has some sort of importance. Examining the status quo to try & eliminate racial bias seems like a pretty reasonable thing to do, regardless of where the idea originated (unless you are a dyed-in-the-wool racist, that is). Personally, I think religion is bullshit but that doesn't mean that 'love thy neighbour' isn't a pretty good philosophy for life. Take a chill pill & criticise the ideas rather than their origin.
DrBob, Apr 27 2021
  

       a1, I side with Loris and my opinion hasn't changed about big's majoring in the minors and taking exceptions for his own logic that he won't allow anyone else the privelege of. That's pretty clear. Don't think I see any value in poking around it more. The horse died awhile back.   

       And 2f, I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. Sorry. I do believe in the corruption of social spaces like this one when they are taken over by dumb argumentation threads that refuse to die. When I was 9ish I had dreamed up my own explanation for zeno's paradox, and had some good working definitions for comparing sizes of infinite sets, countable, uncountable, and such long before I was ever exposed to them or to L'Hopital's rule. Intuition. But sometimes my intuition was incorrect, and demonstrably so.
RayfordSteele, Apr 27 2021
  

       //I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. Sorry.//   

       Don't be sorry. Nobody does, that was my point.   

       // But sometimes my intuition was incorrect, and demonstrably so.//   

       Well, my intuition is fine tuned as I was forced to rely on it for survival, and I am still waiting for its incorrectness to be demonstrated. Hopefully this will be the time.   

       I don't like censorship. Nobody is forced to click on this thread.   

       New Delhi | Crematories are so full of bodies, it’s as if a war just happened. Fires burn around the clock. Many places are holding mass cremations, dozens at a time, and at night, in certain areas of New Delhi, the sky glows.   

       Sickness and death are everywhere. Dozens of houses in my neighbourhood have sick people. One of my colleagues is sick. One of my son’s teachers is sick. The neighbour two doors down, to the right of us: sick. Two doors to the left: sick. “I have no idea how I got it,” said a good friend who is now in the hospital. “You catch just a whiff of this...” and then his voice trailed off, too sick to finish.   

       He barely got a bed. And the medicine his doctors say he needs is nowhere to be found in India.   

       New Delhi, India’s sprawling capital of 20 million, is suffering a calamitous surge. A few days ago, the positivity rate hit a staggering 36 per cent — meaning more than one out of three people tested were infected. A month ago, it was less than 3 per cent.   

       The infections have spread so fast that hospitals have been completely swamped. People are turned away by the thousands. Medicine is running out. So is lifesaving oxygen. The sick have been left stranded in interminable lines at hospital gates or at home, literally gasping for air.   

       - New York Times Delhi Bureau Chief.   

       You guys should ring India and explain it's not much worse than the cold. I'm sure they'll be comforted.
AusCan531, Apr 28 2021
  

       //criticise the ideas rather than their origin//   

       Now, on *this* point (which has nothing to do with covid), I take [bigsleep]'s side, to the extent that I think it *is* important to understand where ideas come from, and the history of the idea of racism (as distinct from the history of racism itself) is ... quite interesting. But that has nothing to do with this thread. Perhaps it needs another thread.
pertinax, Apr 28 2021
  

       It certainly deserves its own thread... but, this thread has nothing better going for it.
As a Canadian, (we still have racists here but they are a minority), we have integrated with so many cultures that racism seems... kind of wtf? It boils down to;
Are you a decent human?
Do you show up for work?
Can I trust you with my kids? Can I trust you with my shit?
Yes?
  

       Then we good. Want to grab a beer after work?   

       How does the history of racism differ from the history of the 'idea' of racism?
One obviously preceded the other.
  

       I just don't get it. I have one prejudice. It's against assholes.
They come in all shapes sizes and colours and I admit to being prejudiced against them all.
  

       Everybody else is welcome for dinner.   

       Yep. A real comfort.
AusCan531, Apr 28 2021
  

       If the New York Times has it substantially wrong there's an entire country that can correct them, bigs.
RayfordSteele, Apr 28 2021
  

       //Another video popped into my feed//   

       Wait: I thought you were mistrustful of the technocracy (such as Google) manipulating us with algorithms (such as the one which determines our youtube feed)?
pertinax, Apr 29 2021
  

       Would a defining datum point be whether a person is put on ventilation/oxygen or in india's case put in the queue. How many flu deaths have the ventilation/oxygen, acute hospital treatment component? It of course about acute illness not just the ganging up of natural mortality.
wjt, May 01 2021
  

       It's about the truth regarding numbers. The stats can be spin-doctored any way you want... if you can afford it.   

       Sad but true.   

       That doesn't make sense in the Indian case, [bigs], because, in India, the government is trying to play down and minimise the problem, not to exaggerate it. They've gone so far as to make Twitter take down tweets on the subject which they regarded as alarmist.
pertinax, May 01 2021
  

       //A few years later I found The Onion was doing it far better than I could have hoped.//   

       For that is our way.
oniony, May 05 2021
  

       Is the title a typo (Carona -> Corona) or a pun that I'm missing?
jutta, May 05 2021
  

       It's a take on the My Sharona song.
RayfordSteele, May 05 2021
  

       Oh! Of course! Duh. For some reason I've always heard this as ShErona rather than ShArona, but you're right. Thanks, glad I asked.
jutta, May 06 2021
  

       Thank you for the Lee video, [bigsleep]. He seems very reasonable.   

       I note that he is pro- vaccination, and he does *not* allege that the virus is a hoax.   

       What he alleges is that politicians and their advisors made some bad decisions, motivated by the desire to be seen to have done something, but based on limited information. I'm quite sure that's true. The main weakness of the video is that, understandably, he focuses closely on the British experience, and his account of why things turned out so much better in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea is a bit hand- wavy and unconvincing (though I can't rule out that it *might* be true).
pertinax, May 06 2021
  

       I wish there was a better way to talk about this topic, but to do it justice I think I would need to compile 500 pages of mainstream news, alternative news, and questionable memes, then ferment that information into a map of possible interpretations of what's been going on during the past ~25 years, then multiply that mess by the range of interpretations of how things should be, then try to distill all that into a useful perspective on what people should be doing in the present circumstances. A big and dubious project.   

       I'm just saying that some self sustaining Mars colonies would help control the spread of the virus because of the extreme social distancing.
sninctown, May 06 2021
  

       //A big and dubious project.//   

       Excellent. What are we waiting for?
pertinax, May 06 2021
  

       Boil it down to the science. Forget all the rest.
RayfordSteele, May 06 2021
  

       Science is neato, but Science can't tell me what I am (in the sense of why I have conscious awareness at all, specifically why I have the experience of the smell of coffee grounds), let alone tell me what I should be (in the sense of what is best to do, specifically how much coffee I should drink today). Life is full of puzzling unknowns such as this one.
sninctown, May 06 2021
  

       So... four cups of coffee?
sninctown, May 06 2021
  

       Yes, before I leave the house in the morning. After that I don't count them.
a1, May 06 2021
  

       Why not four and a half cups of coffee?
sninctown, May 06 2021
  

       // why not four and a half cups of coffee? // Because the fifth cup would be half empty, of course!
a1, May 06 2021
  

       I'm hoping this will be a transient appearance, but I'm not having my hat invoked without some sort of response.   

       //Speaking of science. I went down the rabbit hole looking at airborne virus infection, and there are only two actual trials conducted during the 1918 flu pandemic. Both exposed a large number of prisoners to patients with the flu e.g. being coughed on or mucus being rubbed in their eyeballs. Not one caught the flu.
Those are the only actual studies i.e. there is no proof you can catch e.g. coronavirus from a cough.//
  

       As a1 asked above, what exactly are you trying to prove?
Trials on 1918 flu might say something about /that/ virus, but they're probably not all that relevant to covid-19.
  

       If you're looking very specifically for 'proof' that the virus which causes covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) can be transmitted through air, you might have to wait, because doing 'bullet-proof' science is in-and-of itself hard, and there are additional legal issues with doing experiments if that involves animals, particularly if it involves diseases, and extra-especially if it involves deliberately infecting humans with potentially harmful pathogens.
I believe there were plans for an experiment which deliberately exposed healthy young individuals, but I don't know what came of that, and it may not have been looking at exposure route.
  

       In the modern era, in normal times expsure experiments are practically impossible to do, and the benefit often very limited, so I'm not surprised there arn't many.
Science just doesn't work how you think. It doesn't prove things, at least, certainly not in the mathematical sense.
Instead, it disproves things. That might sound like a meaningless distinction, but it's pretty fundamental. If, for example, there is some widely believed explanation for how something happens, and you don't believe that, it's up to you (the scientist) to convincingly demonstrate that the existing model is wrong. If other scientists are of the opinion that an existing model is plausible and sufficient, it's not required of them to prove it to you. In an ideal world, they merely have to look at your evidence to the contrary with an open mind (in practice, this is easy to fail at).
  

       If you're okay with a demonstration of airborne transmission of some sort of virus, ideally in any mammal, google scholar is your friend - there's more scientific reports than you could possibly read. For example, at random I found something on blue ear disease in pigs : Influence of isolate pathogenicity on the aerosol transmission of Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (2007) Cho JG, Deen J, Dee SA.
This paper is not so much concerned with whether airborne transmission is possible - that's already very well understood. It's looking at differences in airborne transmissibility of different strains, so the experiment is carefully set up to allow only the airborne route of transmission.
  

         

       //"In 2010 Monsanto was awarded a patent for glyphosate as an antibiotic."//   

       Apparently true, although according to a review I'm looking at "At this stage, it is currently not clear whether glyphosate has an effect on the mammalian gut microbiome, especially at environmentally relevant levels of exposure."   

       To be fair, glyphosate is over an order of magnitude less acutely toxic than vitamin D (LD50 in rats is something like a 14th). Vitamin D itself is something like a tenth as toxic as lead.   

         

       I need to get on with other things now, so this isn't an exhaustive response to everything.
Loris, May 07 2021
  

       //Oh dear. Looks like the 'spike protein factory' vaccines (all of the big four) cause vascular problems. Spike protein [link]. The spike protein itself is a big part of the disease. Seems unwise to use mRNA to create tons of it ?//   

       You're clearly attempting to insinuate that vaccines involving the spike protein are unsafe. Given that all the 'big four' vaccines have been tested and found to be essentially safe[1], and indeed used to treat many millions of people - something is clearly wrong with your interpretation.   

       I think it's that you just arn't able to evaluate the information in scientific literature on this topic appropriately.
Quite why that is... well, I can think of three possibilities:
1) You're of below-average intelligence.
2) You arn't able to think rationally about this topic. This might be for personal emotional reasons, or because you've been indoctrinated.
3) You're acting maliciously, and willfully misinterpret the data to suit your own ends.
  

       I think it's one of the second type, but I'm not ruling out the third. Or in fact the first, if that includes "being unable to read an article beyond the title".
I suppose they're not mutually exclusive.
  

       [1] i.e. at least as safe as many practices people willingly undertake every day without concern.
Loris, May 13 2021
  

       By the way, I looked at the Vitamin D trial you posted. ("Impact of two oral doses of 100,000 IU of vitamin D3 in preschoolers with viral- induced asthma").
Nothing which shakes my world-view.
  

       What you omit is that the children in this trial were predominantly vitamin D insufficient, and these (large) doses were administered with the aim being to cover the entire winter period.
100,000 IU of vitamin D is a lot, but if you only have one every 3.5 months and you're not getting much from sunlight, you're not overdosing.
Loris, May 13 2021
  

       //Only partially. As you say they have been 'tested' by the manufacturers themselves.//   

       But of course they are (as a first step, at least). That's how it works for everything!
The testing for this is probably the most regulated (and transparent to the regulatory authorities) testing there is.
And we've now got very clear follow-up data from the millions of people vaccinated already.
  

       //Bit of a shocker to find out that the spike protein itself is part of the disease (i.e. making people sick), and people are being injected with it. I don't know enough to see how bad it really is, but viral vectors look like they could be re-enabled by finding a helper virus in the host, maybe another viable corona virus knocking about in the system.//   

       Not really. "Pathogens contain stuff which make people sick" really shouldn't be that much of a surprise.
Pathogens don't have a goal of making you sick. Their 'plan' is to reproduce and spread to new hosts. Making you sick is sometimes part of that (e.g. coughing helps spread an aerosol) and sometimes an accident (e.g. causing meningitis isn't actually a benefit to the causative bug; it'll die with the host).
  

       If you mean - "why use the spike protein in vaccines, rather than something else?" then I can't give an authoritative answer, but I think it's on the outside of the viron, so it's immune-system exposed, and reasonably prevalent there. There may not be many options and it's probably the best one.   

       It may be theoretically possible for some sort of coexisting virus to pick up the mRNA sequence from an RNA/viral vector vaccine and make a chimeric virus, but honestly I don't think it's that much of a concern. Firstly, inoculation isn't to a site where coronaviruses might normally be present - that is, the respiratory or digestive tracts. Secondly, the whole point of getting vaccinated is to rile up the immune system against this protein, so the change would need to confer a significant benefit immediately and be shed from the host before that builds up. However, usually, large-scale rearrangements need a few reproductive cycles to form up (mutate) into something which works well - the initial strain is probably barely functional. Thirdly, other people are getting vaccinated, so it's got an additional disadvantage in that potential hosts are rarer and rarer.
Realistically, if you're worried about that, you should be /very much more worried/ about it happening during the course of a typical infection!
  

       //Can you please leave insinuations about my character out of further replies ?//   

       I don't know; can you stop posting the sort of guff which warrants it? Could you actually follow the principles of reasonable debate?
Loris, May 13 2021
  

       //Well it used to be that ad hominem attacks were frowned upon on the HB. I guess things have changed.//   

       I described the three possibilities I saw, and none of them were perjorative.   

       You have political concerns. I actually haven't disputed those. But they're the motte you repeatedly fall back to in a motte and bailey argument.
Loris, May 13 2021
  

       //What I mean is the spike protein itself gumming up the ACE2 receptors (as it says in the article) leading to vascular problems.//   

       The article also says "[...] the virus spike proteins (which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines) also play a key role in the disease itself."   

       That's literally in the first paragraph.
Why, then, worry about the spike protein in vaccines?
Loris, May 13 2021
  

       //Can you please leave insinuations about my character out of further replies ?//   

       That's how science works sometimes. Loris's model of the fundamental flaw here is sufficient, fits the data, and not overly complicated.   

       Marked for Ctrl-Alt-Delete.
RayfordSteele, May 13 2021
  

       //The lockdowns, extraordinary powers, fascist policing, vaccine passports are the only things that really matter.//   

       And if you believe that of course the ideal way to attack those... is to attack the science?   

       To voice concerns about vaccination, then when someone goes to the trouble of pointing out (in some detail) why you're utterly wrong, to just totally ignore that and bring up a new erroneous concern?   

       //Are you really that naiive that //   

       You've been doing that all through this thread, and before. It's rather insulting. Or are insults only okay when you use them?   

       //Because they put that parenthesis in to avoid censorship. If you read further down it practically negates that.//   

       Don't see it. Quote or it didn't happen.
  

       Remember that you're vaccinated in your arm (into the muscle). The mRNA/viral vector vaccines infect cells which then flag up the protein to the immune system on their surface. That's a different situation to viron particles in the vascular system.
Loris, May 13 2021
  

       Of course we know that governments are totally interested in destroying their own economies, and doing whatever they can to make naturally paranoid people even more paranoid.
RayfordSteele, May 13 2021
  

       What's that I see? Absolutely no quote to back up your claim? Didn't think so.   

       //Of course not. I believe in science but I can definitely pick huge holes in the statistical nightmare that is currently masquerading as science.//   

       But you're not actually. You're scaremongering about vaccines instead.
You say that newsweek reported that the vaccine killed 1000 people, but when I go and check it says it didn't.
Plus maybe a dozen other similar shitposts.
  

       //[8th] and I predicted that March 2020 and we were saying "We're gonna have to count the bodies", because much of the rest is bullshit.//   

       When people count the bodies you say e.g. for the UK that they're "falsely attributed". When I pointed out if anything it was an underestimate... you decided to ignore it and ask a wierd question insinuating that vaccines are poisonous - the answer to which you'd basically wave away in favour of more chemical nonsense and another implication that vaccines are dangerous.   

       You say, e.g. for India the official estimate (which people on the ground have shown to be a massive undercount) of about two years worth of flu deaths in a couple of weeks (by your own stats) isn't worth commenting on, the problem might be localised, is exaggerated, and it's perfectly normal for crematoriums to be overwhelmed.   

         

       //If you look at the work VP Michael Yeadon did at Pfizer from 1995 to 2011, and then the recent comments he's made about covid19, doesn't that at least make you wonder a bit ? [link] Contrast that with the absolute kicking he's getting by Google and big money backed 'fact checkers' and news rags.//   

       Well, I looked at that article, and he's apparently well in favour of vaccination. So there's that.
He thought in november 2020 that the epidemic had run its course in london, with most people who could be infected had been. Since then of course we've seen a pretty significant rise in hospital cases in London. So his "dry tinder" model didn't really hold up, and what people are calling the 'second wave' was only held off from catastrophic levels by another lockdown, and the pandemic distinctly wasn't over.
Also he thinks most positive tests and hence 'covid' deaths are essentially false positives, but I don't think the stats back him up on that either.
  

       So really, the main takeaway is just that he doesn't like lockdowns, and thinks it's worth the human cost to avoid that - which he thinks would be small on the basis of an error.
Loris, May 13 2021
  

       //'Most' hasn't been proven wrong.//   

       Most what?
Did you mean your shitposts about vaccines and medicines?
Sorry, that's an error. ALL the shitposts of yours I've looked at have been decisively rebutted.
  

         

       //I mean what kind of nonsense is "vaccines don't stop you from getting or spreading covid19, but you need a vaccine passport to travel". That is the current narrative.//   

       I think you're railing at a straw man.
The current narrative is that vaccines significantly reduce your chance of catching covid19, greatly reduce your likelihood of passing it on, and massively reduce your risk of ending up in hospital or dying with it.
  

       //Healthcare in the UK is now completely trashed,//   

       Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're in Canada?   

       I'm not convinced your opinion of our healthcare system is warranted. There's certainly more of a backlog, which isn't great, but it's not running out of oxygen or getting overwhelmed.
Loris, May 13 2021
  

       //I've said before, I'm not going to respond to nitpicking.//   

       Nitpicking?   

       Some of these things are... well, there's the metaphor of sinking an argument, like a ship? That doesn't really do it justice.
Your arguments have holds full of explosives, and are being blown out the water.
Loris, May 13 2021
  

       If your real objection is the vaccine passport, then /for fucks sake/ stick to that, and stop pretending that the vaccine is dangerous for spurious reasons.   

       If you're really worried that the vaccine might have deleterious effects through unknown processes at some mid- to long- term point, argue /that/. It's a hard line to push, but you could try it.
We do of course have multiple vaccines, so if your 10% unvaccinated population is viable then it's likely that we have better existential protection already from the 90% vaccinated - unless it's something they share in common. At that point you'd have to explain why vaccination was a greater risk than covid-19 infection itself - for which short-term consequences are indeed greater, and long-term consequences are of course just as untested. If that were a real concern, then you might have to form up refuges for the 10% unvaccinated with very limited migration, to get a reasonable level of protection. It doesn't seem to me to be a carry-on-as- normal for everyone solution.
  

       It's the constant shitposting I'm objecting to - where even a simple search or a few minutes thought reveals your claim is wrong.
Loris, May 13 2021
  

       //[link] Fauci being nailed into admitting the US funded the GOF* research on Covid-1 at Wuhan. And they *were* trying to spin a line about Covid being a Chinese biological weapon. //   

       GOF?
I had some hope that asterisk would lead to a definition, but no joy.
  

       Internet says:   

       Acronym Definition
GOF Guardians of Freedom (gaming clan)
GOF Goodness Of Fit
GOF Gentlemen of Fortune (barbershop chorus, Vancouver)
GOF Gang of Four (Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, John Vlissides; authors of the book Design Patterns)
GOF Gang of Four (short-time Communist China's leader after the death of Mao)
GOF Get Off Facebook
GOF Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (book by J. K. Rowling)
GOF Grumpy Old Farts
GOF Guest Observer Facility
GOF Governor's Opportunity Fund
GOF grease, oil and filter (automotive maintenance)
GOF Groups Of Forces (Non-Soviet Warsaw Pact)
GOF Group of Friends
GOF Glass Optical Fiber
GOF Global Opportunities Fund (UK)
GOF Gun Owners Foundation
GOF Group of Frames
GOF Great Outdoor Fight (Chris Onstad book)
GOF Germany or Florida (game)
GOF Grapple of Fixture (robotics)
GOF Grease, Oil & Filter (automobile mechanic's shorthand)
  

       OK, place your bets! If you want "Grease, Oil & Filter" or "Gang of Four", you need to pay double.   

       Personally I'm hoping for Grumpy Old Farts, that would be awesome.   

       (starts watches video) Oh, gain of function. Ok.
So I saw Dr Fauci saying this guy is "saying things which aren't correct". And they didn't fund GOF research.
And that guy said the director of the facility checked her records and confirmed 'it' wasn't one of theirs.
  

       //Is that shit-posting or shining a light on the truth ?//   

       So this is what, now? Over 4 minutes of boring political shit that didn't even do what you claimed.
It's the former.
But I'm not set up for politics, let alone American politics. It's kind of baffling to me.
  

       //Is there *anything* not mainstream about you [Loris]//   

       OOooh. I must be mainstream in lots of typical ways. What are the tolerances on that?
I mean, how many standard deviations do you need to be away from the mean to be non-mainstream?
I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here, because I kind of settled in a place which was wierd (university) and diverse (birmingham) enough in enough ways that I didn't feel like I stuck out.
  

       I mean, I'm vegetarian too, and no-one cares about that here. I recently learned that a typical American distrusts atheists, and kind of boggled at that. Here, what religion you are mostly isn't a problem. (I guess the people who it is a problem for would be non-mainstream.) Politics? Disagreeing about politics is okay here... I have a friend who voted for a different party to me at a general election, and thought that was interesting... but didn't change how I felt about them at all.
I suppose I worry about the country descending into a police state very much more than most people - but apparently in a totally different way to you, bigsleep.
I'm probably in the bottom 1% of people for likability, but that's my problem, people I know mostly haven't held that against me since secondary school. Does that count?
  

       //Follow the funding. Its all Gates, Google and China. The majority of WHO funding has strings attached like Gates 'donating' money so that trials can be run in Africa.//   

       This sounds like the sort of wierd conspiracy theory we've gone over already. Explain their goals for them doing it, and whatever 'it' is, or it didn't happen.   

       (Ooh, I habitually spell wierd wrong to spite the i before e rule, is that non-mainstream?)   

       //And I have to say, its easy for me to find topics because I probably consume 10 to 50 times the amount of stuff I present here. I just know that the proof for some points exist even though sometimes I pick a weaker version.//   

       Have you thought about ... you know, not picking the version of points so weak that they brew up when faced with a light breeze?
Loris, May 13 2021
  

       I am glad you find me fun to read [a1], that was not of course my goal, but I'll take it.   

       \\This sounds like the sort of weird conspiracy theory we've gone over already. Explain their goals for them doing it, and whatever 'it' is, or it didn't happen.\\   

       That statement does not compute for me.
Explain goals or actions didn't happen?
  

       Really?
I don't know the educated terms for such an argument... but I do know passive agressive misdirection when I see it.
  

       ...and that for sure is it.   

       The goal is power. Plain and simple. Same as it's always been for sociopaths in control.   

       They got nothing else to live for...   

       //Explain goals or actions didn't happen?//   

       It's a riff on "pix or it didn't happen."
Really, the issue is bigsleep's got this mad web of contradictory conspiracy theories, and no reason for why anyone would do them. It's underpants-gnomes level stuff.
  

       I mean, this is how you're describing it:   

       Bill Gates: I got money! I want power! Hey china, you in?
China: Only if I can bring my best friend Google.
Bill: Sure, put them on speaker.
Google: Yo Dawgs!
Bill: I gots a plan!
Google: Interesting. Tell.
Bill:Stage 1: China makes a sickie bug.
China: OMG yes, I'll do that and release it right next to my ultra top secret bioweapons lab funded by America. That'll show 'em.
Google: That sounds like the ideal place.
Bill: Whatevs. I don't think anyone will notice.
China: So I've got this bug which is really just like flu, and taking vitamin D makes people completely immune.
Bill: Sounds perfect.
Bill: Stage 2: I pay to run trials in Africa.
Google: And then?
Bill: Stage 3: The pandemic takes hold, and countries will take this opportunity to tank their economies.
China: I'm really liking this so far.
Bill: Oh yes, that's where you come in, google. It's your job to ... um persuade people to wear masks or something.
Google: Can do!
China: Won't the vitamin D thing be an issue?
Google: Nah, we won't even try to hide it from search results. Maybe one or two guys will figure it out, but no-one will believe them.
Bill: Stage 5: Lashings and lashings of real ultimate Power!
Google: Awesome!
China: Let's do this thing.
  

       So, I'm calling your bluff.   

       Explain what the end goal is. How is it so compelling as to get organisations with such opposing ideologies to work together? What sort of conspiracy can keep the ...at least thousands of people involved entirely complicit, while allowing people to put things together on the internet?
Loris, May 14 2021
  

       Dammit! where did you get that transcript?
pertinax, May 14 2021
  

       It's good my current work task is knotty and boring, or I wouldn't've had the procrastinatally motivated energy to wade through bigsleep Jackie Chan improvising his way through the onslaught of the halfbakery's own Cynthia Rothrock / Sammo Hung combo, throwing whatever can come to hand at his opponents, leaping through ladders, that sort of shit, all very entertaining, the showpiece being bigs's eyes falling, mid leap, on a table with three chainsaws marked "ABORTION", "DRONE STRIKES" and, oh yes!, "JEWS", which he grabs, fires up and commences juggling, eyes wide, mouth bursting into a grin, elation flowing his body, feeling fully alive to live so close to mortal danger.   

       The blooper reel has been supressed by TELA.
calum, May 14 2021
  

       //The way it works is like lobbying. [...] It's all about just trying to grab that little bit more power.//   

       So you really don't have anything then, You can't explain why these mutually almost antagonistic organisations (Gates, Chinese gov, Google) are involved - and now you're including social media companies, Bezos and Pfizer to make the conspiracy even more unworkable.
You also can't explain why they're doing it, beyond handwaving at 'more power', and that's enough for you.
  

       Well, Amazon is making more money, so that would explain Bezos.   

       Pfizer had this vaccine which kills people after 20 years sitting around just doing nothing, and we all know how good it is for publicity when medicine goes wrong, so of course they're in.   

       The Chinese wanted more influence around the world, so of course they thought that they'd be all set up and ready to buy that by gifting a new plague to the world and then belatedly developing the weakest, least effective of the vaccines, that seems a solid strat.   

       Gates was already busy struggling to cure the world of malaria using his ill-gotten gains, but it wasn't going well. What better way to cover that failure up and polish his legacy than being villified as a boogyman who can track people with nanobots?   

       Google and facebook etc between them can already see practically everything the masses do online, so that doesn't help them, but they thought a new plague would just be really really funny.   

         

       In the real world, most plans arn't actually drawn from a bond film. You do actually need reasonable explanations of how power is intended to accrue to five of the six players in your expanded conspiracy now. I've given you the first one, but you'll need to work out which of the above it is.
Loris, May 14 2021
  

       You guys know I try to hold myself to a high standard involving full disclosure, right?   

       So bigsleep seems to have gone through the thread and deleted his comments from this thread.
This is unfortunate timing, because I've just found a sober, reasoned and fairly detailed article (link^) which describes the argument for a lab escape as the origin of the pandemic virus. I wanted to look back at the relevant comment[1] and see whether it fits my memory of it (as a claim of conspiracy between bill gates, google and china to infect the world, for !power!) or they'd actually said something sensible and I'd misinterpreted it. I think it would be legitimate to describe it as potentially a cover-up; a conspiracy by Chinese authorities, Chinese virologists and other individuals with much to lose such as Peter Daszak. (I've now also linked a page of counterargument; I don't think the question of accidental lab escape is settled.)
  

       Oh well.
I don't think this really changes anything in terms of the argument here, because that claim wasn't my contention with bigsleep - it just showed up recently as a link to a video of some random shouty politicians, which didn't reveal much.
  

       [1] I checked the google cache, it indexed the page on the 13th of May, but disappointingly the last post was from the 7th at that point.
Loris, May 14 2021
  

       Do you know why there's a lab in Wuhan? Because it has the right sort of climate, population density, fauna interaction, marketplace activity, and such to be a great breeding ground for viruses to cross over, and in this field, proximity to the origin environment is critical.   

       The Wuhan Lab of Virology was China's first lab and their first biosafe level 4 lab and has a lot of established university connections. They were the first to find that the local bats were coronavirus havens.
RayfordSteele, May 15 2021
  

       //That’s … strange.//   

       OMG, [a1], you're so *mainstream*! ;-)
pertinax, May 15 2021
  

       //The Rand Paul video is good because he gets Fauci to admit on camera he was funding Wuhan.//   

       The Rand Paul video is /terrible/ for your purposes, unless you just want to shitpost. It wasted my time and explained nothing. I had no context except you saying China was conspiring with Google and Bill Gates for power. It's worse than useless!   

       If you'd said there were suggestions the virus had escaped from the lab, and linked to that article, I'd have agreed it looked plausible, certainly arguable.
But no, you stirred in a load of unnecessary conspiracy shit. Which, honestly, it still looks like you're still doing. Lab funding isn't the slam-dunk you think it is (this is what RayfordSteel is saying above). And you still don't seem to acknowledge that even in this scenario it wouldn't have been a deliberate release.
  

       By the way, "gain of function" is used in an apparently specific/distinct sense in a lot of these documents, to mean the virus gaining the ability to infect humans. However, it also has a much more general sense in molecular biology, of e.g. a protein gaining the ability to do some function. So it's not a phrase you can just drop and expect people to understand.
Loris, May 15 2021
  

       //That's interesting if I can take your exact definition as true.//   

       I wouldn't do that, I haven't looked up the precise definition. In any case, an infective human disease would fall under other regulations.   

       //Read what I said. It's useful for one fact. Fauci on camera admitting that he and the USA funded research into coronaviruses at Wuhan. //   

       Well, I would have if you hadn't deleted it.
I don't think it's even contentious that US funds went to Wuhan; even going directly to coronavirus research just isn't inappropriate.
I'm not well up on the minutiae funding bodies, and especially not united states ones, but I think Fauci's involvement would probably be at most in signing off some grant.
  

       When it comes down to it, I don't think it's that interesting; obsessing about that too much just looks like conspiracy theory wankage to me.   

       If you have a lab working on preventing disease outbreaks of potentially dangerous pathogens... well, someone's going to have to pay for it.
The important questions are: were they engaging in unsafe practices, and were they involved in the initiation of the pandemic? (All combinations of answer are possible. For example, they might have been very safe in terms of lab work, but still been 'incidentally' involved, in that a researcher may have become infected while off-site collecting samples in an initial, localised outbreak, and tracked the disease back to Wuhan. Disastrous, but not at fault.)
Loris, May 15 2021
  

       // You have all the info in your last paragraph, it really is up to you to draw your own conclusions.//   

       == "I can't comprehend the evidence but I want to sway people so I'm going to pretend it's clear-cut and hope that fools people."
Loris, May 15 2021
  

       ^ Why are you deleting your words?
That's fucked.
  

       Here I'm defending your right to be heard even if it goes against the grain and you delete them...   

       Why?   

       Obviously [bigsleep] doesn't want his words to matter. Word retraction, if done right and taken well, is a good thing but very very rare. The close to the top of the game, the better.
wjt, May 16 2021
  

       To quote one of my favorite teachers;   

       "I don't underhend."   

       //suffered in lockdowns for over a year for nothing // No positives? or just an abstracting a piece of space-time to nothing. No retrospective learning either.
wjt, May 16 2021
  

       //In Russia of course they just executed anyone going against the narrative.//   

       Why the past tense?
pertinax, May 16 2021
  

       // wonder how they are going to get so many scientists to shut up ? //   

       Findings that can be confirmed with research and solid data will outweigh those that can’t be. That’s how science works, outside of the alternate media.
a1, May 16 2021
  

       Ease it back a little please, a1?   

       //Anyway my treatment has been disgusting, and I'd rather just disconnect from it a little. People can peruse the links without the torture of reading the annos.//   

       Honestly, I'm sorry you feel that way. I think I've been the most persistent opposition over multiple threads, but I /don't/ think I've been overly harsh in my criticism of your behavour. You've constantly made trivially falsifiable claims, linked to low-information-content, high-time-cost sources, and repeatedly failed to engage with any sort of valid argument.
I've started saying you're shitposting - which might be a bit rude, but that's exactly what it is. Check wikipedia:
::Shitposting is posting "aggressively, ironically, and of trollishly poor quality" posts or content to an online forum or social media.::
  

       //I wonder how they are going to get so many scientists to shut up ?//   

       The vast majority of scientists are not on your side.
Loris, May 16 2021
  

       //Anyway my treatment has been disgusting//
I think the cream is for topical use, rather than systemic.
calum, May 16 2021
  

       Here's my take. As generations have kicked the cans further and further down the road for the big global problems that they didn't have the guts or global organization to solve, more of those cans are going to show up, and their deadlines are come to come faster and furiouser* and will require more invasive command-style authority to solve. That's the price for fucking around.   

       *See RayfordSteele dictionary entry for definition.
RayfordSteele, May 16 2021
  

       //As I said, *me* personally can be informed by links like Dr. Mike Yeadon's speech. I was surprised by how far he went with it, but it added credence to my belief that something is seriously wrong with lockdowns and PCR testing etc.//   

       I got about 20 minutes in, then had to pause it. I lost my place (accidental click restarted the video) when I came back. As far as I could tell by this time he'd said basically nothing of much import, so I gave up. I'm at the point where I think you're being disrespectful of my time.
If you summarise the points of the speech as you see them, I'll read it.
  

       //It's obvious we're in the midst of an information war with some very big money on one side. If you can't see it, you can't see it and that's fair enough. But just the fact that there is a divide in the scientific opinion should concern you. Obviously if a scientist or doctor doesn't want to lose their job, all they have to do is shut up.//   

       Conspiracy theory; actually quite hard in practice. However as far as I know, every scientist I know at 'work' (I'm not paid at the moment) who is eligible for vaccination, has been. My boss, the post- docs, the research technician - this is in a molecular biology lab. Someone I know round the corner is a fairly high-profile player in the UK's coronavirus sequencing effort.
I just don't think there's that much controversy. Scientists are human and they can make mistakes, mislead themselves or be mislead just like anybody. I think what has happened is that you frequent some forum where a few scientists with unusual views are being signal-boosted, while all those with other views are discounted entirely.
If you were looking for someone who would blow the whistle on some nefarious practice, I think a good scientist would be an ideal candidate.
  

       //The Corman-Drosten review report could be [...]//   

       You've cried wolf too many times, I'm not going to bother looking for, and examining whatever it was you forgot to link to. (edit: Oh, it's there now... honestly, it looks like a significant deal of work to get to the bottom of. I'm not going to bother... Well, I /could/. I'd have to charge for my time.)
Loris, May 16 2021
  

       Okay, then. I'll charge £15 per hour - that's not an unreasonable rate, is it? What you're getting for that is my time, as a researcher experienced in a molecular biology lab. I have some familiarity with performing PCR, but am definitely not an expert in real-time PCR.
I'll take an initial payment for the first 8 hours up-front, though Paypal. If I decide I'm done before that, I'll return unspent money. I'll write notes as I go along, and post them on here.
  

       First I'll carefully read the article, the retraction request and the original article. I'll post summaries as I deem appropriate. During this I may also need to look at other things for expediency - for example, which tests actually use these primers. Because this is heavy-going stuff, I'm unlikely to spend 8 hours straight doing this; it will probably take more than one day to use those initial hours.
If at that point you want me to continue the investigation, you can pay for that.
  

       One thing I can tell you for free is that your link (cormandrostenreview.com) does not seem to be an impartial website; it's not a peer-reviewed journal. For example the 'articles' tab is a list of links to excited articles in the lay press (e.g. 'Conservative Beaver') which say e.g. that the paper is being retracted due to this review, yet checking the original paper at the journal, this does not seem to be the case.
Loris, May 16 2021
  

       //events that occurred at times older than the present//   

       Do you mean you believe that Russia no longer executes people who go against the government's preferred narrative?
pertinax, May 16 2021
  

       The basic issue I have is that your posts is that it takes you a few seconds to make some - often outrageous - claim, and some of them a /significant/ amount of time for me to rebut.
You're not even willing to make any effort, to e.g. summarise things, and insist on pointing at videos, which are slow and unsearchable. You make practically zero effort, and suggest work taking hours, which you then ignore.
  

       Since I've disproven every such claim I've looked at, I think I'm justified in not bothering doing more - particularly when digging in to it would take many painful and thankless hours. I'm not sure you've even looked at many things I've said, or anything I've pointed at.   

       //It's fine if you personally need everything rubber stamped//
//I wouldn't immediately lash out to try to discredit the guy because he's offended my world view.//
  

       And always with the insidious implication that /I'm/ being unreasonable.   

       //but to accuse me of shitposting is pretty low. //   

       It's the truth. If you don't like it, stop doing it.
Loris, May 17 2021
  

       So much obfuscation on all sides.   

       While I'm almost certain we're being conned into giving societal power up, I am unable as yet to determine if it is the long or short con.   

       I'm thinking long.
Which means this whole debacle is just a preliminary 'boy-who-cried-wolf' warm up to what's coming next just when we think there's a light at the end of the tunnel.
  

       I tells ya folks... I've ridden this train before... we derail it or it becomes the norm.   

       I ain't doing that shit again. Living through it twice is like way more than twenty six million to one odds and frankly I did not sign up for that.
There are alternatives.
  

       // I was aiming for "It's a building with windows and patients but that's not important right now."  //   

       That's a relief. Carry on.
pertinax, May 17 2021
  

       Don't we all, sometimes?
pertinax, May 17 2021
  

       //[AusCan] you need to google 'confirmation bias'.//   

       //anything that is consistent with my knowledge I'd say is plausible//   

       ?
pertinax, May 17 2021
  

       //If your first few straws are good//   

       So the question is, how would you distinguish between "good" and "tending to confirm what you already believed" (see confirmation bias)?
pertinax, May 17 2021
  

       //are we good with the 50 piece jigsaw model ? //   

       Up to a point. That is, I know what it's like to stumble on a lovely, clear bit of evidence in black and white which confirms what I had suspected; it's a feeling very like that of completing a jigsaw.   

       On the other hand, that feeling is no substitute for exposing a hypothesis to Socratic ambushes or Baconian tortures.   

       Why not?   

       Because a jigsaw is made by starting with a specific, finite picture and then deliberately obfuscating it with a saw. Consequently, a jigsaw can be done and finished by reversing that process.   

       Reality, on the other hand, is not made like that. Although some people do deliberately try to obfuscate some aspects of it, no-one (not even those people) possesses the original complete picture as printed on the box.   

       In the case of diet, the jigsaw analogy would suggest that there is a single, final correct answer to the question "What should humans eat?" In that case, although some diets are undoubtedly healthier than others, I doubt that such a single correct answer exists.
pertinax, May 17 2021
  

       //A very bold rhetorical assertion. Ponder that. Have you just made a fib in the name of rhetoric ?//   

       I don't think so. Thinking back, you did make randomly make some statement about glyphosate, which I said appeared true - I wasn't counting that, because I wasn't attempting to rebut it, it just seemed interesting. In any case, it doesn't seem to be relevant. I've got absolutely no idea why you mentioned it here, to be honest.
So yes, I think every single claim that you've made (in this thread /and/ the tarantino thread) that I set out to debunk, was shown to be invalid. It's a strong claim, and i believe it to be true.
  

       I also don't know why you've started going on about diet repeatedly. I've no interest in that. Do you think that saying one thing which is (or might be) true makes other statements more likely to be true?   

       //(waits for Loris to dig up an old industry biassed study)//   

       That's funny, given that you're the one who's been repeatedly citing cingle unrepresentative studies as gospel.   

       //It makes sense unless you have a rubber (stamp) fetish like [Loris].//   

       What? Again?
What are you even thinking there?
  

       It's almost like you're trying to consistently make insinuations about my character, to build up an ad hominem strategy.
Loris, May 17 2021
  

       // //If you had any doubt about how utterly corrupt corporates are//
[link] Board members are obliged to put their morals aside and sell themselves for profit.//
The irony being that these laws - which are common in all capitalist jurisdictions - are intended to *prevent* corruption, by making it mandatory for the stewards of a corporate entity to act in the best interests of its owners, rather than in the interests of, say, themselves or, I dunno FARC. The critical difference, and the thing that allows bigs to point to this and say that it is evidence of corruption (rather than a bulwark against it), is that bigs's definition of "corruption" is predicated on a broader moralistic assessment, rather than the rather narrower definition that motivates the legislation.
  

       In a lot of cases, bigs, it does seem like you are observing the symptoms of capitalism and diagnosing conspiracy.
calum, May 17 2021
  

       So, it's important that we are able to draw a distinction between on the one hand, employees of a company who are not by law bound by fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of the shareholders, and on the other, directors of those companies, who are bound by those fiduciary duties. So in the preponderance of iterations of the hypothetical, the point about statutorily laid down frameworks for board level decision- making is unlikely to be relevant.   

       What makes the case of the employee more interesting is that though they are very likely to be rational actors, they are rational actors within a framework of competing interests. For example, our potential brassica-evangelist may have:
- the moral interest in acting in a manner which benefits mankind generally; and at the same time
- the economic interest in having enough money - obtained through selling their labour to their employer - to (say) feed their families.
  

       The economic imperative will likely be of more immediate concern than the moral imperative (although the decision whether or not to feed your family is an analogue of the trolley problem, I suppose), not least because (a) employers will often have the right to bin an employee off if that employee acts other than in the interests of the company (that is, the employee assumes quasi-fiduciary duties in exchange for a salary), (b) it is harder to get work when you have been fired.   

       In this model, in waving the threat of dismissal at the employee, the company is acting in its own best interests (that is, the interests of the shareholders) and the employee is acting in their own best interests in not being a whistleblower. This is not a conspiracy, this is how people make decisions within a framework which is sub-optimal for individuals. The employer has the power to inflict on the individual a disproportionately greater harm than the individual has on the employer.   

       If your point is that directors' fiduciary duties should be framed as requiring them to act in a more holistically beneficial manner than one which prioritises only capital, then you are looking to chip away at the fundamentals of capitalism. Which is, incidentally, fine by me.
calum, May 17 2021
  

       Short answer: no.   

       Longer answer: the employee is not statutorily (that is, by law handed down by legislative body) required to keep quiet. The employee will have terms in their contract of employment which prevent them from disclosing any confidential information that belongs to their employer. The reports would almost definitely fall into the scope of what constitutes confidential information. So if the employee blows the whistle, they will likely be in breach of contract (which sends them back towards the real risk of being fired / unemployed).   

       There are in some jurisdictions laws which are intended to protect employees from negative consequences (e.g. being fired) for whistleblowing, but relying on those is difficult and usually requires access to expert legal advice.
calum, May 17 2021
  

       No response to my last comment I see, bigsleep; I guess you accept that it was completely true then.   

       //Ok [calum], here's a hypothetical situation. A guy is working at a drug company and spots that their new expensive drug has the same effect as eating broccoli once a week. Would his duty of loyalty prevent him from going to the press and saying "people should just eat broccoli" ?//   

       Calum's answer above is reasoned, and covers the general case. But I think in that exact (and very contrived) situation, the company would make press releases and run ads stating that their miracle drug meant no-one ever had to eat broccoli again, if they didn't want to.   

       Here's a question for you, bigsleep:
A youtuber makes money from their channel, through donations, public speaking etc. They discover that making wild claims (the 'spicier' the better) gets them a larger audience and more donations. Further, reliable evidence is unnecessary and errors or lies are generally unpunished. And there are essentially no regulatory checks or balances on them. Why would you trust them?
Loris, May 17 2021
  

       //The employee stays silent, but is he *legally* obliged to use the materials from b)?//
OK, so. The distinction we need to draw is between the different types of obligation. There is the concept of "required by law" and then there is the concept of "required by contract".
  

       The former deals with things that are legal / illegal as the layman usually means it - it is illegal to fuck a pig in this US state, as the state legislature has forbidden it, but it is legal to fuck a pig in a different state, as the state legislature has not forbidden it (forgetting for the time being any federal law which might prohibit transporting a pig across state lines for the purposes of fucking it). Generally, national or state level legislatures do not make it illegal for an employee to fail to follow direction from their supervisor at work.   

       The latter deals with this which the party to the contract has committed to do or not do. For example, I have committed to supply eight litres of batsmilk yoghurt to a restaurant in town, so I am obliged (US: obligated) to deliver that yoghurt. In the second hypothetical, then, whether the employee is obliged to use the bad copy in the marketing material is a matter of what the terms of their contract says. To use the classic lawyer's answer: it depends.   

       My broader point is that the terms of the contract are unlikely to be a key element in the employee's decision making. If, for example, they work in an "at will" state in the US, then it doesn't really matter what the terms of the employment contract require as the employee can be binned off just on the basis of the convenience of the employer, with no recourse by the employee. Likewise, if the employee is in a financially precarious position and have dependents, they are likely to prioritise a steady paycheck over moral qualms. In other words, the structures in which individuals operate typically render the legal niceties unimportant.
calum, May 17 2021
  

       //For the laowhy86 link above, //   

       You mean the one with patron, paypal and youtube sponsor links in the description, and in-video requests for money?
Also I see some suggestions that they pointed to the wrong lab and hence made highly exaggerated adjacency claims.
  

       //Let's take a bread making channel as an example. If they know all the tips tricks and methods you'd find in cooking books, online articles and other videos then you'd give the channel a bit of credibility. Then they make the outrageous claim about a very low carb bread. They show how by mixing lupin flour, gelatine and gluten its perfectly possible to do at home.//   

       I'm not sure a culinary example really captures it; you can after all make your own bread and test it out, while you're taking the claims entirely on faith.
But even there, people get mislead by the massive life-hack/clickbait channels like "5 minute crafts" and "so yummy" all the time. Some of their advice is really quite dangerous.
  

       And you can talk about diet all you want, it just isn't relevant to vaccines.
Loris, May 17 2021
  

       // If one company does something really dubious to win market share, then is another company's directors obliged to take a similar path as a financial duty to its shareholders.//
No. The motivation here is economic rather than legal.
calum, May 17 2021
  

       //So don't watch those channels then. It's your head you can decide what is junk and what isn't before stuffing your head with it.//   

       You were complaining about how people were treating you earlier. You don't have to read their comments.
When people arn't taking precautions, are tracking disease around and infecting the vulnerable - well, their victims didn't have to breathe, did they. Stupid old people.
  

         

       //Personally I don't write off sources because sometimes they get some things wrong. I go back because they get most things right.//   

       I don't write them off for getting things wrong either. I write them off for failing to acknowedge their errors, or wilfully perpetuating falsehoods.   

       //Channels bomb as soon as they sell out completely or start talking nonsense.//   

       Demonstratably untrue. The clickbait channels are massive.
Loris, May 17 2021
  

       //The Telegraph reported on the 14th May [link] that the government over-egged the pudding in its use of fear//   

       I thought that had been the Telegraph's view throughout (though, admittedly, I'm not a regular reader of the Telegraph). Likewise, the Murdoch papers (whenever I've checked) have taken a consistent line against restrictions. So it's not as if there's been a sudden change, or as if new "cracks" are showing.   

       In general, the idea that there's a "mainstream media" all selling the same line tends to fall down quite quickly, if you take the trouble to read more than one mainstream newspaper from time to time.
pertinax, May 18 2021
  

       I get all my news from internet memes.
sninctown, May 18 2021
  

       //I reckon there's less propaganda on RT than you'll get from BBC Media Action (ex BBC World Service) which is funded by the foreign office.//   

       OK, and do you know how RT is funded? Is it by benevolent pixies?
pertinax, May 18 2021
  

       //you barely notice//   

       Mmhmm?
pertinax, May 18 2021
  

       Maybe this is a bad analogy, but contemplate this thought experiment:   

       Malware that you "barely notice" is generally worse than malware that you immediately recognize. The fact that you barely notice it suggests that it has already got the rootkit in place, and is making a few discreet improvements to your /etc/hosts file.   

       If propaganda is like malware in your brain, the fact that you "barely notice" the propaganda element in RT is more a cause for concern than for complacency.   

       So far as I can determine, the BBC's institutional bias has two elements.   

       First, because the BBC is a publically owned institution, a person who is in principal against public ownership would probably not choose to work there. Therefore, there's an inevitable bias against right-libertarians. Serious left- anarchists are probably also a little thin on the ground, except for a few on the "creative" side who are diligently* bringing down the system from within.   

       Second, (and this is related to the first), people who choose to work for the BBC are likely (though not certain) to be drawn from what Galbraith called "The New Class", and to have internalized the class ideology of that class, which is more- or-less one and the same as the ideology of the Post-War Consensus. This is a flawed ideology (sorry, [zen_tom]), but it could be a lot worse.   

       As biases go, these are fairly benign biases. At worst, they're irritating.   

       So far as I can determine, RT's institutional bias is this:   

       It forms part of a broader information-management strategy, other elements of which include murdering critical journalists and opposition politicians.   

       I'm not (personally**) privy to the thinking behind this strategy, but it's plausible that Putin's interests would be well served by maximizing paranoia and alienation in Western countries. And if you "barely notice" your own involvement in this process, then this fact speaks well of the ingenuity of the Russian content-creators, but not necessarily of their trustworthiness.   

       * "It could be a long struggle. More prosecco, anyone?"   

       ** There is a member of my family who, after living and working in Russia for a number of years, is now (from the relative safety of the UK) writing a doctoral thesis on the subject of Russian disinformation - so I'm fairly confident that Russian disinformation is a real thing.
pertinax, May 18 2021
  

       Quick interjection here (I had largely nodded off) but re the "post war consensus" reflected in the context of the BBC - ref //This is a flawed ideology (sorry, [zen_tom]), but it could be a lot worse.//   

       I'm assuming [pertinax] you're talking about general open, laissez-faire liberalism i.e. benevolent (non corrupt) and relatively competent nation states setting out frameworks wherein people's long-term well being and aggregate personal freedoms are maximised through cross-national trade and other forms of cooperation through a unified system of international laws and protected freedoms (human rights, de-monopolisation, civilisation, etc) - then you got me in one - *if* that is what you mean, it raises the serious question in my mind...how can that be a flawed ideology? It may be *difficult* certainly, and there are certainly problems to be overcome, but even as a shared destination, surely few could seriously raise objection - which I guess is where the "consensus" part comes about. The only remaining choice is whether you agree in maximising the *aggregate* of everyone's personal freedom (which is where the liberal bit comes in - assuming you don't impose totalitarian controls on society and stick to tinkering at the protocols and frameworks to create structure) or whether you're more interested in maximising your own personal freedoms (which is where instead one might adopt the label of "libertarian" - which I'd contend is a more flawed ideology - I confess, [pertinax] I haven't the faintest idea what ideology (if any) you might choose given the opportunity). But in seeking personal freedom, where these directly impinge on other people's personal freedoms, lead's inevitably to conflict - and this is the end- destination for libertarianism and nationalism (the two things are the same, at different levels) via corruption, authoritarianism and organised crime, and which is the cause of much of the darkness we see around us on the rise today. It's a kind of big picture vs immediate gratification thing which I suppose, if you've just had a big war, might focus minds more on the big-picture (which I guess...is where the "post war" part gets attached).   

       My imagination isn't exercised enough to properly understand how this liberal consensus couldn't be something everyone can comfortably get around. I am clearly aware that this isn't the case - but it never fails to surprise me.   

       And also, while I'm at it - [bigsleep] I think you've misunderstood "woke" - you're using it in the radicalised far-right batshit crazy sense, which you might have picked up somewhere along the line. Yes, young people complain about stuff, and, slavery isn't very nice. I think, that's about it. As a society, there are things, as you rightly point out, that came about if not perhaps as a direct result of slavery, certainly in a context that very much included it. Is that contentious? No.   

       There's nothing wrong about acknowledging that - indeed, you just did yourself. We can all try and critically appraise the history of the planet, to arrive at something that most closely resembles the truth, and that's not a bad thing. I think, personally, ascribing sentiment; feelings, be they admiration, disgust, pride, shame or anything other than an impersonal curiosity (fascination even) is a mistake. None of those ancient achievements, failures, kindnesses or depravity are mine, and it's silly (and problematic) to feel any personal attachment, allegiance, fear, hatred or anything based on making a coincidental link between any arbitrary historical events and the accidental geography of your birth.   

       Pride - particularly national pride - isn't clever, it's raw sentimentality. If being objective (or "woke") makes you feel uncomfortable, or threatens your identity, if it makes the narratives you use to make yourself feel better more difficult to cling to, then maybe it's time to consider how much of your actual real identity is truly attributable to those stories and arbitrary historical coincidences and accidents, and how much of it is meaningless nonsense. Equally, I'm not fond of radical tribalism either, and there are a great many sentimentalities and nonsenses that we can safely navigate past in that direction too without too much difficulty.   

       That being said, whilst nothing from the past can be truly mine, I am a product of it - and can imagine myself in the shoes of people from times gone by and perhaps learn from their experience, be they slave or slaver alike, and try to remember that whatever choices I/we make today will leave a trace too for future people to learn from. Civilisation (which is analogous to evolution) is a product of two things, random events and a simple ratcheting dynamic - good things cause progress, and if given a chance, they're more likely to be repeated in the future. This progressive idea of understanding and encouraging a neutral view of the past without nationalist filters (which if you like, you can label as "wokeness") is one product of that, much in the same way a mobile phone is. Both are artefacts of progress, both change the context of the world we live in, and both require a little bit of getting used to.
zen_tom, May 18 2021
  

       //[Loris] One other reason I watch some channels is that they concentrate information. Some videos cram references to 20+ papers into one episode, give critique and draw conclusions. Again, if after a few episodes it smells like junk I just walk away. I also use the forward jump button a lot. Isn't this basic Netflix operation as well ?//   

       The basic reason I don't like your video links is that they /don't/ concentrate information, they dilute it. They're unsearchable, and to analyse one you can't skip forward without potentially missing something. You can't copy and paste. With some of them it's even hard to tell what they're saying.
Pointing to those now seems like a lazy way of wasting someone's time, i.e. a shitpost. Write out what the actual point is on this page, if you can't link to a dense medium like a page of text and images.
  

       //Maybe you'll get on better with Dr. Sam Bailey who is pretty darn rigorous with her references.//   

       Maybe you forget that you pointed to a video of hers before which I flat out destroyed. She's totally full of shit.
By which I mean - she doesn't have any quality control. Most of it is wrong. Some of her 'points' are plainly ridiculous, and are clearly only there for padding out her case to the layperson.
  

       For example, in the other thread you linked to her video "The truth about PCR tests", on which I commented:   

       6:21 Barabra Mcclintock. I have to say I didn't see that coming. Oh my god. This is hilarious!   

       I'll write a transcript of that section, feel free to go and check it (it doesn't quite match the automated captions, I honestly believe this to be the intended text).:   

       (Context - she's trying to impugn the reliablity of PCR tests for pandemic coronavirus)   

       :: The research work of Barbara McClintock is also worth a mention here. In her Nobel prize speech from 1983, she reported that the genetic material of living beings can constantly alter by being hit by shocks. These shocks can be toxins, but can also be from other materials that produce stress in the test-tube. This in turn can lead to the formation of new genetic sequences, which were unverifiable both in vivo and in vitro previously. So this raises another complicating factor, when considering where genetic sequences are actually originating from, and how different conditions in life and the lab can change genetic expression.::   

       She's trying to argue that PCR tests aren't specific to the coronavirus, because other organisms might change to have the same (primer) sequences, and show up positive in the PCR test. Of course this is theoretically possible - but at the same time - theoretically /very rare/. Mutations/rearrangements are uncommon (on a per-base, per generation level), similar sequences are rare, and the probability of changing to become more similar is only moderate.
Barbara McClintock was a biologist who discovered transposons ("jumping genes") in maize. There's no good reason to bring her up when talking about mutation or recombination of viruses - there's far better (more relevant) things to cite.
  

       When you design a primers for PCR for screening purposes, you don't just randomly take a sequence from the organism and blindly go with it, you design it so that it doesn't match similar organisms (i.e. other coronavirus sequences). Then you test that it's specific when you're using it - it's very easy nowadays to detect false matches by sequencing. The UK has a massive coronavirus sequencing program, and false matches would stick out like a sore thumb.   

       Barbara McClintock was of course a biologist who discovered transposons ("jumping genes") in maize. There's no good reason to bring her up when talking about mutation or recombination of viruses - there's far better (more relevant) things to cite.   

       So having seen her say /that/, and a dozen other similar claims in that video, why would I trust her on anything? She's either blindly parroting talking points she doesn't understand or generating claims without a good understanding of the subject. Or acting maliciously, I suppose.   

       //[pertinax] You are sounding like [Loris] now.//   

       Why don't you tell me; what does that sound like?
Loris, May 18 2021
  

       //Let's put it this way. At around a PCR CT count of 30-35 strange things start to happen. Specificity goes out the window and anything remotely close to corona virus becomes a false positive. If I'm remembering correctly that is what the designer of PCR said (about specificity).//   

       The inventor of PCR was working with ...possibly unmodified polymerase which they' might well have purified themselves, moving tubes between waterbaths by hand and without optimised reaction buffers.
Technology evolves over time, and PCR is no exception; it's come on massively over even just the last few years. We have recombinant polymerases which bring in new domains with useful functions, optimised buffers, and a wide variety of derivative techniques - including real-time PCR, which is the one in use here.
Not only that, but because of the significant number of parameters, each specific of reaction can be optimised in its own right. You'd be foolish not to do that if you were running the same reaction a large number of times, such as happens in these testing centres.
That's not to say you couldn't arrange for false-positive results if you were being malevolent, and of course you are beholden on good practice at the testing centres to avoid cross-contamination or other errors.
I suppose the take-away message is that obsessing over particular cycle-counts is a mistake.
  

         

       ////There's no good reason to bring [Barbara McClintock] up when talking about mutation or recombination of viruses - there's far better (more relevant) things to cite.//// //That's a good criticism. That reference does seem weak now. Maybe she used it just to say "dna is fragile".//   

       I'm honestly intrigued by the way my scientific explanation is a complete wash for you, but you appreciate a 'social' factor.   

       //Have you got one more ? That would be closer to destroying her central message.//   

       Well, there's the list in my original post on the video in the tarantino thread - search for the video title "The truth about PCR Tests" to find it.   

       To pick out one which is conspiracy-ish rather than science-ish, I say: //3:58 Protocol of a covid test stating "for research use only". I guess the inference is that all PCR tests are so labelled. Of course, in the real world, companies put that on their products so they won't be sued, not because they're not potentially useful as a diagnostic test. If you're using a diagnostic test, it won't say that.//   

       I can tell you that I later searched the web for the kit I determined to be in use at a testing centre, looked at the manual online on the distributor's website and confirmed that it /didn't/ say "for research use only".   

       If you meant - one more thing which is more central to her message, I think her central message is effectively "the PCR test isn't specific" - she says that a few times in different ways. According to my notes (and memory), at 5:54 she suggests that the virus hasn't been 'purified', and then goes on at 6:18 to suggest that this means PCR tests wern't designed against the virus.   

       Now it's not entirely clear what she wants to have happened here. I suspect that she means getting large amounts of isolated virus particles in a tube. However, I don't think this would be all that useful, scientifically - it's certainly not on the critical path of identifying the nature of the disease and generating a vaccine. And generating large amounts of native virus particles would presumably be an unnecessary risk.
However, the virus has been isolated, shown to infect human cells, sequenced (many, many times now), visualised under EM, basically the whole shebang. It's even available as a purified lysate (i.e. dead and broken up, to make sure it's not infectious).
Loris, May 18 2021
  

       //But did it say "Not for diagnostic use" ? //   

       Not that I recall. And I''m pretty sure I'd have remembered that.   

       (I've just been editing my above post to add a section with more detail.)   

       //I've found another quick article which summarises what I know about false positives. "40% of positive results are wrong". Maybe that's why they should not be used for diagnosis.//   

       Looking at that article, I don't think it says anything I disagree with. However, I /do/ disagree with your interpretation.
I think the correct interpretation is in-line with the TV documentary you mentioned seeing (I also saw it). Basically bad practice at the screening lab, for the most part. If you cross-contaminate samples, you will get false-positives. That is, this is not inherently a problem with the test kit, it's a problem with the screening lab.
  

       It's also important to recognise that this 40% value /doesn't/ mean that 40% of test results are false positives. If true-positive results are low, then false-positive results are also low.
Loris, May 18 2021
  

       Assuming you mean the "False Positives in PCR Tests for COVID-19" article, I've already amended my above comment to respond to that.
  

       In brief - the article looks fine, but your interpretation of it is wrong.
Loris, May 18 2021
  

       //I didn't interpret anything. I just quoted the article. The New York graph is very telling. I'd like to see the same for the UK.//   

       No, I believe you're misinterpreting it.   

       Let's look at the graph. Firstly, note that it's calculated values, not actual values. That is, there are two assumed parameters - false negative rate and false positive rate. Given the test-positivity rate, that is, what fraction of the results were found to be positive, one can then /calculate/ a 'false-negative rate' - which they also plot as a percentage of the reported positive test results.   

       So if, say, 1% of the results come back positive, /of those positive results/ a significant proportion are interpreted to be false-positives.
In practice, it may not entirely work like that (i.e. if no-one is actually infected, cross- contamination won't change any results), but it's meant to demonstrate the principle.
Loris, May 18 2021
  

       (note for later viewers - we're posting (and sometimes editing) at the same time, and at least I'm not seeing all apparently prior responses)   

       //You literally misquoted me and the article and drew a different interpretation. Read carefully.//   

       So your quote is:   

       //I've found another quick article which summarises what I know about false positives. "40% of positive results are wrong". Maybe that's why they should not be used for diagnosis.//   

       This is a copy-paste, so I assume it's accurate.   

       The article uses the string '40' twice:   

       ::The false positives and true negatives are calculated in the diagram in the same way. In the lower part of the diagram, these figures are used to calculate that the percentage of negative results that are false is 0.25 percent, and the percentage of positive results that are false is nearly 40 percent.
(calculation in figure)
So, with a 1-percent infection rate in the test population, a false-positive rate of only 0.5 percent leads to nearly 40 percent of the positive results being wrong.::
  

       You see that this is a calculated value?   

       Do you also see that this occurs when the true-positive rate is low?   

       Do you also see that when the true-positive rate is low, almost everyone still gets a negative result?   

       Do you now see that the 40% value doesn't say much about the reliability of the diagnostic test?   

       However, if that does still worry you, then presumably you are also worried about all other diagnostics for rare diseases. A lot of them are /worse/.
Loris, May 18 2021
  

       //This is statistics and probabilities 101. It literally says that at low disease prevalence you have a 50/50 chance of your positive result being wrong.//   

       So you agree that it's not a problem inherent to the diagnostic test itself, but you are worried that this effect isn't being taken into account and inflates the apparent rate of infection?   

       If so, you ... probably could have worded that better.
Loris, May 18 2021
  

       //That's quite a step change//   

       Yes it is. That's my point. RT is an integral part of a centrally controlled system which murders people. The BBC, for all its flaws, is not. In Russia, all the threads of power really do lead back to the same place, because that is how Russia has always been run. In more fortunate countries, there really is some separation of powers - not as much separation as there should be, but some.
pertinax, May 18 2021
  

       //I said before that in lab conditions it might well be an excellent tool. But just with level 4 bio containment, that standard is rarely reached.//   

       <Wikipedia> ::Biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) is the highest level of biosafety precautions, and is appropriate for work with agents that could easily be aerosol-transmitted within the laboratory and cause severe to fatal disease in humans for which there are no available vaccines or treatments.::
If that's not good enough, you're going to struggle to find anywhere which meets your standards!
  

       I think what you meant to say was that in the large testing labs, standards may slip and be lower than we'd like. I agree with that.   

       It's late at night, I'm not going to get into the UK gov link; I'm going to bed real soon now.   

       //Oh Loris. That's weak. So you're saying that my argument about covid testing is meaningless because I'm not talking about some hypothetical individual test done in strict lab conditions ?//   

       NO.
I mean that you've started claiming that I misrepresented your comment :
//I've found another quick article which summarises what I know about false positives. "40% of positive results are wrong". Maybe that's why they should not be used for diagnosis.//
to suggest you thought that 40% of positive results were wrong, and hence the PCR test shouldn't be used for diagnosis.
When in fact you meant that : You knew this was a calculation based on assumptions - and in fact it is generally true for all diagnostic tests that they have high levels of false- positives when the true-positive rate is low. And hence one should e.g. be careful when interpreting borderline results and exercise caution when looking at the infection rate statistics.
  

       I apologise for reading the words you wrote and attempting to make sense of them, rather than magically inferring what you actually intended them to mean.
Loris, May 19 2021
  

       //*if* that is what you mean//   

       Umm, not really, [zen_tom]; nation states date back to the Treaty of Westphalia and economic liberalism dates back to Adam Smith, so they're not specifically post- war ideas. International institutions were being invented after the *first" world war.   

       What is more specific to the period after the second world war is a combination of Galbraithian economics, "Positive Psychology" pseudoscience and a moral schema arising from a combination of "Negative Dialectic" with a collection of theories about the origins of the Holocaust best exemplified by "The Authoritarian Personality". In *those* texts, you can find the flawed ideology.   

       However, these things are not unrelated to what you said; the feelings of optimism which you've talked about elsewhere, and which probably contributed to the institutions you admire, were probably fueled by the perception that scientific answers had been found to certain difficult existential questions whereas, in fact, they had not.   

       I won't bore you with the details of those questions, and why the answers were wrong, and what the consequences seem to have been, unless you ask for it.
pertinax, May 19 2021
  

       //You think that kind of thing has stopped ?//   

       No, but I also don't think it's carried out by a monolithic organisation into which the BBC is integrated.
pertinax, May 19 2021
  

       And what makes you think I have no idea? Everyone knows there are drone strikes. Everyone (who is at all interested) knows that they represent a troubling departure from previous norms - that was much discussed back at the beginning of the "War on Terror". What has that to do with the relative credibility of BBC vs RT?   

       Also, your link doesn't show what you say it shows. This seems to be a bit of a pattern.
pertinax, May 19 2021
  

       Certain things seem certain:   

       -Most human drives seem angled to favour self centred-ness.
-Those who are more self centred than average excel within almost any system and attain positions of power.
-People conspire to achieve objectives.
-Those who conspire endeavour to obfuscate any such activity.
-Shit comes to light.
-Lot's of needless pain and death.
  

       Rinse and repeat.   

       History in a nutshell as far as I've been able to determine so far.   

         

       One more time...
...with feeling!
  

       No, no...   

       ...with feeling!   

       Much of that is true, [2 fries], except the third and fourth points are a little off.   

       Next week I'm going to "conspire" (that is, have a quiet chat in an informal setting) with a couple of people who might give me some work. We're unlikely to break any laws or fuck anyone over in the process and, although none of us who will be present would want to have our conversation broadcast over the tannoy, yet neither would we murder anyone or censor media outlets to keep it secret.   

       And if we were all soulless psychopaths, then, probably, we *still* wouldn't be into murdering people, etc., because (with few exceptions) there would be safer, easier ways for us to achieve the things we were trying to achieve.   

       So, more common than your third and fourth points, I would suggest, are these two:   

       - People often fail to achieve things that they were hoping to achieve, or were supposed to achieve (because, even if you're in a position of relative power, achieving things turns out to be difficult).
- People then thrash around in terror of losing face, and in their thrashings innocent people get hurt. These thrashings are just as often clumsy and counterproductive as they are brilliant and lethal.
  

       Of course, in a dictatorship like China or Russia, the calculus is different - not because their psychopaths are worse than our psychopaths, but because, absent checks and balances, the risk/reward relationship is different.
pertinax, May 19 2021
  

       //the BBC are whiter than white//   

       Straw man: I didn't say the BBC were whiter than white. I said they were flawed, but could be a lot worse.
pertinax, May 19 2021
  

       //RT was part of a murder machine and that the BBC and the UK weren't//   

       No, my original implication was RT was part of a murder machine and the BBC weren't. By adding "and the UK", you changed the meaning quite a lot. The whole point here is that the institutions of the UK are a lot less monolithic than those of Russia. If that ceases to be the case (which is always a risk), then the credibility of the BBC will vanish, but that hasn't happened yet.
pertinax, May 19 2021
  

       Yes I have. And, as I noted above, it doesn't support the point that you wanted it to support.
pertinax, May 19 2021
  

       No, it really doesn't. But I suppose anyone who's curious can read it for themselves.
pertinax, May 19 2021
  

       //And circling back to [Loris]. Again you're nitpicking. The PCR tests are being used to diagnose and the mathematics in the article is sound - basic probabilities. It's literally like a sin(x) table. You stick your error rate and disease prevalence in and it tells you the false positive rate for mass testing.//   

       I don't think it's nitpicking. I think you're changing your claim and actively trying to pretend I'm saying things I'm not so you can disregard my entirely valid points.
I don't have an issue with the maths. But you must recognise that this is a simple mathematical model.
Even if one follows the precept of this model, it's clear that the false-positive rate isn't fixed at a high percentage like you're implying.
But secondly in this particular case the model may not be a good fit. As I explained earlier, the false-positive rate may not be a fixed percentage - at which point the model no longer applies.
  

       //It wouldn't matter that much if no action was being taken, but if you are one of the 50% getting diagnosed by a false positive and told to self-isolate or miss your holiday, then I would say caution is not being exercised and the test is not fit for purpose. (This is discussed in the article)//   

       I recognise this as a problem, but don't think it makes the test 'not fit for purpose'. The alternative is effectively not testing, which would mean everyone with a mild symptom being expected to self-isolate for two weeks, or not be dealt with as easily in hospital, or whatever. Telling a high proportion of people (98%, or whatever) that they're clear has value.
Loris, May 19 2021
  

       //Neither I or the article are implying that.//   

       The article doesn't. The article is fine.
But here's your original comment on it again, in full:
//I've found another quick article which summarises what I know about false positives. "40% of positive results are wrong". Maybe that's why they should not be used for diagnosis.//
  

       Firstly it misquotes the article, implying a fixed rate.
Secondly you suggest this is why they shouldn't be used for diagnosis.
  

       You can't really dodge that, it's very clear.   

       //It [the article] questions whether PCR should be used as a gold standard for diagnosis and provides sufficient reasoning to think so.//   

       It actually doesn't.
What it does do is point out that (when rates are low), a significant fraction of positive test results may be false-positives.
These are /different things/.
  

       You complain that I'm 'nitpicking', but I think you're wrong - the problem is the opposite. Your use of language is so slipshod and imprecise that you are constantly misinterpreting information, and don't even realise when the words you've written don't mean what you intended.
Loris, May 19 2021
  

       // Oh! Look at the funding for BBC Media Action in India. I'm not saying Bill Gates has his fingers in everything*, but Bill Gates is literally right there. //   

       Why don't you save this shit for Facebook where it belongs. This is a happy and fun little website where we can escape the wild-eyed conspiracy theorists. There's plenty of other forums.
AusCan531, May 19 2021
  

       //Why don't you save this shit for Facebook where it belongs. This is a happy and fun little website where we can escape the wild-eyed conspiracy theorists.//   

       I think you're right. I'm wasting my time here, and will attempt to leave this thread for a second time.
Loris, May 19 2021
  

       //So please stop purposefully trying to be that obtuse or whatever that game is. I know you're talking shite. You know you're talking shite. Why don't we just agree and you apologise//   

       I agree but you've got the sense exactly wrong as usual.   

       I accept your apology.
Loris, May 19 2021
  

       bigsleep, bigs, bigsy, my bigsyboo, my dude. I have a question. Do you have an aim with interacting with people on the halfbakery about topics such as these? If you do, what is that aim? And are you achieving it? I am just concerned that the seeds you sow are, here at least, falling among thorns and the thorns grow up and choked it, and it yields no crop etc etc.   

       That was three questions, sorry.
calum, May 19 2021
  

       Cool, thank you. I think that the answer to (2) is interesting. Because, extrapolating from my own feelings about this thread (and acknowledging a sample size of one), I would hazard that the halfbakers you are engaging with are of the view that they are already thinking in a rational manner and either that they are unbiased or, recognising that some bias is inevitable, that their biases do not have a negative impact on the validity of their conclusions. We are back to the thorny ground etc.
calum, May 19 2021
  

       //Of course, in a dictatorship like China or Russia, the calculus is different - not because their psychopaths are worse than our psychopaths, but because, absent checks and balances, the risk/reward relationship is different.//   

       ...and yet Epstein didn't kill himself.   

       Sorry. That has absolutely nothing to do with this pandemic, it's just rock solid proof that people in power save face at any cost.   

       //Epstein didn't kill himself.//   

       I admit the circumstances look highly suspicious. Assuming he was murdered, I would put that down as an example of desperate face- saving after the fact.   

       Back in the eighties and nineties, there was much more of a culture of sexual entitlement than there is now, and people taking advantage of that (Bill Clinton, Silvio Berlusconi, Prince Andrew, Donald Trump, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, etc., etc.) would have taken part on the assumption that everyone was doing it, and that laws on the subject were no more likely to be enforced than laws against blasphemy.   

       At the time, none of them thought that anyone would get killed over it. Now, standards have changed - for the better - but this change has created a huge political and personal liability for all those people. So it's quite possible that someone might have said, "For Fuck's sake, can't someone make all this ... go away?"   

       But my point is, this would have been reactive, not pro- active. It would have been an after- the- fact cover- up, not a massively complicated plot with lots of moving parts and possible points of failure.
pertinax, May 19 2021
  

       //it never fails to surprise me.//   

       [zen_tom], if you are still repeatedly surprised by the current breakdown of the post- war consensus, then I would urge you to read the actual post- war books it was based on. You might reach different conclusions from mine, but at least you wouldn't keep getting blind- sided.   

       No YouTube links, just the books.
pertinax, May 20 2021
  

       //But my point is, this would have been reactive, not pro-active. It would have been an after- the- fact cover- up, not a massively complicated plot with lots of moving parts and possible points of failure.//   

       Ah but that's how they get you.
It's not like organized groups of bad guys take out ads. No. They either have enough dirt on you, or force you to give them enough dirt on you that you can be trusted not to rat on the group.
  

       There is some evidence that Eptsein was an agent and that his whole purpose was in actively corrupting wealthy and powerful individuals for leverage in their potential future careers.
(nice retirement package eh?)
  

       'That' is how you run a shadow government where everyone does as they are told.
It's all about the dirt.
  

       ...and the money trail.   

       Well, that's how it works in "House of Cards", certainly.   

       As for real life ... well I've never been at the top level of anything, but there are a couple of people well known to me who've been able to observe cabinet-level people close up, and this is not the way it looks to them. What they've described to me is more narcissism than psychopathy - more foolish vanity than evil genius. Of course, that could just mean that the psychopaths are really well hidden - I can't disprove that.   

       However, in "The Authoritarian Personality" (which, as I've said earlier, is a really important text for understanding where we are now), there are passages which give entirely unwarranted encouragement and validation to narcissists*, while other passages warn people against psychopaths*. So it's natural that in the generations shaped by that document (and other documents like it), narcissists would predominate over psychopaths.   

       *NB: the meanings of diagnostic terms like "narcissist" and "psychopath" tend to slide around over time. So, just in case, anyone is checking, I am using "narcissist" in the original sense of "someone who is very self- regarding and in love with themselves", and "psychopath" in the sense of someone who is coldly manipulative and not in love with anyone.
pertinax, May 20 2021
  

       Well when I look at most of the talking heads in government the term sociopath is what springs to mind not narcissist. That's somebody like my brother who can't walk past a reflective surface without checking himself out.   

       True psychopaths are on a different level and, unless also plagued by one of the two mental illnesses you've mentioned, want nothing whatsoever to do with the lime light.   

       I have never seen House Of Cards. I am talking about real life.
The game is always the same, only the scale changes.
Given enough 'leverage' you can move the Earth... and once a taste for power is attained nothing else satisfies the urge.
  

       It's really easy to tell just how few of you were left fatherless and running the streets. That's not an insult just an observation.
A kid without that familial support group is actively head-hunted by every type of street lowlife there is because until they're respective ages of consent almost all crime gets expunged from their record. Open season baby!
The exact same tactics are used no matter what level of bad-assery. They get dirt on you. They bolster your ego. They become your family.
  

       ...   

       You're theirs.   

       That's not TV, that's real life.
It's what we are all dealing with right now. Massive waves of diversion from all of the things which were starting to matter so much before the lock downs and fear mongering.
  

       "The Authoritarian Personality" is for sale whether it be through bribes, extortion, or threat.
Any way you look at it, we are "not allowed" to gather to protest them any more because of a 99.5% survivability rate and you might not even be aware that you're sick!
  

       I'm starting to think that it might be healthiest in the long run if all children were exposed to some form of Stockholm syndrome as kids so that they recognize the bullshit when they see it as adults and society can build up a herd immunity to 'that'.   

       Apparently they're all mobbed up in the outskirts of Canada. The boss is probably a seal whose parents were clubbed in front of him as a pup. The musclemen are of course the oil sands workers and lumberjacks.   

       Lord knows the notoriously-evil Canadian government is in on the act, somehow. How else could they maintain such a harmless international image?
RayfordSteele, May 20 2021
  

       To follow up on pertinax's point about the likelihood of conspiracy, we can move one degree of separation closer: my brother in law is a former cabinet minister and based on my spending time with him and some of his colleagues, it's hard to see how a conspiracy could be developed or tended by such people. Unless, of course, my brother in law and his colleagues are - even now when out of power (or are they? ooo) - engaging in a very thorough performance where they give off the impression of being unsuited to the task of conspiracy for the purpose of duping credulous fools such as myself into believing that the conspiracy is unlikely.   

       Or maybe I am myself a goon, hired to bolster the very conspiracy that I deny, a sleeper agent two decades deep on the halfbakery, awakening now to smother the theories of those getting too close to the truth.
calum, May 20 2021
  

       My hypothesis is that risperidone is in too short a supply at the moment.
RayfordSteele, May 20 2021
  

       //Lord knows the notoriously-evil Canadian government is in on the act, somehow. How else could they maintain such a harmless international image?//   

       Very droll Wilma...
Let's talk again in a year and see if you still feel the same way.
  

       //That's not an insult just an observation//   

       No offense taken; it's good to hear things from different perspectives (I know that sounds like a cliché, but it's true).   

       Would it be fair to say, [2 fries], that you're assuming that power relationships among privileged people conform to the same patterns as power relationships among vulnerable people with no money or connections?
pertinax, May 21 2021
  

       //Would it be fair to say, [2 fries], that you're assuming that power relationships among privileged people conform to the same patterns as power relationships among vulnerable people with no money or connections?//   

       No, I would say that all things scale either up or down.
It's always been 'pay no attention to those folks behind the curtain...'
Whether it's blue or white collar crime makes little difference when it comes to mental profile.
  

       Only scale.   

       Don't even try to tell me there's no crime in politics...   

       //all things scale either up or down//   

       I'm not sure what you mean by that.   

       In physics, for example, things work very differently at different scales That's why quantum mechanics is a whole separate field from relativity.
pertinax, May 21 2021
  

       I agree with 2f on this point. People are people regardless of their position, and have their set of motivations. But some people are better able to emphasize some over others than other people.   

       I still think he's caught in some kind of unhealthy paranoid feedback loop.
RayfordSteele, May 21 2021
  

       //things work very differently at different scales That's why quantum mechanics is a whole separate field from relativity.//   

       Sure, but we're talking about psychology. People have certain mind sets and fall into slots and not even culture changes this.
When it comes to the criminal element the worst individuals make sure they don't have to get their hands dirty whether street level or wall-street level.
The dirty work is always done through puppets.
  

       //caught in some kind of unhealthy paranoid feedback loop.//   

       So far it's kept me right healthy, happy, and safe.
I'm just sayin, I'm a perceptive little buggar and had the misfortune of meeting all kinds growing up. You get to recognize certain looks in people's eyes and catalogue them.
That's part of the reason it is hard to hold eye contact. Everything is given away by the eyes and I have learned to discern many mental illnesses in people I meet.
  

       I do not think of it as paranoia.   

       That's just what a paranoid would say.
a1, May 21 2021
  

       heh   

       //People have certain mind sets//   

       True, but people with the same mindset may make different choices depending on how much they have to lose.   

       Also, there are filters.   

       Elections tend to filter out the modest, highly competitive academic examinations tend to filter out the practical and class shibboleths tend to filter out the diligent. That doesn't leave anyone who knows how to hide a body.
pertinax, May 21 2021
  

       //Also, there are filters.   

       Elections tend to filter out the modest, highly competitive academic examinations tend to filter out the practical and class shibboleths tend to filter out the diligent. That doesn't leave anyone who knows how to hide a body.//   

       I don't know a way to explain other than that those filters do not exclude manipulation from people outside of the filters.   

       See?   

       Leverage becomes all there is and the humans with the biggest levers willing to sink to the deepest levels excel under any of the systems we've yet tried.   

       //Leverage becomes all there is//   

       Leverage is certainly a real thing, but what makes history both interesting and frustrating is that no one thing is all there is.   

       More specifically, it can be hard to exert detailed control from the distal end of a long lever. Consider, for example, Rupert Murdoch. Back in 1992, he boasted (through his newspaper, The Sun) that he had decided the result of the UK general election. And his boast was credible enough that the new leader of the opposition went to seek out his approval before beginning his own election campaign five years later.   

       Clearly, Murdoch was a man with leverage. But that didn't save him from being humbled in front of the parliament that he had used to intimidate, when one of his newspapers was found to have broken criminal laws. That paper then collapsed following a boycott by advertisers. Leverage may have saved Murdoch from jail, but it couldn't save his newspaper. So, leverage is something, but not everything.   

       Also (and perhaps more relevantly in the context of this thread), no one person holds all the levers (except in a dictatorship). So, for example, George Soros and the Koch Brothers both seem to have leverage, but they are usually on opposite sides. That's why [Loris]' phone-call post is one of the best things on this thread.
pertinax, May 23 2021
  

       ^
Every one of those levers are visible, (ie controllable), that's not leverage just a con by somebody who bluffed really well.
  

       I'm not even mad... I'm kind of impressed.   

       ...but the examples you've given were all done blatantly, without a single example of people in power being manipulated by people not in power.   

       So ...   

       ...apples to pomegranates?   

       // all done blatantly //   

       The criminal offences committed by employees of Murdoch's newspaper were not done blatantly - they were illegal, so the people doing them tried to keep them quiet.   

       And no-one knows the details of what Soros and/or the Kochs might or might not be doing behind the scenes.   

       So I don't accept that my examples are limited to blatant actions.   

       More to the point, there's a general problem with <edit> the standard of evidence</edit> you seem to be asking for: if your definition of leverage includes only invisible levers - that is, levers which leave no trace in the world of checkable public facts - then you and I can each make whatever claims we like about them, and there is, by definition, no evidence that could help anyone decide between one claim and another.   

       And if you believe in a class of people operating these invisible levers - people who are, apparently, more powerful than the billionaires I've named - then where are those people hiding? Their meetings are not in Davos. Their money is not in Panama. So where are they? And why have they apparently chosen such a cramped and fugitive lifestyle as would be necessary to maintain their invisibility?
pertinax, May 23 2021
  

       <shrugs> My money would be on the CIA.   

       Because they are the ultimate boogeyman, yet can't manage to kill the clostest dictator of a small island despite years of trying.   

       You would lose your money.
RayfordSteele, May 23 2021
  

       //you would lose your money.//   

       Maybe, but it would certainly not be the first unlikely long-shot that paid off for me.   

       If not Central Intelligence then another intelligence agency. Who else has the resources and invisibility to have a lowlife like Epstein coerce the wealthy and powerful into incriminating themselves for leverage?
Who else has the ability to snuff him in a mximum security prison while on suicide watch?
  

       The Vatican maybe?   

       It all comes down to motive, opportunity, and means.
Now who's got all three of those things?
  

       What makes you think that, during his life, Epstein was not acting on his own initiative? I realise that his death looks like someone else's work, but that doesn't mean his life was.
pertinax, May 24 2021
  

       It is becoming quite obvious he was an agent for some... entity, it only remains to find out which.   

       Obvious how? Why would a multi- millionaire work for someone else? Because of leverage? But what leverage? A threat to reveal that he was a sleaze? That was already public knowledge for years before his death. A threat to harm someone he cared about? He probably didn't care about anyone. He had enough money to protect himself against most threats, and he had leverage of his own over a lot of people. So how is it obvious he was a mere agent for someone else?
pertinax, May 24 2021
  

       No, because where did the multi-millions come from?   

       Always follow the money.   

       Oh look!
The rise to wealth trail doesn't exist.
  

       Well that's a dead end for sure... just ask him.   

       //The rise to wealth trail doesn't exist.//   

       That's evidence that he got rich in some nasty, furtive way. It's not evidence that he's someone else's creature.
pertinax, May 24 2021
  

       True... yet no questions get answered.
Why and how are the wealthy and powerful insulated from a fraction of what lands a poor man in prison for the rest of his days?
  

       Why could it be?... the same as it's always been.
<gasp>
Enablers.
  

       Understandable of course. The wealthy and powerful need to protect themselves and their families so they set certain programs in motion, these programs take on a certain life of their own, they dominate what they once protected.   

       The cycle continues...   

       ...but now with nukes and viral warfare.   

       Joy Ren...   

       //programs take on a certain life of their own//   

       On that part, we can agree.
pertinax, May 24 2021
  

       I think I missed the party. This is the longest post ever. I could start at the beginning and try and decipher the idea, or I could jump to the end and just comment on the amount of annotations there are. I believe it's a record-breaker, for sure. Wow. {Removes head from clouds and blindly moves on.}
blissmiss, May 24 2021
  

       // longest post ever.... amount of annotations ... I believe it's a record-breaker //   

       Not even close. MaxwellBuchanan's farewell was much longer - that's just the first that springs to mind, there may be other longer ones.   

       Ideas purporting to be interesting, useful, or funny are just props to distract from bigsleep and 2fries' revelations here.   

       It's all part of the conspiracy, you see.
a1, May 24 2021
  

       //Calling it a conspiracy is precisely what they want you to think.//
actual lol, well played!
calum, May 24 2021
  

       //The Vatican//   

       The folks who can’t manage to hide child molesters?   

       Spend less time on the net and more time amongst people.   

       It’s my guess that yes, as boring as it sounds, Epstein probably killed himself. That the guards were cruising their phones during that time and faked their logs sounds to me like any typical Tuesday.
RayfordSteele, May 24 2021
  

       //The folks who can’t manage to hide child molesters?   

       Spend less time on the net and more time amongst people.   

       It’s my guess that yes, as boring as it sounds, Epstein probably killed himself. That the guards were cruising their phones during that time and faked their logs sounds to me like any typical Tuesday.//   

       Enough derision please.
I ask questions. You respond with suggestions on how I could stop doing that.
  

       Epstein didn't kill himself.
The video records didn't disapear on their own.
  

       This is known. Ridiculing me does not change facts you don't seem to want to confront.   

       You've been conned and you will learn how to recognize this fact the same way I did... the hard way... unfortunately.   

       I wish I could change that but y'all seem bent on playing out the same scenarios over and over and fucking over again.   

       What's an uneducated intuitive boy to do to make you all see that?   

       Well that's the sixty four thousand dollar question now isn't it?   

       I'm going to continue to respond with derision for as long as this thread remains active, because outside of Loris's information it was never worth much else, and frankly you don't have the credibility with me get that question answered. At this point if you were to tell me that the sky was blue, I'd go doublecheck first.   

       Enough of this thread, please. And enough of the continuous reference to your education and such. Anyone here with whom you have interacted is aware of it already and the constant reminders just sound like either whining or dementia or a lack of awareness I typically associate with teenagers or goldfish.   

       Want credibility back? Go take a high-quality selfie having a beer with the Sasquatch that lives out your back yard somewhere, or discuss something else that brings some something of a surprise factor to the table. Its not impossible. You did so when you showed your building restoration project.
RayfordSteele, May 25 2021
  

       I don't give even a single shit about credibility or your opinion of me, and you won't answer the questions because you can't.   

       Nobody forced you to read my words.   

       I won't answer whatever questions because I don't really care to. I'm emotionally divested from it.   

       You do care about credibility, or you wouldn't be still annotating a month and a half later trying to make your case. On the net, credibility is all that you really have or don't. Don't spend it on stupid shit.   

       Nobody forces anything. However, I care about keeping the halfbakery from turning into a low- quality political/conspiracy speculation zone, which is why a good portion of the people whom I maintain contact with who I met on here who left did so. It became something else.
RayfordSteele, May 25 2021
  

       I'm with 2F on this - nobody forces anyone to read or comment - but I'll come at it from a different direction. Care about keeping the halfbakery from turning into crap? Post some non-crap ideas. Annotate others' non-crap ideas as you see fit. Ignore the crap.   

       PS: No offense meant, 2Fries. At least no more than usual. I'd rather read your silliness than some other BS around here. And I''ll put my lack of formal education, offset by strength of intuition and experience, up against yours anyone else's.
a1, May 25 2021
  

       //You do care about credibility, or you wouldn't be still annotating a month and a half later trying to make your case. On the net, credibility is all that you really have or don't. Don't spend it on stupid shit.//   

       You assume that to be my motivation and then project it on me as though it is true. It is not. Deal with it.   

       If I was worried about credibility would I have mentioned my Sasquatch encounter to any of you at all?
No, I wouldn't. I'm not stupid and know exactly how it comes across to others. I tell the story because it is true.
That fully functional inventions with absolutely no prior art pop into my head is true.
  

       Everything I've written here that wasn't a joke or a pun is absolutely true. I know this... and you do not.
You have no choice but to admit that you 'do not know' if Sasquatch exist, you have no experience in the area.
I on the other hand have had an encounter and the evidence I witnessed with my own eyes is a possibility your mind refuses to acknowledge "might" exist.
  

       That mind-set has been the bane of my existence and I refuse to be manipulated into remaining silent because of offence taken by another.   

       I had to give it up caring about that.
That's the price of telling it like it is.
Some folks ain't gonna like it.
  

       I don't need much evidence to tell me that leprechauns don't actually exist, nor could I prove a negative anyway. Strange, that.
RayfordSteele, May 26 2021
  

       Well there's plenty of evidence that fluoride has negative health effects and you refuse to believe that too, so...   

       Yeah I remember that conversation too. You didn't convince Max as I recall, and there was all sorts of hullabaloo about supposedly missing studies and he produced a ton of them in his favor.   

       I'll take up with the Oxford researcher over the isolated Canadian. Sorry.
RayfordSteele, May 26 2021
  

       I'm pretty sure Paul let me off the hook on that one as I am correct in both Fluoride's effects on the Pineal gland and the fact of pre-calcification itself being omitted from the debunking.   

       He even went so far as to determine in his lab that I hadn't absorbed a twin girl or something to somehow become a tetrachromat when it is a non male trait. Turns out I can pass the tests without having tetrachromia... I'm just a freak is all.   

       He used to call me out on what he thought was my bullshit, but other than my sasquatch story the rest of what I've said checked out, he at least made the effort to disprove and I admired him more than he knew... You just compare sasquatch to leprechauns and assume you've won a debate or something.   

       Let me ask you a question, and I would like you to answer it honestly;
If everything personal thing I've ever written here is true...
...what does it mean?
Because... if the few things I've written are that unbelievable then the truth of the shit I've seen but can't explain and left unsaid would have you sucking your thumb waiting for the nurse to arrive with your meds.
  

       //the Oxford researcher//   

       Sp. Cambridge.   

       Carry on.
pertinax, May 27 2021
  

       ^If you're just going to delete the things you say [bigsleep] and Swiss-cheese the shit out of the thread it's not helping.   

       Stick around or piss off.   

       He humored you, I'd say.   

       I'm not debating. I don't care enough at this point to bother doing so. Furthermore it would be a waste of time and energy insofar as you've convinced yourself of your scientific specialness status.   

       If you think everything you wrote is true that frankly doesn't affect me. It simply confirms suspicions.   

       As far as your observations blowing my mind? I sincerely doubt it. It's just words on a page from a person whose discernment I don't really trust to frame the entire relevant background.   

       Life is full of mystery. But every mystery obeys a few laws. Sometimes knowing the laws helps to reveal the method behind the madness.
RayfordSteele, May 27 2021
  

       So, in other words your mind is completely closed.   

       Paul didn't humor me, he did his level best to call me on my bullshit and was finding out that I'm not full of shit.
Then [mitxela] made an even harder tetrachromat test than the one I get a perfect score on to determine just how much of the spectrum I can see.
  

       There is no denying that I perceive far more hues than males are said to be able to.   

       So... yes scientific special-ness confirmed in that instance at least.
As for other claims I've made... well, if you won't even look up the one about fluoride for yourself then I can not help you overcome your bias.
  

       Well said... too bad it's going to disappear.   

       For what it's worth, I've spotted a problem in [AusCan]'s link marked "This is the 'soil' [...]". The linked article includes this caveat:   

       "The authors note some limitations: data [...] is correlational in nature, so no claims can be made about whether egotism drives conspiracy theories or vice versa."   

       In other words, staying with the soil/ plant metaphor, we don't actually know which is the soil and which is the plant - nor can we rule out the possibility that the real "soil" is some third factor or combination of factors, not even measured in the study.   

       Social science is hard to do without reinforcing your own prejudices with your choice of framing assumptions before you've even set up a study. This might be an example of that - but credit to the researchers for admitting the possibility.
pertinax, May 28 2021
  

       // once the conversation degenerated //   

       The conversation didn't degenerate. You made some interesting claims. Various other people pointed out some reasons why they're probably not true. No-one cancelled anyone. No-one threatened anyone. This is just free speech, working.
pertinax, May 28 2021
  

       Maybe it's time to agree to disagree, shake hands, and respect all opinions. It's the only way this Earth will survive. People must at the very least try to understand, I said, UNDERSTAND, NOT AGREE TO, the other's point of view, and not just try to "win" the conversation.   

       In the end, this shouldn't always be a race to be right, this thing called life. It would make more sense for it to be a race to be at peace with one another. That takes more heart than mind, but that's ok.
blissmiss, May 28 2021
  

       [blissmiss], you're confusing HB with life on Earth. HB is a tiny subset where we can fight without having to call in an airstrike on the enemy's position.   

       Much as that would have disappointed 8th, it's true. Military action is completely out of the question.
a1, May 28 2021
  

       //If you're just going to delete the things you say//   

       Sorry [2 fries]. I explained before that once the conversation degenerated, its past its expiry date.   

       Like you, I'm pretty shocked at the number of people who don't show much mental flexibility and prefer to cling to mainstream views from sources that they also cannot deeply validate.   

       I really miss [8th] as he was the only user who stuck to rationality and never joined a mob going after another user. It was probably a mistake coming back to the HB. I keep forgetting how cliquey and mob-like its been over the years. It's not what I'd expect from alt-thinking creative types, but there you go.
—bigsleep, May 27 2021
  

       Well said... too bad it's going to disappear.
—2 fries shy of a happy meal, May 28 2021
  

       Not necessarily. This copy brought to you by the Anti_Swiss_Cheesing_Foundation of Haflbakers.
a1, May 28 2021
  

       // It was probably a mistake coming back to the HB //   

       Probably?
a1, May 28 2021
  

       [link] Dr. John Campbell on types of immunity.   

       Given that getting corona gives better long term immunity to many antigen sites on the virus, it makes no sense to clobber the immune system of young people to generate a response to one specific spike protein. It's criminal to force vaccines on people who can generate their own better protection.   

       Let me reiterate what is being done here. There is a global movement to push "sick until proven healthy". Unless you have a smart-phone to prove you are healthy i.e. have a list of clumsy vaccines you've had, then you are assumed sick, a disease carrier and undesirable.   

       For a disease little worse than the flu you've signed on to all of this. And should you not get jabs for the flu (some are as deadly), in future you could be forced to quarantine on getting a positive flu PCR test.
bigsleep, Jun 03 2021
  

       //Let me reiterate//   

       We did. You have.
pertinax, Jun 03 2021
  

       That's quite the scary thought, sleepy one.
blissmiss, Jun 03 2021
  

       I’m just selective about to whom and what I open my mind to. Call it experience.
RayfordSteele, Jun 03 2021
  

       Experience is all well and good, but... I did tell you guys the story of the guy I called on his bullshit right?   

       Oh, okay, I'll tell it again for those who don't remember.   

       There was this guy who used to try and hang around with the cool kids I met in this town one time. He had bad hygiene and used to say things that sounded like total bullshit.
By the time I moved there they had already nick-named him "the adhesive" and nobody was allowed to say his name because he would spontaneously show up if anyone did.
  

       So, of course I had to make friends with him. I hadn't met one of his kind before and his difference from everyone I'd ever met was fascinating.   

       He once spouted that his step-dad held a twelfth degree black-belt in Kendo, (Japanese sword fighting), and that he himself held a sixth degree black-belt in Kendo.   

       I remember I said, "You are so full of shit! No fucking way you know sword fighting and I'm tired of listening to your shit!"   

       He didn't say a word, he just left,
A few days later he showed up at my door first thing in the morning with construction lath, Duct tape and steelies.
  

       The he measured me cut the lath to my height duct taped a cross brace and counter weighted a practice sword with tape and steelies. Then he did the same thing for himself.   

       Then he proceeded to beat the living shit out of me for the next two weeks or so until he could no longer hit me with that stick.
Turns out I had called out a sixth degree black-belt on his bullshit and then he taught me not to be so quick to do that again.
  

       That lesson always stuck with me.   

       I've tried to warn you folks many times in the past.   

       Nothing I've claimed here is a lie.
I'm the guy with the stick.
  

       Call me on my shit... try to make it stick... I dare you.   

       That's good. Keep that stick handy for when you run into Bigfoot.   

       From memory, diarrhea isn't very sticky. But it does have an unpleasant odor.
RayfordSteele, Jun 04 2021
  

       // (except)
... It's criminal to force vaccines on people who can generate their own better protection.... Unless you have a smart-phone to prove you are healthy i.e. have a list of clumsy vaccines you've had, then you are assumed sick... you could be forced to quarantine on getting a positive flu PCR test.
—bigsleep, Jun 03 2021
//
  

       Even apart from bigsleep's oft reiterated and debunked assertions, I can address this part even without reference to the current pandemic. In some situations, it would be criminal to NOT vaccinate or quarantine people.   

       If you have a cold, stay home. If you have anything worse, stay home. If there's a bug going around even marginally worse than a typical flu season* - and there's a vaccine available for it - get vaccinated or stay home unless you can prove your immunity status. This isn't about you or me and whether or not we're personally going to get sick, it's about controlling the spread of diseases to others. Towards that end I think "vaccination passports" are an excellent idea.   

       * "marginally worse than a typical flu season" ... could be debated separately and vary by region. I'd loosely define as anything that sickens enough people seriously enough to strain health care resources beyond seasonal norms.
a1, Jun 04 2021
  

       // I'd loosely define as anything that sickens enough people seriously enough to strain health care resources beyond seasonal norms//   

       Hospital occupancy is well above the seasonal norms at the moment in the UK, in fact its almost at capacity. This is because of trying to extend the life of 80 year olds last year. It worked. Most lived an extra year on average which they spent alone, isolated from familty before they died. Including alzheimer patients who died thinking their relatives had neglected them.   

       A preview of the lockdown impacts on cancer patients is showing a 15% shift to more severe stages. 15% missed screenings, 15% more stage 2, 15% more stage 3 etc and at the top end an unknown number of extra deaths   

       //debunked assertions//   

       You say that but I haven't seen any proof. If anything the tide is starting to turn and now the freedom of information access to Fauci's emails is showing quite a bit of bare faced lying. Maybe that's why he had to start wearing a mask.   

       Likewise if you *now* do a search for "CDC faulty case data" you get a ton of results even in Google.   

       There are also legal moves afoot issuing notices of criminal negligence for officials ignoring the science and enacting unlawful policies. These people will be sued and will go to jail.   

       Part of that is vaccine authorisation. At present 38,000,000 people have been vaccinated in the UK and even going by the official adverse reaction reporting site (which is under-reporting by factor), 1250 have died from the vaccines. That's about a one in 30,000 chance of dying from the vaccines regardless of age [related link]. I probably don't need to tell you that is a significantly higher chance than of a kid dying from covid.   

       Sure, protect yourself with vaccines but don't force others to destroy their own immune systems with clumsy vaccines so that drug companies can line their pockets and governments can wet themselves over the extended monitoring electronic passports have to offer.   

       For now, it will be enough to see Fauci behind bars for illegally re-authorizing gain of function research at Wuhan just before the 2016 election. But there's plenty of other high value targets like unlawful restrictions on effective therapeutics that have caused needless death. That could be several thousand counts of manslaughter for some people who were bribed.   

       But trying to blame a 12 year old for not taking a vaccine ? Come on.
bigsleep, Jun 04 2021
  

       // I haven't seen any proof //
-bigsleep, June 4. 2021
  

       None so blind as those who will not see.
a1, Jun 04 2021
  

       //None so blind as those who will not see//   

       As far as I've seen that's typical of your contribution on this idea - just easy rhetoric. Ok, that's not fair you've also dealt out more than your fair share of insults.   

       Seriously though, how bad does a disease have to get before everyone should get a vaccine ? This ain't it.   

       And given the extra number of suicides, cancer deaths, business closures you name it. How bad does a disease have to get before destroying society and transferring another 10% of the worlds wealth to the billionaires ? This ain't it.   

       The CDC reported for 2020 an extra 10% of deaths on top of the usual amount dying from cancer, heart attack, stroke and respiratory problems mostly over 80. (Most Americans think that more than 10% of the global population died).   

       The facts don't warrant the actions taken.
bigsleep, Jun 04 2021
  

       I never insult anyone, you fucking moron.
a1, Jun 04 2021
  

       Huh, still going strong with the random erroneous claims, bigsleep?   

         

       //Given that getting corona gives better long term immunity to many antigen sites on the virus, it makes no sense to clobber the immune system of young people to generate a response to one specific spike protein. It's criminal to force vaccines on people who can generate their own better protection.//   

       a) Current thinking is that vaccination is thought to give more persistent immunity than a typical infection.
b) 'clobber'? The vaccine is designed to not overwhelm (or underwhelm) the immune system. c) 'generate a response to one specific spike protein'. I briefly looked in to this - there's at most 4 surface- exposed proteins, and I'm not confident the others are prevalent, well exposed or antigenic. But if you really think that matters, perhaps you could consider the Sinovac vaccine (or similar). It doesn't seem to be as effective as the others, and isn't licenced for the uk, but since it's a traditional 'killed virus' vaccine it should satisfy your principles.
  

         

       //Part of that is vaccine authorisation. At present 38,000,000 people have been vaccinated in the UK and even going by the official adverse reaction reporting site (which is under-reporting by factor), 1250 have died from the vaccines. That's about a one in 30,000 chance of dying from the vaccines regardless of age [related link]. I probably don't need to tell you that is a significantly higher chance than of a kid dying from covid.//   

       Is this the page you're talking about?:
www.gov.uk/ government/ publications/ coronavirus-covid -19-vaccine-adverse -reactions/ coronavirus- vaccine -summary-of -yellow- card-reporting
(spaces inserted)
  

       As I look at it today, it says: ::The MHRA has received 396 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 831 reports for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 4 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 22 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified.::   

       Which, yes, adds up to about 1250 (1253, I make it).   

       However, you've failed to understand what this means. It also says this:
::Vaccination and surveillance of large populations means that, by chance, some people will experience and report a new illness or events in the days and weeks after vaccination.::
And other qualifying statements.
  

       Suppose that someone dies within a day of being vaccinated. This would be a potential adverse event, right?
But wait! If you sample people at random over a population with an average lifespan of 80 years, about one in 30k will be in their final day of living. 365*80=29200
  

       The fallacy you're committing this time is known as "Post hoc ergo propter hoc".   

         

       I can't speak for anyone else, but I assume the reason you're deleting your posts is to hide your embarrassing errors.
Loris, Jun 04 2021
  

       //However, you've failed to understand what this means//   

       I do, and I'm being slightly disingenuous here. If you apply the 28 day rule as applies to deaths after a positive PCR then its a fair 'comparison'. I think the vaccine adverse reactions are probably closer to the mark because-
a) The early symptoms of shaking just after the vaccine are consistent with blood clots.
b) People are in good health and go down rapidly
c) The deaths are under-reported as stated somewhere on the same gov.uk site.
  

       Contrast this with the positive PCR 28 day rule where *everyone* even dying of a heart attack or car crash gets marked down as a covid death so long as its within 28 days.   

       What is not clear at the present time is what percentage of sick people taking the NHS to full capacity (in summer) are due to lockdown backlogs or vaccine adverse reactions.   

       I don't know if you know, but last Saturday hundreds of thousands of people protested in London, but the BBC didn't mention it even though they stood outside the BBC shouting "Shame on you!". But apparently there's no censorship or coverup.
bigsleep, Jun 04 2021
  

       //I do, and I'm being slightly disingenuous here. If you apply the 28 day rule as applies to deaths after a positive PCR then its a fair 'comparison'.//   

       It's not a fair comparison and you're being massively disingenuous.   

       Did you know that only 1 in 6 people who play russian roulette die of it, but 100% of people who refuse to play will die.   

       There does seem to be a small risk of a specific type of blood clots with the Astra Zeneca vaccine. But it's basically negligible. It kills something like one vaccinated person in a million. But then again, someone getting the disease has a greater risk of clots, plus additional risks, so you're a fool if that puts you off getting vaccinated.   

       //c) The deaths are under-reported as stated somewhere on the same gov.uk site.//
Show me with a link or you're wrong.
  

       //Contrast this with the positive PCR 28 day rule where *everyone* even dying of a heart attack or car crash gets marked down as a covid death so long as its within 28 days.//   

       We've gone over this before, and I pointed out how that's wrong then. I even posted a link which explains it very clearly - which you obviously didn't read properly, if you looked at it at all.   

       //I don't know if you know, but last Saturday hundreds of thousands of people protested in London//   

       I didn't know, and I think you're wrong. You're claiming (at least) 0.2 million protesters in London (... on 29th May). Doubt it very much. A few thousand I can believe. The Guardian says "tens of thousands". But you know what? A protest happening doesn't make your other claims correct.
Loris, Jun 04 2021
  

       //The Guardian says "tens of thousands". But you know what? It doesn't make them correct//   

       Yep. Another Guardian [link]. Scroll down to 'hundreds of thousands'.   

       //Did you know that only 1 in 6 people who play russian roulette die of it, but 100% of people who refuse to play will die.//   

       The empty rhetoric is not helping.   

       //I briefly looked in to this - there's at most 4 surface- exposed proteins, and I'm not confident the others are prevalent, well exposed or antigenic.//   

       A natural immune reaction gives a lot of cross-immunity due to targeting more than one antigen. And you're right, I'd prefer the traditional deactivated virus vaccine for that reason.   

       //I even posted a link which explains it very clearly - which you obviously didn't read properly, if you looked at it at all.//   

       Pretty sure you didn't. Deaths within 28 days of a positive test are just that. I'll apologise profusely if you can disprove that.   

       What I'd really like to know, of the blood clot related vaccine deaths is the age demographics as compared to covid deaths. There's a Years of Life Lost calculation to be done.
bigsleep, Jun 04 2021
  

       I had already edited that to be clearer what I meant.
Loris, Jun 04 2021
  

       The linked article says "Hundreds of thousands".   

       [edit: And its not the first time. There have been very large protests every so often in London and all over the country.]
bigsleep, Jun 04 2021
  

       //The linked article says "Hundreds of thousands".//   

       Well, whatevs. No actual real evidence for it then, just a guess. But as I said, it doesn't matter, because the attendance at a protest doesn't make your claims correct.   

       //The empty rhetoric is not helping.//   

       Stop doing it then.   

         

       (start of quote, for context:)
//////{bigsleep} I do, and I'm being slightly disingenuous here. If you apply the 28 day rule as applies to deaths after a positive PCR then its a fair 'comparison'. I think the vaccine adverse reactions are probably closer to the mark because-
a) The early symptoms of shaking just after the vaccine are consistent with blood clots.
b) People are in good health and go down rapidly
c) The deaths are under-reported as stated somewhere on the same gov.uk site.
  

       Contrast this with the positive PCR 28 day rule where *everyone* even dying of a heart attack or car crash gets marked down as a covid death so long as its within 28 days.
////// (end of quote)
  

       ////I even posted a link which explains it very clearly - which you obviously didn't read properly, if you looked at it at all.////
//Pretty sure you didn't. Deaths within 28 days of a positive test are just that. I'll apologise profusely if you can disprove that. //
  

       The link is called "fullfact on deaths after vaccination". It explains how and why it is that "deaths within 28 days of a positive covid test" are /mostly/ due to the disease, and yet even though some are not, this stat is also in general an _undercount_ of total covid deaths. And that "deaths after vaccination" are /mostly/ _not_ due to the vaccine.
Loris, Jun 04 2021
  

       Can you see the holes in Fullfacts reasoning ? (exercise for the reader)   

       Let's go with a professional body like the Association of American Medical Colleges [link].   

       "How death causes are recorded
Part I and II of a death certificate ask what caused a death and what other factors contributed to it. If COVID-19 appears among the causes and contributors, CDC guidance counts that as a COVID-19-related death."
  

       CDC guidance to count secondary causes as the primary cause.   

       [edit]   

       UK Version -   

       "Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date of death:-
Number of deaths of people who had had a positive test result for COVID-19 and died within 28 days of the first positive test."
  

       It couldn't be clearer. And those 127,000 are quoted by the MSM.   

       What if we just subtracted the misattributed deaths, the care home mistakes, the suicides and the missed medical care deaths from the 2020 total and come up with a realistic figure for deaths *from* covid19 ?
bigsleep, Jun 04 2021
  

       //That's good. Keep that stick handy for when you run into Bigfoot.//   

       Of course.
Only one of us walks softly.
  

       As for the vaccine... I think I will wait for the previously recomended ten years for new drugs to be thoroughly tested before human use the same as it used to be before all this Covid hype.   

       That doesn't make me anti-vax like people here try to label me now, no, it just marks me as completely un-trusting of the spun media-circus I see playing out quite well without seeming to need my participation at all.   

       Haven't had so much as the sniffles for over a year and a half now...
...I think I'll just keep trusting my natural immune system to do its thing.
  

       I won't look down on you all for getting vaccinated, and I will not tolerate being looked down on because I will not get vaccinated.
That would be caving in to peer pressure and if I was prone to that I would not have lived this long.
  

       I would like to be able to trust the science,
...but exactly who's paid scientists, arguing amongst themselves, am I to place my faith in?
  

       Which media source?   

       Which talking head?   

       //Can you see the holes in Fullfacts reasoning ? (exercise for the reader)//   

       You know what you were saying about empty rhetoric?
You're doing it again.
You can't see any holes in the reasoning, so you pretend there are.
  

       also
a) I don't care what measuring system america uses.
b) "Deaths within 28 days of a positive test" is considered as a useful quick turn-around statistic, not a final "covid death" count. Reading the article would tell you that.
  

       Read it properly, then apologise.
Loris, Jun 04 2021
  

       Fullfact is trash (paid for by social media). You got another ?   

       [edit:
Sarah Turnnidge
  

       Full Fact
Mar 2021 - Present 4 months
...
2014 - 2017
University of Exeter - English Literature
  

       Junior reporter and not a scientist.   

       I'm going with the AAMC and UK gov definitions. ]
bigsleep, Jun 04 2021
  

       //You know what you were saying about empty rhetoric?//   

       As an aside. If you don't like rhetoric, then stop believing your own. Next time you are kind of pissed off with someone and you reach a bit too far just think how much you are lying to yourself (of all people) by going to those lengths.   

       I mean that totally sincerely. Things start improving when you are honest with yourself. I know the rhetoric doesn't seem like lying, but if you dare to look back, it is.
bigsleep, Jun 05 2021
  

       Ok. Let's assume I just dismissed the Fullfact article like I did above with the 'bullshit social media article' claim. Let's dive in -   

       At this point I did an hour of line by line analysis of her article, but I did a double-take on reviewing my anno regarding her link to "Behind the headlines: Counting COVID-19 deaths". I'll leave the statistical and historical criticism of why 127,000 does not equal 150,000 and the causality between the two.   

       "Behind the headlines: Counting COVID-19 deaths
...
"The total number of deaths reported in the daily numbers is less than the total number of deaths registered with COVID-19 on the death certificate," ...
Our review considered epidemiological evidence to see how likely it was that COVID-19 was a contributory factor to a death at different points in time after a positive test. We examined all 41,598 deaths in confirmed cases of COVID-19 reported up to 3 August 2020 and found that:
  

       88% of deaths occurred within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test and 96% occurred within 60 days or had COVID-19 on the death certificate.   

       of those who died 29 to 60 days after their positive test, COVID-19 was included on the death certificate for 64%   

       2,295 (54%) of the 4,219 deaths excluded by a 28-day time limit had COVID-19 on the death certificate   

       overall 91% of deaths reported by PHE in confirmed cases up to 3 August had COVID-19 on the death certificate   

       ...   

       What is changing?   

       Two new deaths indicators will now be used by all four nations in the UK to provide a full picture of both recent trends and the longer-term burden of the disease.   

       The additional indicators which will be used to calculate daily death figures are:
* the number of deaths in people with COVID-19 that occur within 28 days of a first positive laboratory-confirmed test. This is intended to provide a headline indicator of the immediate impact of recent epidemic activity. Deaths that occur more than 28 days after a positive test will not be included in this count.
* the number of deaths that occur within 60 days of a first positive test. Deaths that occur after 60 days will also be added to this figure if COVID-19 appears on the death certificate. This will provide a more complete measure of the burden of the disease over time.
  

       Using these new measures, the total number of deaths in people with laboratory-confirmed infection is reduced by 5,377 if only deaths within 28-day of a test are included, and by 1,668 if including only deaths within 60 days or at any time with COVID-19 mentioned on the death certificate."   

       Ok. I can't do this tonight. I'm internally screaming at reading about this hidden 60 day rule. I knew early on it was a 72 day rule, but this 60 day rule going on from August 2020. Have they once backdated any statistics ?   

       (Loris. The concluding quoted paragraph contains two unlinked statements - there is no implication the statistics overlap although if you wanted you could read that in).   

       Tell me. Am I misreading the fact that the UK government had (has) a hidden 60 day rule based on early epidemiology where anyone who had a sniffle before PCR testing was marked down as a covid19 case ?
bigsleep, Jun 05 2021
  

       //Am I misreading the fact [...]?//   

       Yes, you probably are. You're probably observing muddle and calling it as malice.   

       Come back from whatever bad trip you're on - all that "internal screaming" you speak of can't be doing you any good.
pertinax, Jun 05 2021
  

       Ok. After a little whisky and much calming down I can now offer the following -   

       1) The UK epidemiological evidence for a 60 day rule is based upon cause of death on death certificates independent of PCR testing - all 4 cases mention death certificates. Which must mean speculation based on coughs, lung infections etc.   

       2) The first bracket is interesting because the statistics don't work. -
"88% of deaths occurred within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test and 96% occurred within 60 days or had COVID-19 on the death certificate."
  

       Ok, the statistics don't work because I'm reading it wrong. Its only two phrases -   

       "88% of deaths occurred within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test
96% occurred within 60 days or had COVID-19 on the death certificate."
  

       So out of all the data points, all four are based on death certificate reasons prior to PCR testing. And this now means that if someone had a positive PCR test and any doctor wants to write that on a death certificate (for some reason), then so long as the PCR test was done within 60 days of death, its a covid death.
bigsleep, Jun 05 2021
  

       As another separate point. I get it if you want to believe that health insurance has only your best interests at heart, but there are significant incentives for doctors to push unnecessary treatments. In the UK many doctor's surgeries are currently not answering their phones because they'd rather shut up shop and go out to collect their £12.58 per vaccine jabbed.   

       When they start collecting the £12.58 for kid injections they will be violating their hypocratic oath on two regards -   

       1) Covid19 has less risk to a child than the vaccine.   

       2) Performing useless vaccine injections while ignoring patients with greater medical problems.
bigsleep, Jun 05 2021
  

       //Yes, you probably are. You're probably observing muddle and calling it as malice.//   

       Again. Meaningless rhetoric. Did you want to make a point ? Got any data, a link, an argument ?   

       [pertinax] it really worries me that you are more mob than truth. I used to look up to you.
bigsleep, Jun 05 2021
  

       I, as Joe plebian, still have no concrete answers to a single one of my questions.   

       Until I have them this vaccine can be shoved up any number of asses other than mine.   

       Figure this shit out.
Present it to the masses as a united front.
  

       ...   

       ...or piss off you commie bastards.
"We", yes the royal fucking 'we', are done with the posturing.
  

       Shit or get off the fucking pot already.   

       seriously... get your fucking shit together smart people. You're kinda like us dumb-folks only line of defence... and as far as I can tell you are as much shills as the rest of society... yet 'you' get to direct where society heads.   

       How about just a smidgen of cohesion in the messages which reach the pubic?   

       How'bout that?   

       I'm glad you've calmed down a bit. I hope you sleep well.   

       //as another separate point//   

       Here's the thing; you have a lot of separate points. Some of them are valid. But they are separate points. Your mistake lies in insisting that between them they delineate a single monstrous Thing, about which we must all get angry.   

       You demand that I supply data, but data to show that two things, which aren't connected, aren't connected, is quite a big ask. This is why, in science, the burden of proof is seldom placed on the null hypothesis.   

       If you're worried about civil liberties, that's a legitimate thing to be worried about. So get in touch with other people who are also worried about civil liberties and, with them, think of some concrete actions you can take to push back on concrete, demonstrable threats to civil liberties.   

       You'll have to start by reading legislation, especially legislation that gives excessive powers to members of the executive branch of government (which has been a worrying trend in UK legislation for a long time - probably also in Australia, and possibly further afield).   

       And when you've caught up with the state of the law, then join with other people in lobbying to get it changed. We can do this because, where we live, civil society is still a thing.   

       This is unlikely to turn out well, however, if you start from the position "most of you are just an unthinking mob, who probably don't *deserve* civil liberties". That's seldom a vote-winner, or an argument-winner.   

       It's paradoxical that you fall into this trap, because it's much the same error that has been made by that part of the Left which you despise; you mock the "woke" (with some justification, in some cases), and at the same time demand that people ""wake up". You're using exactly the same defective metaphor - "we are awake, you are unconscious". Think about that.
pertinax, Jun 05 2021
  

       //Some of them are valid. But they are separate points. Your mistake lies in insisting that between them they delineate a single monstrous Thing, about which we must all get angry.//   

       That's you (or Loris) projecting. Many of the things I'm talking about are unrelated. Some are just media hype, some are just government data corruption, some are just a willingness to turn a blind eye. If there is a common thread its fear, but there is no single architect.   

       //You demand that I supply data, but data to show that two things, which aren't connected, aren't connected, is quite a big ask. This is why, in science, the burden of proof is seldom placed on the null hypothesis.//   

       Not asking for that. Just one reasoned argument about anything.   

       //"woke" / "wake up"//   

       I don't think you can really compare the two, but ok, being confrontational doesn't solve anything.   

       //And when you've caught up with the state of the law, then join with other people in lobbying to get it changed.//   

       There are some good people working on legally fighting back and prosecuting those who have killed people needlessly. They have my support.   

       (The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 is a classic. "The act makes provision for the use of undercover law enforcement agents and covert sources and the committing of crimes in the undertaking of their duty." ... Agencies allowed to commit crimes in the undertaking of their duty include - the Environment Agency, The Food Standards Agency. )
bigsleep, Jun 05 2021
  

       Most important thing first, so out of chronological order:   

       //Ok. Let's assume I just dismissed the Fullfact article like I did above with the 'bullshit social media article' claim. Let's dive in - [...]//   

       I can see you've tried, so props for that, but I've read your comments a few times and I'm not sure I understand your objections.
I /think/ you're saying that you don't like the 'covid on death certificate' stat either.
And also, a lot of this seems to be about other articles, and some of the numbers I don't know what they are referring to at all.
Could you sum it up in a clear and concise way?
  

       //As an aside. If you don't like rhetoric, then stop believing your own. Next time you are kind of pissed off with someone and you reach a bit too far just think how much you are lying to yourself (of all people) by going to those lengths. . I mean that totally sincerely. Things start improving when you are honest with yourself. I know the rhetoric doesn't seem like lying, but if you dare to look back, it is.//
  

       I feel /exactly/ like that, but about you.
Furthermore, I feel that I work quite hard to reflect on my own views, try keep myself honest and to evaluate my sources, and you... don't.
  

       And additionally, the most charitable explanation for some of your behaviour is that you're just missing the point and so regard a relevant point as 'empty rhetoric'.   

       For example, my point about deaths after russian roulette was intended to illustrate the mistake you've been making in the most ridiculously overblown way. Rhetoric? Sure - but empty, no.   

       The simple fact is that you can expect some people to die every day of other causes - old age, car crashes, whatever. It turns out that the number of deaths after vaccination is basically consistent with this. Calling these 'vaccine deaths' - as you have been consistently doing - is an error. Unless you think the pandemic is an out-and-out fraud, like some of the youtubers you've been linking to, it's clear that the disease is killing some fraction of people directly. Determining how many is hard for a whole host of reasons, so we need to use statistics which give us an eye on what is happening. They're not perfect. Everyone who uses them should absolutely be aware of that.   

         

       By the way, my PC monitor is playing silly buggers (I've ordered a replacement, but it will be... quite some time). After a period of use, the screen goes black for a couple of seconds, every few seconds.
If I've missed something important, I apologise - and feel free to bring it to my attention.
Loris, Jun 05 2021
  

       The weird probabilities come straight from a UK gov page that Fullfact linked. Its statistical gibberish that tries to prove that the 28 day rule can be extended to a 60 day rule if it mentions covid on the death certificate. This is very similar to the CDC guidelines which promote contributing factors to the primary cause.
bigsleep, Jun 05 2021
  

       //The weird probabilities come straight from a UK gov page that Fullfact linked. Its statistical gibberish that tries to prove that the 28 day rule can be extended to a 60 day rule if it mentions covid on the death certificate. This is very similar to the CDC guidelines which promote contributing factors to the primary cause.//   

       I'm not sure which page that is (there are a number of uk.gov links), but it doesn't seem that relevant to the discussion at hand.   

       So with regard to my link "fullfact on deaths after vaccination", the page itself titled "Why you can’t compare deaths after a positive Covid-19 test with deaths after a vaccine", what is your objection?   

       I /think/ you're saying that some of those deaths are basically just "straws which broke the camel's backs" - that is, an additional small factor which tips someone on the verge of dying over. And I think that's right, some of them will be.
Ideally, we'd have a value for the QALYs lost. But that would pretty obviously be a very much more difficult value to determine.
In the real world, we have to go with values which can reasonably be determined. The 28 days stat seems like a reasonable compromise. In the longer term, we can look at excess deaths, and other statistics, for a fuller picture.
  

       What you don't seem to have addressed at all is the other side of the issue - how deaths after a vaccine are almost entirely /not/ due to the vaccine. Since that's the main reason we're talking about it, this seems like an oversight.
Loris, Jun 05 2021
  

       A difficulty of this conversation is that nobody is talking about the secret societies that have controlled the mainstream political parties since 1913 if not earlier. If we take the belief that the winners write the history books, and that anyone who could lead opposition or even just cause significant embarassment to the rulers dies by "suicide" or "car crash" or "drug overdose" before they get famous, it becomes clearer how the "mainstream" narrative could be so misleading. I think the kings of today remember the French Revolution and so out of a desire to keep their heads attached they value their privacy above all else. This seems straightforward to achieve via trusts and offshore accounts to obfuscate ownership. So, all successful politicians are owned by whoever sponsored their election. Nobody gets elected without massive corporate backing, i.e. the billions of dollars required for "news" to shape the opinions of a few hundred million voters. This would be fine except they lack vision of what human progress could look like, so instead of healthy human flourishing and space colonies they are instead leading the world into a deracinated democracy where the only culture is working for and consuming from global monopolies. In that context, it's not clear what is going on with covid, but whatever it is it doesn't care about my welfare. My best guess is that the truth is really embarrassing: i.e. that it's a joint US/Chinese military bioweapon project that some secret society or blackops program let loose on purpose to transition to a world where nobody has freedom of movement anymore and where the unemployable poor and the freedom-loving skeptics die en masse from successive covid bioweapon releases, while the secret society members bail themselves out with "covid relief" and everyone else gets transitioned to "environmentally sustainable living" i.e. being totally dependent on meager government benefits and without ties to family, religion, or any other thoughts that would compete with consumption. In other words, "Deus Ex" (the videogame published in the year 2000) was right about everything, except the color scheme is rainbow stripes instead of grays and browns. I was told that becoming an engineer would allow me to contribute to human progress, and nobody told me about the secret societies, so it is becoming apparent to me that I was lied to about everything important, and I must say that I am a little disappointed.   

       To turn this into a covid-related lawn sprinkler idea, I propose that the lawn sprinkler water spray should spell out the words "I Love Tax Evasion and Silver Coins" and the body of the covid molecule structure should be precisely machined stainless steel with fittings to attach blocks of fissile material to the inside and high explosive to the outside (materials sold separately) for turning the covid sprinkler into a different type of doomsday device.
sninctown, Jun 05 2021
  

       //A difficulty of this conversation is that nobody is talking about the secret societies that have controlled the mainstream political parties since 1913 if not earlier.//   

       That's also a good litmus test to see whether people could possibly see anything nefarious going on with covid. If you can believe the leading politicians are just puppets then everything else is possible. I would like to believe people like Klaus Schwab don't have any teeth, but in reality they probably do, and he himself wants to usher in total surveillance, man-machine interfaces and total slavery to tech. You think its not going to happen until you remember just how chronically stupid modern politicians are.   

       If I ruled the world I'd clamp down on technology and harden the good stuff like routers and games machines so AI's can't run amok. Plastic would be reduced dramatically in favour of polished wooden cases. Nuclear power would provide 99% of electricity while continually trying to use less of it through efficiency and tax incentives. Human labour would be prioritised and subsidized so opening a restaurant would be easy. In fact large restaurants could be a key factor in minimising food waste. The driving force of the society would be social greed, that willingness to work twice as hard for an extra holiday and the best gadgets. That sure beats being told what your job is.   

       I wonder how far the WEF will get with its oppressive stakeholder capitalism nightmare before its members are chained and forced to eat liquidized bugs. They have no idea they are chasing bad science and are high on their own farts.
bigsleep, Jun 05 2021
  

       Going back to [Loris]'s points.   

       I think I've firmly put to bed any dispute over the 28 day rule, it's as crude as it sounds. I even dug up some weasel statistics that allow "non-headline" "cases" to bolster the numbers further. You seem to have latched onto the assertion that the 28 day rule is an undercount without actually looking squarely at what the 28 day rule says. The 60 day justification for the 'undercount' is a joke as I don't see how covid19 would appear on the death certificate without a PCR test even post-mortem. This is basically using statistical nonsense to say "Early cause of death attribution study without PCR implies ...".   

       When it comes to vaccine safety, it depends on where you get your data and what you've seen. I've seen calls for the public to use the MHRA reporting system more due to a possible 90% of adverse reactions being missed. Cue snarky reporters adding "my friend took the vaccine and turned into a garden gnome".   

       My opinion on vaccine safety is informed by the public data which as you say has to be weighed against incidence in the general population, and some sources which I hold as having greater credibility than you probably do. One person is Dolores Cahill who cites many studies with mRNA which didn't go well. She is also one of the scientists who a year ago took one look at the virus sequencing and said it was man-made. There are also petitions by doctors against vaccinating children. Then there's Marek's disease.   

       The number of deaths doesn't worry me as much as the number of crippling adverse reactions like people losing a leg or developing other horrific auto-immune reactions. There have been support groups on facebook for severe reactions that have been shut down by facebook and in general they are not covered by the MSM.   

       Just because I don't like to be bullied or railroaded, I'm going to resist getting a vaccine as long as possible. To me the extent of censorship and propaganda smacks of exactly what [sninctown] describes. Your mileage may vary.
bigsleep, Jun 06 2021
  

       // I think I've firmly put to bed any dispute over the 28 day rule, it's as crude as it sounds. I even dug up some weasel statistics that allow "non-headline" "cases" to bolster the numbers further. You seem to have latched onto the assertion that the 28 day rule is an undercount without actually looking squarely at what the 28 day rule says. The 60 day justification for the 'undercount' is a joke as I don't see how covid19 would appear on the death certificate without a PCR test even post-mortem. This is basically using statistical nonsense to say "Early cause of death attribution study without PCR implies ...".//   

       Without seeing the page you're talking about, I can't really respond to this. Post a link. I'm thinking maybe it's about a different statistic. It's totally justifiable to use different metrics for different purposes.
Alternatively, maybe it was an investigation into historical cases - many people in the initial wave died, clearly of covid19, but without getting tested. This would be reasonable.
  

         

       //The number of deaths doesn't worry me as much as the number of crippling adverse reactions like people losing a leg or developing other horrific auto-immune reactions. //   

       Let's talk about the guy in your misleadingly titled link "Blood clot deaths" - who lost his leg after being vaccinated, due to an infection. His doctors didn't think it was necessarily related, but he thought it could be.   

       ::“The doctors say it’s hard to prove that it’s linked to the covid jab and that the infection could have been there for some time, but it’s strange that I became ill for weeks on the night of the vaccine."::   

       So it may just have been unrelated. As I've previously pointed out, about one in 30,000 people is coincidentally going to die after vaccination (or more, depending on the sub- population vaccinated). The same rule applies to other life-changing events, and that's what many of the potential adverse reactions reported are. They're very carefully tracked, so I think it says something that the main threatening side- effect of the AZ vaccine detected is a specific rare blood-clot at a 4 per million level. Yes, there are rare issues, but they're ... really damn rare.   

       And since the guy had been heavily involved in martial arts for a long time, it's pretty likely that he's sustained damage there previously. (The people I know who do martial arts occasionally get hurt though that activity.) We only have his comment on what the doctors said, but I suspect they were being diplomatic. I think it's basically certain that vaccination didn't cause the infection directly. I would however say it's entirely possible that a side-effect of the vaccine exacerbated his injury. But if you can discount ""covid deaths"" for being in people who were dying anyway, then you also have to also down-weight "straw that broke the camel's back" reactions to the vaccine.   

       //My opinion on vaccine safety is informed by the public data which as you say has to be weighed against incidence in the general population, and some sources which I hold as having greater credibility than you probably do.//   

       Probably, but then, of the sources you hold in high regard I've looked at several, and found that they weren't at all credible. I remember I posted a breakdown of one, generating a list of her ridiculous claims.   

         

       //There are also petitions by doctors against vaccinating children.//   

       If all adults were vaccinated, there would be less call for vaccinating children. If you don't want children to be vaccinated, you could take the shot for them.
If they're public-spirited enough to be vaccinated, they're taking the hit because you, and people like you would not.
  

       //Then there's Marek's disease.//   

       This is a disease of chickens. Worry about that all you like.
(Actually IIRC we went over that before when you were talking about leaky vaccines - I entirely rebutted your claims with zero response.)
Loris, Jun 06 2021
  

       Keep in mind that for every critical news event, there's also a society of bullshit artists looking to turn it into a misinformation fest to further divide their enemies, make a buck off of peddling "investigation of secret societies" and sew confusion. Good journalism tries to avoid these where it can.
RayfordSteele, Jun 06 2021
  

       //Let's talk about the guy in your misleadingly titled link "Blood clot deaths"//   

       That was just a random example easily posted because it appeared in a newspaper. There are plenty of blog like accounts that I've read that detail rapid downturns 2 days after the vaccine.   

       You're right. There isn't much hard data so its basically you believe what you want to believe, but there is a lot of censorship. According to some sources NHS staff are told not to report the bulk of adverse reactions. Heresay I know.   

       //If all adults were vaccinated, there would be less call for vaccinating children. If you don't want children to be vaccinated, you could take the shot for them.//   

       Only vulnerable people should get vaccines, unless you are of the opinion that we should be giving up wholesale on the human immune system. You're really not see that are you ? The entire population of the world is being forcibly vaccinated because of a disease of the same severity as the flu. I'm saying 'same' because next there will be pressure for everyone to get flu jabs.   

       Most doctors signing petitions are fully aware that most deaths are just old people dying basically of natural causes, one of which is respiratory diseases. For politicians, drug companies etc to seize upon this to sell drugs and track the population is a gross violation of human rights. By pursuing this replacement of the human immune system with a list of crude vaccines they might also be sealing the fate of humanity. So its not just 'taking one for the team' its a moral obligation to stand up the human immune system, which we may need should an apocalyptic even happen.   

       And besides that, I've already had covid so I have better immunity than anyone with a vaccine, an immunity that could well last for decades according to some papers. Herd immunity is still best achieved by anyone healthy getting the disease.   

       One annoying factoid that came from John Campbells video is that you can prove you have resistance to many diseases, but its an expensive test that requires the extraction of bone marrow which I believe is a little more intrusive than a throat swab.   

       btw, I have answered all your points. You've either missed the relevant information, links or we just disagree. Do you have any opinion on the wider scope ? Does it seem like there is way too much government propaganda in newspapers and on tv for a flu-like virus ? Are they over-playing the variants to keep us locked up ? This is not about a mediocre viral disease.
bigsleep, Jun 06 2021
  

       //Only vulnerable people should get vaccines, unless you are of the opinion that we should be giving up wholesale on the human immune system.//   

       Vaccines are designed to /optimise/ the immune system response.   

       //The entire population of the world is being forcibly vaccinated//   

       Not forcibly   

       //because of a disease of the same severity as the flu.//   

       Significantly more deadly than flu   

         

       //And besides that, I've already had covid so I have better immunity than anyone with a vaccine,//   

       I'm not sure that's true. As in:- if I recall what I've read correctly, probably not.   

       //Herd immunity is still best achieved by anyone healthy getting the disease//   

       I think that would work. But there would be something of a death toll. Herd immunity is not an end in itself. I mentioned my early thoughts on a process to do that more safely somewhere in one of these threads.   

         

       //btw, I have answered all your points.//   

       There are some outstanding. I think they're the most significant points, too.   

       in the section where you said you'd apologise if I could show you where, you didn't explain why you didn't think the link I pointed at applied. Instead you mostly talked about other pages, and didn't say what your actual objection was.   

       And just above, I asked what page you were talking about.   

       //Do you have any opinion on the wider scope ? Does it seem like there is way too much government propaganda in newspapers and on tv for a flu-like virus ? Are they over-playing the variants to keep us locked up ? This is not about mediocre viral disease.//   

       I think the variants are a concern, but not a game-changing one.
I do have concerns about government overreach, and introduction of a police state, and have said as much in these threads as well as previously. If you'd been paying attention you'd have noticed that I've predominantly been criticising the scientific basis of your claims, not the politics.
I did disagree with you on the necessity for lockdowns and other measure in general to control infection levels.
Loris, Jun 06 2021
  

       //I asked what page you were talking about.//   

       Again. Its a link from your fullfact page.   

       //I do have concerns about government overreach//   

       Do you think some money / research is behind a pro-government movement ? Do you think what they call as "science" is *entirely* above board ? I know its not going to happen, but if you put a little bit more of a sceptical hat on, you might re-read some articles like the fullfact one and come to a different conclusion.   

       Or you can just believe all the junk that falls out of Matt Hancock's mouth. He was on tv earlier saying the majority of people in hospital hadn't had vaccines. Not sure how that stacks up. Do they all have covid, or is it a magical correlation ?   

       Anyway, I'm done for now. Anything outstanding I'm just going to say we disagree because I'm not going to rehash it,
bigsleep, Jun 06 2021
  

       //Again. Its a link from your fullfact page.//   

       There are many. I haven't found it. You didn't even provide a direct quote so even if I saw it I wouldn't be sure it was the right one.   

       And in any case, why don't you talk about the page I linked to? I suppose you couldn't find any errors in it?
I mean, there are obvious problems with critiquing a page on fullfact solely based on the pages it links to, because it links to the information it's rebutting!
  

         

       //Do you think some money / research is behind a pro-government movement ? Do you think what they call as "science" is *entirely* above board ? I know its not going to happen, but if you put a little bit more of a sceptical hat on, you might re-read some articles like the fullfact one and come to a different conclusion.//   

       Are some scientists corrupt? Sure. Absolutely.
I'm honestly not clear what you're claiming here.
Do I think there's some sort of conspiracy of scientists to distort the data fed to government? Not so much.
Conversely, however, the renascence of the anti-vaxxer movement was very much driven by a few bad actors with the goal of making money. Here's a youtube link for you.
I know you've said you're not anti-vaccine, but a lot of the arguments you've been producing come from that culture.
  

       //Or you can just believe all the junk that falls out of Matt Hancock's mouth. He was on tv earlier saying the majority of people in hospital hadn't had vaccines. Not sure how that stacks up. Do they all have covid, or is it a magical correlation ?   

       I don't have a feeling that Matt Hancock is particularly evil.
Can't comment on the statement without seeing it /exactly/. It may be right, it may be wrong, it may be that he accidentally misspoke and what he meant to say was valid.
Loris, Jun 06 2021
  

       //At this point I did an hour of line by line analysis of her article, but I did a double-take on reviewing my anno regarding her link to "Behind the headlines: Counting COVID-19 deaths".//   

       She basically just quotes that link and draws a false conclusion, or more accurately thinks of a way to mislead the reader, thus earning her salary at Fullfact which might as well be called "TruthDistorted". Seriously if you can't spot the logical holes in their 'fact checks' you shouldn't reading that kind of stuff.   

       //I don't have a feeling that Matt Hancock is particularly evil.//   

       No I don't either. What I saw early on though was someone who looked like one of his relatives was being held hostage - but that's just what *I* saw in his sweaty panicked face.   

       And for the final time. If I have ignored something then we just disagree ok ?
bigsleep, Jun 06 2021
  

       A bit more on PCR testing -   

       Let's assume PCR is 100% accurate so that if it says viral DNA is detected then that is precisely what it is. No false positives, no contamination, PCR is 100% accurate. Now see BMJ "Put to the test" link. Scroll down to Fig.1 and look at the stages of viral load. Now read the preceding text paragraph, and I quote   

       "Under laboratory conditions, the limit of the detection capacity of lateral flow tests largely aligns with the quantities of viral shedding (quantified as viral load) and ability to culture virus typically observed at the end of the first week of symptoms, after which most patients cease being infectious."   

       The key phrase being "and ability to culture virus typically observed at the end of the first week of symptoms".   

       Now look at Fig.1 again. The PCR positive test window is from day 3 to day 17, but for only half of that viable virus is detected. Doesn't this clearly say that 50% of all positive PCR tests find non-infectious people ? The key phrase again - "and ability to culture virus typically observed at the end of the first week of symptoms".   

       //Andrew Wakefield is corrupt//   

       Yep. Did a deep dive on (related) mercury a while ago. A vaccine typically has the same mercury as a can of tuna, but you can ask for a single vial vaccine which contains no mercury - its only used for multi-shot vials.
bigsleep, Jun 06 2021
  

       //She basically just quotes that link and draws a false conclusion, or more accurately thinks of a way to mislead the reader, thus earning her salary at Fullfact which might as well be called "TruthDistorted". Seriously if you can't spot the logical holes in their 'fact checks' you shouldn't reading that kind of stuff.//   

       Rhetoric, epitomised.   

       After some searching (seriously, the article is stuffed full of gov.uk links, you could have just pointed) I think I've found the page you're talking about, it's linked from the fullfact article as "a blog about the difficulty of counting Covid deaths".
If it's not that, well, that's on you.
  

       Firstly, I think you should recognise that this is a post made at the point where it was observed that just counting all deaths after a positive test forever would be a mistake.
Basically, I think you've misunderstood that article. They describe multiple new 'measures' (i.e. statistics) which are reported separately. Deaths more than 28 days after a positive test are _not_ included in the 'within 28 days' measure, according to that article.
  

       Let's go over what you actually said:
(quoting from the blog bost)
//"Behind the headlines: Counting COVID-19 deaths
... "The total number of deaths reported in the daily numbers is less than the total number of deaths registered with COVID-19 on the death certificate," ... Our review considered epidemiological evidence to see how likely it was that COVID-19 was a contributory factor to a death at different points in time after a positive test. We examined all 41,598 deaths in confirmed cases of COVID-19 reported up to 3 August 2020 and found that:
.
88% of deaths occurred within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test and 96% occurred within 60 days or had COVID-19 on the death certificate.
.
of those who died 29 to 60 days after their positive test, COVID-19 was included on the death certificate for 64%
.
2,295 (54%) of the 4,219 deaths excluded by a 28-day time limit had COVID-19 on the death certificate
.
overall 91% of deaths reported by PHE in confirmed cases up to 3 August had COVID-19 on the death certificate
//
  

       I've looked over these figures, drawn them out and think they are internally consistent. It's important to recognise that the points are measuring different things, and you can't always just calculate numbers from fractions.
For example, 4219/41598*100%=10.14%
This might seem to disagree with the 88% value, but you need to realise is that PCR tests made towards the end of the time-period cutoff don't fully contribute to the deaths total. The 88% value has presumably been adjusted to account for this confounding factor.
  

       What this is leading up to is the description of how they're going to be adjusting the reported figures.   

         

       You then go on to quote the description of how they were going to adjust the figures, then say:
//Ok. I can't do this tonight. I'm internally screaming at reading about this hidden 60 day rule. I knew early on it was a 72 day rule, but this 60 day rule going on from August 2020. Have they once backdated any statistics ?//
  

       So yes, they were literally reporting exactly how they had backdated the stats. The counts went down.
Also, this wasn't hidden- I'm pretty sure I heard these figures reported separately on the news for months, and the bbc news website articles are still searchable - I easiy found one which gives two separate figures.
  

       To be charitable, I think it was late at night for you, but it's still a misunderstanding which propagated on in your thinking.   

         

         

       //I think I've firmly put to bed any dispute over the 28 day rule, it's as crude as it sounds. I even dug up some weasel statistics that allow "non-headline" "cases" to bolster the numbers further. You seem to have latched onto the assertion that the 28 day rule is an undercount without actually looking squarely at what the 28 day rule says. The 60 day justification for the 'undercount' is a joke as I don't see how covid19 would appear on the death certificate without a PCR test even post-mortem. This is basically using statistical nonsense to say "Early cause of death attribution study without PCR implies ...".//   

       You're just wrong on this. The 28 day rule /is/ an undercount, it doesn't include any deaths later than 28 days.   

       How do I know this?
Well, here's something from the page you quoted, but apparently ignored:
::Deaths that occur more than 28 days after a positive test will not be included in this count.::
  

       The 60 day measure apparently does include later deaths with a statement on the death certificate; it's intended to "provide a more complete measure of the burden of the disease over time." There doesn't have to be a PCR test post-mortem; that wouldn't give useful data since the infection would (most likely) have been cleared some time previously. It's reliant on the judgement of the coroner as to whether death was caused by covid19.   

       //And for the final time. If I have ignored something then we just disagree ok ?//   

       This is just dumb, and the source of a lot of your problems with people misunderstanding you.   

         

       I can't respond to your post on PCR now because screwy monitor; I'll try to get to it at some point.
Loris, Jun 07 2021
  

       Okay. Excuse me if I quote your message in full, I don't trust it to stick around.   

       //A bit more on PCR testing -
.
Let's assume PCR is 100% accurate so that if it says viral DNA is detected then that is precisely what it is. No false positives, no contamination, PCR is 100% accurate. Now see BMJ "Put to the test" link. Scroll down to Fig.1 and look at the stages of viral load. Now read the preceding text paragraph, and I quote
.
"Under laboratory conditions, the limit of the detection capacity of lateral flow tests largely aligns with the quantities of viral shedding (quantified as viral load) and ability to culture virus typically observed at the end of the first week of symptoms, after which most patients cease being infectious."
.
The key phrase being "and ability to culture virus typically observed at the end of the first week of symptoms".
.
Now look at Fig.1 again. The PCR positive test window is from day 3 to day 17, but for only half of that viable virus is detected. Doesn't this clearly say that 50% of all positive PCR tests find non-infectious people ? The key phrase again - "and ability to culture virus typically observed at the end of the first week of symptoms".//
  

         

         

       I think no, actually. There are a variety of reasons why, but I think the most important factor is that we're not using PCR tests in the manner shown in the diagram.
The thrust of the article is essentially that low-frequency testing using the high-sensitivity test (PCR) would have undesirable consequences, and high-frequency testing using the low-sensitivity test (lateral flow) is better (assuming the sensitivity is 'good enough').
This actually supports the current usage of the different tests, where if you have symptoms you go and get a PCR test (and isolate yourself while waiting for the result), and if not you can use a lateral flow test about twice a week (and get a PCR test to confirm if you get a positive result).
  

       To the extent that this regimen is actually followed, the PCR tests would predominantly be detecting infectious people, the only exceptions being people with overlapping symptoms /not/ due to a resolving covid infection.
The UKs system is essentially consistent with this, which probably isn't a coincidence.
  

       I think this really just demonstrates that a cheap, low-sensitivity test can still be useful - particularly if it has a fast turn-around. For routine testing, it is clear that higher sensitivity would be better, and more frequent testing would also be better. We care about detecting infections early, but with regular testing we care much more about the initial detection than the duration of positive results, because people isolate for a fixed period of time once positive. At least, that is how it's done in the UK.
Loris, Jun 07 2021
  

       Can I nominate Loris for a Companion of Honour Award for putting up with and knocking down this shit for this long?
RayfordSteele, Jun 07 2021
  

       When looking for logic holes you are basically looking for wiggle room in the truth. What they say may be true to some extent but exactly how much ? How much give and take is in the statistics ?   

       A short quote again -   

       "We examined all 41,598 deaths in confirmed cases of COVID-19 reported up to 3 August 2020 and found that
88% of deaths occurred within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test and 96% occurred within 60 days or had COVID-19 on the death certificate"
  

       So of 41600 "confirmed cases" lets assume that means ticking all the correct symptoms 88% died within 28 days of a positive test. True. All well and good. What it doesn't say is how many people died within 28 days of a positive test that didn't have a confirmed covid case. This block would be outside the 41600, however according to the 28 day rule they would be counted as covid deaths.   

       It might be possible to work this out with cause of mortality stats from 2020. You'd expect a consistent amount for heart, stroke, alzheimer and the other major causes. Comparing with previous 5 years if any of those dip by a large factor we'll know the deaths have been wrongly attributed.   

       The article says that 28 days gives an undercount because due to some smoke and mirrors an extra 12% can be added using a 60 day rule. This is just misdirection to lead people away from questioning the 28 day rule itself.   

       //the most important factor is that we're not using PCR tests in the manner shown in the diagram//   

       Have a think about that. That's exactly how PCR and LFT are used. Note: the diagram shows mostly positive results.   

       At some point I should do a proper stats run on 2020 trying to get to the bottom of deaths and PCR. But given that PCR tests are for DNA, quite possibly dead DNA there are going to be a percentage of people who -   

       1) Tested positive but were not a covid case   

       2) Tested positive but did not die of covid   

       One criticism I've come across of PCR is that its never defined what a covid case is. There is no medical definition like other diseases. If you're carrying covid DNA - you're a case which is obviously a blatant over-estimate.   

       The wiggle room in the stats is very important as that factor difference from a regular flu is what has justified the fascist horrors of the past year.   

       I still think you're trying not to the cracks in the data. It's almost as if someone is filling them in with some "build back butter" (Trademark WEF Agenda 2030)
bigsleep, Jun 07 2021
  

       //Can I nominate Loris for a Companion of Honour Award for putting up with and knocking down this shit for this long?//   

       Um, thank you.   

         

       //When looking for logic holes you are basically looking for wiggle room in the truth. What they say may be true to some extent but exactly how much ? How much give and take is in the statistics ? //   

       I think you're trying to make something of this page which isn't there. I see the statistics they've given as showing why they've selected the values they did, and not much more.   

         

       //A short quote again -
"We examined all 41,598 deaths in confirmed cases of COVID-19 reported up to 3 August 2020 and found that 88% of deaths occurred within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test and 96% occurred within 60 days or had COVID-19 on the death certificate"
.
So of 41600 "confirmed cases" lets assume that means ticking all the correct symptoms 88% died within 28 days of a positive test. True. All well and good. What it doesn't say is how many people died within 28 days of a positive test that didn't have a confirmed covid case. This block would be outside the 41600, however according to the 28 day rule they would be counted as covid deaths.
  

       I /think/ "confirmed case" is just shorthand for "had a clearly positive PCR test". But it might mean "had at least one covid symptom and had a positive PCR test". I don't know.
I don't worry about it very much, because - yes, the former would include some asymptomatic or even not-actually-covid cases, but - these people are predominantly /not going to die/. They won't affect the stats enormously.
  

       //The article says that 28 days gives an undercount because due to some smoke and mirrors an extra 12% can be added using a 60 day rule. This is just misdirection to lead people away from questioning the 28 day rule itself.//   

       I don't think so. I believe this really just shows that a large majority of the claimed "covid deaths" occur within 28 days of a positive PCR test.   

       ////the most important factor is that we're not using PCR tests in the manner shown in the diagram////   

       //Have a think about that. That's exactly how PCR and LFT are used. Note: the diagram shows mostly positive results.//   

       You what?
As far as I know, PCR tests are predominantly used on people who are symptomatic, not as a routine screen.
I know there are population-level monitoring schemes and so on, but I don't think they're a significant fraction of the total.
  

       What fraction of points in the article diagram are positive test-results is irrelevant, saying that suggests you don't understand it at all. It's not a population level of infection, it's a diagramatic representation of a single infection time-course.   

         

       //At some point I should do a proper stats run on 2020 trying to get to the bottom of deaths and PCR. But given that PCR tests are for DNA, quite possibly dead DNA there are going to be a percentage of people who -
1) Tested positive but were not a covid case
2) Tested positive but did not die of covid//
  

       The virus genome is RNA, which is rather less long-lived in the environment than DNA. I think that if you can detect the RNA, it's quite likely that there were at least some virus particles present fairly recently (doesn't mean they have to be fully functional and capable of infection, true).   

       But getting a value for (1) is I think in practice impossible. (If you are arguing that some fraction of positive PCR tests are /no longer infectious/ ... well, I do concede that some fraction will be. But figuring that fraction out would still be tricky. (And also I suspect depend on your definitions; I imagine that infectivity tails off as a function of virus particle count rather than being all-or- nothing)   

       (2) Should be quite easy for any given population. I'm not sure it's generally useful, because it will vary dependent on the testing regimen, medical care level etc.   

         

       //One criticism I've come across of PCR is that its never defined what a covid case is. There is no medical definition like other diseases.//   

       It's not unprecedented for asymptomatic cases to be considered cases. Have you heard of typhoid Mary?   

       //If you're carrying covid DNA - you're a case which is obviously a blatant over-estimate.//   

       How so? Are you worried about cross-contamination from carriers, or what?   

       //The wiggle room in the stats is very important as that factor difference from a regular flu is what has justified the fascist horrors of the past year.//   

       I agree that getting stats right is important.
I don't think there's much systematic error in the metrics we're using which isn't already understood and accounted for by the people responsible for generating them and informing the politicians. Particularly since I include in that all the statisticians and scientists who write papers pointing out problems in 'the system'. And I don't believe there's been some sort of systemic attempt at subverting the system with dodgy stats.
Loris, Jun 07 2021
  

       //It's not unprecedented for asymptomatic cases to be considered cases. Have you heard of typhoid Mary?//   

       <smacks head on wall/>   

       //As far as I know, PCR tests are predominantly used on people who are symptomatic, not as a routine screen//   

       Check the UK Coronavirus dashboard. Most tests in 2020 were PCR from which the data was derived. In November 2020, 300,000 PCR tests were being conducted per day with about 23,000 new cases per day. So mostly screening. But anyway, that's irrelevant to the observation that 50% of all positive PCR tests are non-infectious.   

       //it's a diagramatic representation of a single infection time-course//   

       Damn. When I coloured it in I got a camel. Seriously !?   

       //(2) Should be quite easy for any given population//   

       I'm talking about those who got hit by a bus, had a heart attack etc etc, but maybe had a mild case of covid and tested positive. Those 41,600 do not include those people. I *could* guess and say that those 41,600 is only 20% of recorded deaths within 28 days of a positive test. This would obviously mean covid deaths are artificially 5x too high.   

       I outlined a method to work that out in my previous anno. I have a quick question on that -   

       Do you think its possible that in 2020 there were fewer heart attacks than the norm ? Which class of death could have gone down ? RTA's, dangerous sports. Any others ?
bigsleep, Jun 07 2021
  

       //Check the UK Coronavirus dashboard. Most tests in 2020 were PCR from which the data was derived.//
  

       Sure. But what I'm saying is that most of them are people who /had a symptom/ or were contact- traced, or some other reason for getting the test.
These tests are much more likely to be at the start or peak of an infection - that is, while transmitting the disease is a real possibility - than at some time after infectiveness has waned.
  

         

       ////(2) Should be quite easy for any given population////   

       //I'm talking about those who got hit by a bus, had a heart attack etc etc, but maybe had a mild case of covid and tested positive. Those 41,600 do not include those people. I *could* guess and say that those 41,600 is only 20% of recorded deaths within 28 days of a positive test. This would obviously mean covid deaths are artificially 5x too high.//   

       The 41598 /does/ include people who died of other means. It's everyone who died after a positive test before the cut-off date, whatever the cause of death.   

       You don't have to guess - I can give you a much better conservative calculation, just from the values on that page:
  

       We know that 88% of the deaths in question happened within 28 days of a positive test
We also know that 96% of the deaths happened within 60 days of a positive test.
Therefore, we can conclude that 96-88=8% of the deaths happened between 29 to 60 days after the test.
Let us assume that asymptomatic people get killed through non-covid-related events at random throughout this period. If anything, they're more likely to get killed later, because there's a period of self-isolation when e.g. traffic is less of a risk
  

       Now, we know that 64% of the second period's deaths had covid on their death certificate. Let's knock that down to 50%, just for ease of calculation.
This would imply that the 8% of total deaths in the second period comprised 4% "covid deaths" and 4% "other deaths".
We can then also round the two periods to the same length, and therefore presume the 88% was 84% "covid deaths" and 4% "other deaths".
We can then sum the two figures.
  

       This would give a minimum of 88% of the total deaths after a positive PCR test being "covid deaths". That's a very conservative figure, because all rounding was against it, and it doesn't include later deaths.   

         

       (edit: I think you've since edited the first quoted section above. I need to go to bed now though.)
Loris, Jun 08 2021
  

       <looks at Loris/>   

       //The 41598 /does/ include people who died of other means.//   

       <looks at original quote/>   

       //We examined all 41,598 deaths in confirmed cases of COVID-19//   

       <throws papers up in air and walks away/>
bigsleep, Jun 08 2021
  

       //<looks at original quote/>//
////We examined all 41,598 deaths in confirmed cases of COVID- 19////
//<throws papers up in air and walks away/>//
  

       What do you think those are, if not people with positive PCR tests?   

       Here's your statement:   

       //I'm talking about those who got hit by a bus, had a heart attack etc etc, but maybe had a mild case of covid and tested positive. Those 41,600 do not include those people. I *could* guess and say that those 41,600 is only 20% of recorded deaths within 28 days of a positive test. This would obviously mean covid deaths are artificially 5x too high.//   

       You're definitely not talking about all deaths during the period, only people who've had a positive test.
... So I think you're suggesting that "confirmed covid cases" is some subset of people with a positive PCR test. Perhaps "people who've been to hospital with symptoms and also had a positive test", or something like that?
  

       If so, ...well, I don't think that's the case (as you can infer from a statement in the previous comment). The thing to do here if that really concerns you would be to serve gov.uk with a freedom of information act request, and ask them to clarify what they mean by "confirmed covid case". It'll cost you something like ten pounds. I strongly recommend that you make sure the wording of the request is clear and specific, because getting an answer to the wrong question seems like a common failure mode. I am willing to help with that, if you want.   

       Notwithstanding that, I also have an addenendum to my previous comment. In that, I calculated a very conservative lower bound of the proportion of the total deaths after a positive covid test caused by covid.
However, I should have also worked out what fraction of deaths within 28 days are 'caused' by covid.
We know that 88% of the total post-positive deaths occur within 28 days, and I as I discussed above, we can use the following period to derive a minimum rate of non-covid deaths. 8% of total deaths occurs in the second period, 64% of which are covid-dependent, so applying the same rough rounding as last time 4% of total deaths are in this time period and /not/ covid related.
So we can use this as an maximum estimate of non-covid deaths in the first period. (88%-4%)/88%=0.955
So in the "deaths within 28 days of a positive test" metric, we can infer that /at least/ 95.5% of the deaths are caused by covid19. As previously noted, all rounding is against this, and there are systematic errors also against, so it's an extremely conservative minimum estimate.
Loris, Jun 08 2021
  

       [marked-for-deletion] reason... turning halfbakery into a troll comments magnet, instead of a place of halfbaked ideas. Where have all the daft ideas gone? Come back Max and 8th and Bungston, and Dr Curry and Wagster and Ben Frost.... the list goes on.
xenzag, Jun 08 2021
  

       //We examined all 41,598 deaths in confirmed cases of COVID-19 reported up to 3 August 2020 and found that 88% of deaths occurred within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test//   

       Just keep reading that until the meaning of the sentence finally hits home. Incredible.
bigsleep, Jun 08 2021
  

       ////We examined all 41,598 deaths in confirmed cases of COVID-19 reported up to 3 August 2020 and found that 88% of deaths occurred within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test////   

       //Just keep reading that until the meaning of the sentence finally hits home. Incredible.//   

       I'm fairly confident I understand the meaning, but it seems you think you've got a subtle insight which changes everything. Why don't you explain to me what you think it means?   

         

       //[MFD] reason... turning halfbakery into a troll comments magnet, instead of a place of halfbaked ideas//   

       I'm all for daft ideas, but I'm not sure deleting this would be a good idea. At least with this here the problem is isolated.
Loris, Jun 08 2021
  

       //The 41598 /does/ include people who died of other means.//   

       This is your interpretation, but the original material clearly states that all 41598 of those died of covid. They were "confirmed covid cases". Of those 41958 of people who died from covid, 88% had a positive test within 28 days.   

       So you're completely misreading the foundation for many of your arguments.   

       Breaking the stats down into non-overlapping segments -   

       1) 41598 * 88% = 36606 people died from covid within 28 days of a positive test
2) 41598 * 12% = 4992 people died from covid and didn't have a positive test within 28 days.
3) X people died but not from covid within the same time period and didn't have a positive test within 28 days.
4) Y people died but not from covid and did have a positive test within 28 days.
  

       The total number of people who died during the time period is 36606 + 4992 + X + Y.   

       The number of people whose death is wrongly attributed to covid because of the 28 day rule is Y.
bigsleep, Jun 08 2021
  

       Begging the question. Does "confirmed COVID cases" = "died from COVID?"
RayfordSteele, Jun 08 2021
  

       ////The 41598 /does/ include people who died of other means.////   

       //This is your interpretation, but the original material clearly states that all 41598 of those died of covid.//   

       No, no it doesn't. That's pretty clear, to be honest.
A "confirmed covid case" doesn't mean they died of it.
  

       Look at the section "How does PHE identify deaths in people who have tested positive?"
  

       ::In England, we have collated the details of every person who has had a laboratory- confirmed positive COVID-19 result at any point since the start of the pandemic. This will be a very valuable resource for tracking the impact of COVID-19 on the health of those affected.
.
We actively look at four sources to identify the death of any of these people should it occur. [goes on to list the sources] ::
  

       _All_ these (41598) people had a laboratory-confirmed positive test. (So did many others)
_All_ these people subsequently died
_Some_ of these people died specifically because of the covid19 infection, some because of some other reason or a complicated mixture.
Loris, Jun 08 2021
  

       //Look at the section "How does PHE identify deaths in people who have tested positive?"//   

       It says 3 times "because they tested positive".   

       Not once does it say "checked for a pulse".
bigsleep, Jun 08 2021
  

       Go ahead and do the freedom of information request thing if you don't understand it.
Loris, Jun 08 2021
  

       I'm happy with my reading of it, including the exasperation of the use of early data when virtually no testing was done to inform later policy where PCR screening is 10x higher. But that's the bullshit pseudo-science of epidemiology for you. [link] Quick link to the UK Gov testing page which shows how testing expanded after July 2020.   

       I'm still surprised many people aren't more sceptical of the 'science'. Let's see. What "science" will be next now that kids need to be vaccinated according to 'the agenda'.   

       * Will a lot more children suddenly be hospitalised due to covid ?   

       * Will the new variant be especially dangerous to children ?
bigsleep, Jun 09 2021
  

       Stay tuned!...   

       //I'm happy with my reading of it, including the exasperation of the use of early data when virtually no testing was done to inform later policy where PCR screening is 10x higher. But that's the bullshit pseudo-science of epidemiology for you.//   

       So you're saying that later in the pandemic, PCR testing was rolled out to the wider population.
And if more people with mild disease get tested and a positive test, a higher proportion of people will die of causes unrelated to covid.
  

       And I agree, that seems plausible. It won't be a /big/ effect, because healthy people mostly don't die over a period of a month.
It seems like it would be straightforward to get a measure of the likely scale of that by using pre- pandemic mortality statistics by age-group. Or looking at the subsequent mortality of people with only /negative/ tests over a period.
  

       I'm quite confident that it doesn't matter for the purpose of these statistics.
If the average life-expectancy is 80 years, the probability of a person dying in any one random month is around 0.1%.
It's basically negligible; other known sources of error will be larger.
  

       Worrying about these statistics too much is basically an isolated demand for rigor. They're not expected to be perfect, and fussing about issues which don't matter is just distracting from other things.
Loris, Jun 09 2021
  

       //If anything, they're more likely to get killed later, because there's a period of self-isolation when e.g. traffic is less of a risk//
//It won't be a /big/ effect, because healthy people mostly don't die over a period of a month.//
//If the average life-expectancy is 80 years, the probability of a person dying in any one random month is around 0.1%. It's basically negligible; other known sources of error will be larger.//
  

       Sounds like you have it bad. You really believe that corona virus is the leading cause of death now ?
bigsleep, Jun 09 2021
  

       //Sounds like you have it bad. You really believe that corona virus is the leading cause of death now ?//   

       No, of course not. Not in the UK at the moment, anyway.   

       I think maybe you're not reading what I write carefully, and just going by gut feel.
Loris, Jun 09 2021
  

       //No, of course not. Not in the UK at the moment, anyway.//   

       Well that's a rel ... oh good grief.   

       //think maybe you're not reading what I write carefully, and just going by gut feel//   

       I try to, but to be honest you've started with the personal attacks again so I have limited inclination.   

       Btw, if you go to the Worldometer UK covid page you'll find an August 03 figure of 41,261 deaths attributed to covid which very much aligns with the spirit of the article "How to design statistical indicators to find all or close to all these 41,568 deaths."   

       What we have surrounding covid is a political narrative with a thin veneer of pseudo-science for those curious enough to peek behind the first curtain.
bigsleep, Jun 09 2021
  

       //I try to, but to be honest you've started with the personal attacks again so I have limited inclination.//   

       What? Really?
I thought I was being quite civil.
  

       I looked back all the way to the point where I last returned to this thread, and the closest thing I could find is my saying that something you were/are doing is dumb. Which isn't even a personal attack.   

       Compared to the things you've been saying about a specific fullfact editor (deliberately attempting to mislead the reader, for pay), GPs who administer vaccines (they're mercenary, and violating their hypocratic oath) , epidemiologists (they practice bullshit pseudo-science) and so on (also you really don't like Matt Hancock), I'd say I think /I/ have the less abrasive style.
Loris, Jun 09 2021
  

       ^ Don't feed the Trolls [Loris]   

       Wikipedia: Internet Troll In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet. This is typically done by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion. This is typically for the troll's amusement, or to achieve a specific result such as disrupting a rival's online activities or manipulating a political process. Even so, Internet trolling can also be defined as purposefully causing confusion or harm to other users online, for no reason at all.
AusCan531, Jun 10 2021
  

       ^   

       Well... then this posting labels me as a troll.   

       My objective is to learn as much as I possibly can by providing a place where people who actually know shit can discuss the subject.   

       ...   

       So... is that my new label?   

       [link] Official ZOE symptom tracker app latest video. Try not to laugh. Do you spot what I spot ? Start at 5:50 to go straight to the good bit which only lasts just over a minute.
bigsleep, Jun 10 2021
  

       Tim Spector, ZOE, Professor of Genetics : "... so what's really important to realise is that since the start of May we've been looking at the top symptoms in all the app users and they are not the same as they were. So the number one symptom is headache, then followed by sore throat, runny nose and fever ... some funny off feeling".   

       I know this game; "What are the symptoms of hay-fever?"   

       "since the start of May" "funny off feeling"   

       More like a hilarious excuse to get out of work. The word you are looking for Tim is Hay-fever; the word is Hay-fever. What's that Tim ? If you mention that word and don't play up the severity of covid then your government millions dry up ?
bigsleep, Jun 10 2021
  

       Tim Spector seems to live in Australia. In Australia, May is late autumn, so it would be the end of hayfever season, not the beginning. At least, that's what the mainstream media would have us believe. Maybe you know different.
pertinax, Jun 10 2021
  

       [pertinax] You're probably thinking of a different guy. The Zoe symptom tracker app is very much UK based and the Tim Spector in the video is a UK guy working out of Kings College.
bigsleep, Jun 10 2021
  

       //is that my new label?//   

       Well, not necessarily "new," per se.
RayfordSteele, Jun 10 2021
  

       Well see, here's the thing; [AusCan] and I have actually met in real life, shared a meal and a few laughs. I value his opinion of my actions because I took the measure of the man, while you are just a moniker to me and so answering in his place is simply just rude.   

       As you've called me out several times now without any proof that the reasons you've given for doing so are valid it is quite clear who is trolling whom at least on this thread.   

       Have you done any research on my fluoride claims yet?, or have you already made up your mind they are false based on your mental construct of me?   

       I did so way back when. These days my time is more precious and so I have to pick and choose what is likely worth it. The fluoride thing simply wasn't.   

       Chemtrail nuts and anti-vaxers and InfoWar-morons are a dime-a-dozen in my neck of the woods, and your schtick reminds me of a more well-spoken version of them sometimes and sometimes like the world's oldest millenial.   

       I've done some Zooms with halfbakers in the not too distant past. We had a good time.
RayfordSteele, Jun 11 2021
  

       You didn't look very hard then. There are a percentage of children under the age of five and some even under the age of two with precalcified pineal glands when in the fifties no cases existed under the age of nineteen.   

       These kids no longer regulate their own melatonin, serotonin, tryptophan, or dymethltriptamine... because of fluoride.
The effects are asymtomatic and since your doctors and your dentists have not been taught about this you are written off as a patient.
  

       If that's not worth your time then why the hell are you in my face when it is worth mine?... and I literally work seven days a week doing manual labour from the time I wake until the time I just can't make myself do it anymore.   

       Go be apathetic and dismissive elsewhere.   

       // … people who actually know shit … //   

       Ah, you’re looking for John McWhorter. His latest book <link> really digs into shit.
a1, Jun 11 2021
  

       An article in the Independent has just been brought to my attention - "NHS told to identify patients actually sick from Covid-19 separately to those testing positive" [link]   

       "The move would reduce the overall number of patients in hospital for coronavirus as until now data from hospitals has included all patients who tested positive for Covid-19, regardless of whether they had symptoms or not."   

       'Now' being 10th June 2021. So they could have counted the covid statistics accurately but chose not to until it now serves their purpose.
bigsleep, Jun 11 2021
  

       Theresa May has had enough - [link].   

       Which is surprising as Theresa May was an influential force in pushing common narratives. This is why we hear "Build Back Better" from multiple countries. It's a nonsensical phrase that originated before any real damage had been done to the economy. That should inform the reader if nothing else - that the message pre-empted the damage.   

       If I could guess. She's now realised where this is all going and in the style of Thatcher she wants to defend our greengrocers and other businesses. She won't sell UK business out to the nonsense WEF technocracy. And just like Thatcher realising a bit too late about the impact on Joe public.
bigsleep, Jun 12 2021
  

       //You're probably thinking of a different guy.//   

       Touché - I'll concede you that point.
pertinax, Jun 12 2021
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle