Coronavirus

[Rico1304]

10 minutes ago, SasaS said:

The point is that looking at the numbers, "hesitancy" in the Western Europe does not appear a huge problem, so there is truth in saying that unvaccinated are disproportionally blamed for high transmission numbers, the vaccines have probably underperformed in that respect (caveat would be that there should be full vaccination achieved to say that with certainty but it seems pretty obvious). Bigger problem are considerably lower rates in neighbouring regions and further on, globally, because the virus moves in waves.

Again. No relation to my point.  
 

 

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, Barrington Womble said:

You don't half post some shite. It's impossible to even start picking that apart because there's not a word in there that isn't complete and utter shit. 

 

You're wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Shooter in the Motor said:

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/mrna-vaccines-will-not-change-your-dna-debunking-doug-corrigan/

 

53 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Hahaha- I literally just read that and then scrolled down to see you'd found it too.

 

26 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

Who said conspiracy three times in the mirror again.

 

I thought we'd talked about this people.

 

Funny, now try debunking the tweet.

[Red Phoenix]

Maybe try looking into "leaky vaccines", "escape variants" and "non sterilizing vaccines."

 

Then come up with some bullshit and go back to your herd mentality or something.

[Boss]

14 hours ago, Nelly-Torres said:

A thread on why it's ludicrous to equate current governments action on Covid and vaccines with fascism in Nazi Germany. 

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/MikeStuchbery_/status/1467239560618905605

 

1. New York's Transportation Authority no longer pay death benefits out to families of subway, bus, and commuter rail workers when they die of COVID - if they are unvaccinated. So his point about benefits not being affected is wrong.

 

2. He claims, "Children are not vaccinated". Children have been vaccinated in their millions. Any person under the age of 18 is classed as a child. So that's wrong.

 

3. He then claims nobody has been stopped from voting. The Philippines tried to bring in a law that prevents unvaccinated people from being able to vote in the May 2022 elections. There was a considerable backlash. At the moment, they can vote, but that's a freedom that can soon be revoked - as governments try to pressure people to take the vaccine. That's coming.

 

4. He claims Jews couldn't go to parks, zoos or public pools by 1936 and then says the unvaccinated can't either, but he excuses this by saying it's only temporary for the unvaccinated. What's his definition of temporary? Because mine is anything that isn't permanent, ergo, the treatment of the Jews was temporary because it didn't last indefinitely. His argument doesn't make logical sense.  

 

5. He said in 1938, Jews got identity cards and were forbidden from travel. Whereas now, the identity cards are carried by the vaccinated (COVID passes), not the un-vaccinated. The unvaccinated similarly can't travel.

 

He doesn't seem to realise the events he's referencing took place over six or seven years, and we're not even at year two yet with COVID. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of a sliding scale and how freedoms erode over time. He's comparing the aftermath of the Holocaust to an event still in its infancy. 

 

[SasaS]

26 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Again. No relation to my point.  
 

I reacted to you saying Germany has low vaccination rates (it doesn't) and then expanded.

[Mudface]

26 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

You're wrong.

Funny, now try debunking the tweet.

This is what pisses me off about this, you and others post some Tweet or other from a dubious source, often with no relevant qualifications, and then expect everyone else to run around, wasting their time.

 

Here's a nice, simple counter to that crap from "Dr Doug"- https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/are-leaky-vaccines-causing-the-new-covid-19-mutations

 

Question:
I've heard that the COVID-19 vaccines are “leaky,” and that's why we're getting all these new COVID-19 mutations. Are leaky vaccines causing these dangerous COVID-19 mutations?

Answer from infectious diseases expert James Lawler, MD:
The vaccines are not directly responsible for the mutations occurring in SAS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. 

Viruses mutate at a predictable frequency. We use that predictable mutation rate to determine where a virus came from, and how long ago it emerged. 

The ability of the SARs-CoV-2 virus to mutate and create new variants is mostly dependent on the amount of virus replicating. In other words, when there are more people infected with the virus that causes COVID-19, there is more possibility for mutations to occur and new variants to arise. 

The timeline for this claim also doesn't add up. The most problematic variant we've dealt with so far, the delta variant, was first isolated in October 2020 in India, from a sample collected in September 2020. India didn't begin a public vaccination campaign until Jan. 16, 2021. 

Below I've outlined all the variants of concern currently in the U.S., along with their country of origin, earliest sample date and when public vaccination began in each country. 

Alpha

Location first detected: United Kingdom
Earliest sample date: Sept. 3, 2020
The U.K.'s vaccination efforts began Dec. 8, 2020
Beta

Location first detected: South Africa
Earliest sample date: Sept. 1, 2020
South Africa's vaccination efforts began Feb. 17, 2021
Gamma

Location first detected: Brazil
Earliest sample date: Oct. 1, 2020
Brazil's vaccination efforts began Jan. 18, 2021
Delta

Location first detected: India
Earliest sample date: Sept. 22, 2020
India's vaccination efforts began Jan. 16, 2021
As you can see, all of the mutations we're currently dealing with emerged well before the COVID-19 vaccines were publicly available. Learn more about the variants of concern in the U.S. 

Vaccinating a large portion of the population will reduce the overall number of infections. Reducing the number of infections reduces the opportunities the virus has to mutate into new variants. 

Getting vaccinated, and encouraging your loved ones to get vaccinated, is the best way to prevent more dangerous future mutations.

[Pureblood]

Your sources: all impeccable and infallible

 

Our sources: grifters, quacks, conspiracy nuts, cunts, far right loons

 

That's the rule, yeah? If so, do you think that those are healthy grounds for constructive discussion?  Before the pandemic, there used to be this thing called a grey area.

 

It's okay to have divergence of opinion, it's okay to draw on facts and evidence from different sources.  In a normal functioning society it's healthy.

 

[Mudface]

9 minutes ago, Pureblood said:

Your sources: all impeccable and infallible

 

Our sources: grifters, quacks, conspiracy nuts, cunts, far right loons

 

That's the rule, yeah? If so, do you think that those are healthy grounds for constructive discussion?  Before the pandemic, there used to be this thing called a grey area.

 

It's okay to have divergence of opinion, it's okay to draw on facts and evidence from different sources.  In a normal functioning society it's healthy.

 

If you don't want to be accused of posting stuff from grifters, quacks etc, then stop posting stuff from them.

 

As for 'facts and evidence'- where is it? That Tweet from Dr Doug is barely an hypothesis. What is there to talk about, is he going to follow it up with studies to gather evidence for it? No, is he fuck. So what possible constructive discussion do you think we could have?

[Red Phoenix]

11 minutes ago, Mudface said:

This is what pisses me off about this, you and others post some Tweet or other from a dubious source, often with no relevant qualifications, and then expect everyone else to run around, wasting their time.

 

Here's a nice, simple counter to that crap from "Dr Doug"- https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/are-leaky-vaccines-causing-the-new-covid-19-mutations

 

 

You'll have to run around harder this time if you think you can "debunk" but you're unlikely to resolve this one.

 

The vaccines are leaky/don't stop the spread properly. Note that your "nice, simple counter" didn't deny that. Leaky vaccines aren't helping get rid of the virus, that's why it's still all over the place. They're not stopping the spread which is something almost everyone has accepted, but they're also capable of placing pressure that can lead to more variants.

 

Vaccinating a large portion of the population will reduce the overall number of infections.

 

Really? How's that working out?

 

‘Leaky’ Vaccines Can Produce Stronger Versions of Viruses

 

There's no need to rage at anything that doesn't fit your narrative.

[Pureblood]

3 minutes ago, Mudface said:

If you don't want to be accused of posting stuff from grifters, quacks etc, then stop posting stuff from them.

 

As for 'facts and evidence'- where is it? That Tweet from Dr Doug is barely an hypothesis. What is there to talk about, is he going to follow it up with studies to gather evidence for it? No, is he fuck. So what possible constructive discussion do you think we could have?

I'll post whatever I want and then await your Pavlovian response.

 

Your second paragraph speaks for itself; you're not interested in further discussion, you instantly dismiss it and ask a series of questions of your own instead of having the courtesy of answering mine. 

[Barrington Womble]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

You're wrong.

 

 

 

 

Funny, now try debunking the tweet.

What are you on about? 

[Rico1304]

1 hour ago, SasaS said:

I reacted to you saying Germany has low vaccination rates (it doesn't) and then expanded.

It does, hence the campaign.  Especially in the old East German regions. But you know best. 

[Bjornebye]

Love how the colander heads claim you’re a bully etc if you point out their shite. Seems like a case of a bad guilty conscience. Colandeeeerrrsssss 

 

Stay safe all x 

[Pureblood]

https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/uk-data-shows-no-all-cause-mortality

 

UK Data Shows No All-Cause Mortality Benefit for COVID-19 Vaccines

 

Modeling the UK Data Shows No All-Cause Mortality Benefit

I wrote the first half of this article prior to modeling the data.

 

I took the period mortality tables from the UK's Office of National Statistics (ONS). Next, I painstakingly (yuck) estimated every relevant point on the cumulative vaccinated chart by age from the UK's vaccination surveillance report, using some reasonable interpolations along the way. Then I realized that I needed population proportions for the subgroups of the age 10-59 cohort (Can we get a little granularity, please? Or just open source data?). Now, I can put together a projected mortality profile for each group during an ordinary year using weighted averages (where each age group's projected mortality gets multiplied by its proportion within each cohort, and the results are summed) for each week. 

 

I then took the raw data Berenson pointed to out to one more decimal place, and plotted the actual 2021 all cause mortality data versus the expected all cause mortality data. As we can see, the Vaccinated cohort, due to having a generally older age profile, was expected to have higher all cause mortality. (Lighter hues are projected, heavier hues are what actually happened.)

 

 

So, Alex was wrong to suggest that the data showed prima facie higher mortality in the Vaccinated cohort due to the vaccines. However, this result is quite interesting! It's hard to look at these graphs and easily determine which cohort has suffered more excess mortality during the middle months of 2021! So, I took the excess mortality from each cohort for each week, and also cumulatively, and plotted them:

 

 

The cumulative trends go back-and-forth, and it seems reasonable to dismiss any difference as statistical noise. But when we do compute the tiny overall observed benefit at the end of the 28 week stretch to the vaccinated group, it amounts to a mere 5 deaths per million doses (at over $6 million per life saved).

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Pureblood said:

Your sources: all impeccable and infallible

 

Our sources: grifters, quacks, conspiracy nuts, cunts, far right loons

 

That's the rule, yeah? If so, do you think that those are healthy grounds for constructive discussion?  Before the pandemic, there used to be this thing called a grey area.

 

It's okay to have divergence of opinion, it's okay to draw on facts and evidence from different sources.  In a normal functioning society it's healthy.

 

The annoying thing is that you, Red Phoenix and Iceman pretend to be open-minded free thinkers, exercising a healthy scepticism, but you keep posting stuff which any genuine sceptic would first check to see whether it's factual or whether it makes sense.

 

You dismiss the rest of us as gullible sheep, because we understand and agree with the scientific consensus, but the point you're missing is that we subject the stuff that Whitty or Fauci say to the same degree of scrutiny as the random tweets you share; the difference is that reality stands up to scrutiny and bullshit doesn't.

[TheHowieLama]

Facts have nothing to with it.

[Pureblood]

Just now, AngryOfTuebrook said:

The annoying thing is that you, Red Phoenix and Iceman pretend to be open-minded free thinkers, exercising a healthy scepticism, but you keep posting stuff which any genuine sceptic would first check to see whether it's factual or whether it makes sense.

 

You dismiss the rest of us as gullible sheep, because we understand and agree with the scientific consensus, but the point you're missing is that we subject the stuff that Whitty or Fauci say to the same degree of scrutiny as the random tweets you share; the difference is that reality stands up to scrutiny and bullshit doesn't.

There's no pretence - I am open minded.  I post stuff from people who are vastly more qualified than me and with a better understanding of these things than me.  I learn from them.  You always dismiss them, after you've run to a fact check website and decided, after about five seconds, that they're a grifter/quack/far right loon/conspiracy nut/cunt. 

 

I don't dismiss the rest of you, I'm prepared to listen and discuss things in depth and at length.  That's the best way to learn.

 

I have no faith in the likes of Fauci or Whitty, but I don't mind if you do and respect your right to believe everything they say if that's what you choose to do. I don't think it's a healthy position to take, though. 

 

 

[Rico1304]

9 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

The annoying thing is that you, Red Phoenix and Iceman pretend to be open-minded free thinkers, exercising a healthy scepticism, but you keep posting stuff which any genuine sceptic would first check to see whether it's factual or whether it makes sense.

 

You dismiss the rest of us as gullible sheep, because we understand and agree with the scientific consensus, but the point you're missing is that we subject the stuff that Whitty or Fauci say to the same degree of scrutiny as the random tweets you share; the difference is that reality stands up to scrutiny and bullshit doesn't.

He lost me at cadaver dogs.  

[Curly]

6 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

The annoying thing is that you, Red Phoenix and Iceman pretend to be open-minded free thinkers, exercising a healthy scepticism, but you keep posting stuff which any genuine sceptic would first check to see whether it's factual or whether it makes sense.

 

You dismiss the rest of us as gullible sheep, because we understand and agree with the scientific consensus, but the point you're missing is that we subject the stuff that Whitty or Fauci say to the same degree of scrutiny as the random tweets you share; the difference is that reality stands up to scrutiny and bullshit doesn't.

Strongly disagree with this, particularly in Red Phoenix’s case.

 

In fact I would argue that it’s the 3 you mentioned who receive the majority of the behaviour you identify there. There are a few who are extremely dismissive and derisive towards their views.

 

As TK said - whatever happened to the grey area?

[SasaS]

55 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

It does, hence the campaign.  Especially in the old East German regions. But you know best. 

I don't know best. All I know is look at the available data.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

2 hours ago, Boss said:

 

1. New York's Transportation Authority no longer pay death benefits out to families of subway, bus, and commuter rail workers when they die of COVID - if they are unvaccinated. So his point about benefits not being affected is wrong.

 

2. He claims, "Children are not vaccinated". Children have been vaccinated in their millions. Any person under the age of 18 is classed as a child. So that's wrong.

 

3. He then claims nobody has been stopped from voting. The Philippines tried to bring in a law that prevents unvaccinated people from being able to vote in the May 2022 elections. There was a considerable backlash. At the moment, they can vote, but that's a freedom that can soon be revoked - as governments try to pressure people to take the vaccine. That's coming.

 

4. He claims Jews couldn't go to parks, zoos or public pools by 1936 and then says the unvaccinated can't either, but he excuses this by saying it's only temporary for the unvaccinated. What's his definition of temporary? Because mine is anything that isn't permanent, ergo, the treatment of the Jews was temporary because it didn't last indefinitely. His argument doesn't make logical sense.  

 

5. He said in 1938, Jews got identity cards and were forbidden from travel. Whereas now, the identity cards are carried by the vaccinated (COVID passes), not the un-vaccinated. The unvaccinated similarly can't travel.

 

He doesn't seem to realise the events he's referencing took place over six or seven years, and we're not even at year two yet with COVID. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of a sliding scale and how freedoms erode over time. He's comparing the aftermath of the Holocaust to an event still in its infancy. 

 

There's also the bits were one course of action was embarked upon to impose a political ideology on others and oppress others because of their ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, physical ability, sexuality etc and...er...the allegedly comparable modern day actions were done to prevent the spread of a fairly dangerous infectious virus and to stop healthcare systems from being overwhelmed.

 

But, yeah, the similarities are striking. Or something like that. Yeah. 

[Bjornebye]

7 minutes ago, Belarus said:

Strongly disagree with this, particularly in Red Phoenix’s case.

 

In fact I would argue that it’s the 3 you mentioned who receive the majority of the behaviour you identify there. There are a few who are extremely dismissive and derisive towards their views.

 

As TK said - whatever happened to the grey area?

Nah you’re wrong there. A certain few are constantly posting shite, dismissing facts and anyone’s else’s view then calling it attacks when people rightly point out that they are chatting shite. 

17 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

The annoying thing is that you, Red Phoenix and Iceman pretend to be open-minded free thinkers, exercising a healthy scepticism, but you keep posting stuff which any genuine sceptic would first check to see whether it's factual or whether it makes sense.

 

You dismiss the rest of us as gullible sheep, because we understand and agree with the scientific consensus, but the point you're missing is that we subject the stuff that Whitty or Fauci say to the same degree of scrutiny as the random tweets you share; the difference is that reality stands up to scrutiny and bullshit doesn't.

You bully!!!! How dare you speak with sense and compassion and point out utter selfish lies and wham! 

[Rico1304]

4 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I don't know best. All I know is look at the available data.

Saxony and surrounding regions.  That data? The one with low 60% dragging the rest of the country right down? The regions that are the reasons for the campaigns?  That data. Fucking weird hill to die on but you do you. 

[TheHowieLama]

12 minutes ago, Belarus said:

whatever happened to the grey area?

It has nothing to do with gray area.

[Bjornebye]

5 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Saxony and surrounding regions.  That data? The one with low 60% dragging the rest of the country right down? The regions that are the reasons for the campaigns?  That data. Fucking weird hill to die on but you do you. 

I love when (and I don’t mean Sasas here) people post what is generally made up data and claim to “look at the data” then when presented with actual data from respectable actual people who knowwjat they are talking about they just ignore it then worm into a little angle to call you a bully who can’t debate. No wonder the thing hasn’t gone away 

 

I fear for their health I really do. They need to step away from karen world and have a coke and a smile. That’s friendly advice etc.