Printable View
[QUOTE=RogerOver;5493893]I think I'll take my chances with the vaccine, Dr. Dipshit.
[b]What we now know about how to fight the delta variant of COVID.[/b]
[URL]https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2021/08/10/what-we-now-know-about-how-to-fight-the-delta-variant-of-covid-column/[/URL][/QUOTE]Good luck brother. Keep us updated.
[QUOTE=JosefK;5493876][URL]https://rumble.com/vkopys-a-pathologist-summary-of-what-these-jabs-do-to-the-brain-and-other-organs.html[/URL]
This is a fucking nightmare and wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. I truly hope those who are vaccinated get through this thing unscathed.[/QUOTE]Anybody that might be concerned about capillary clotting as mentioned in the video above, another doctor explains how the vaccines work and how they go sideways. He also recommends getting something called a D-dimer test. It's about 20 minutes in on this video.
[URL]https://www.bitchute.com/video/zAw0Pzg27RTo/[/URL]
[QUOTE=RookieMonger;5511525]She wants to let us fine mongers know that she's doing amazing! She just finish her drug program and will be off probation end of September. She is totally out of the game and I couldn't be happier for her! I wish her continued success.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=VloneCarti;5521933]Wow she's looking good. Can you hook me up with her please? I'm a rookie Monger. New to this all of this.[/QUOTE]Hey, VC, what part of she's totally out of the game didn't you understand from Rookie's post. Being new is not an excuse to be a moron.
[QUOTE=TeamCommando;5522516]Hey, VC, what part of she's totally out of the game didn't you understand from Rookie's post. Being new is not an excuse to be a moron.[/QUOTE]A read through VC's 26 posts gives me the impression that he's either 1) a chain yanker; 2) a kid in his mom's basement; or 3) a member who contributes nothing of value but asks a lot of dumb questions. He needs to get off the porch if he wants to run with the big dogs.
[QUOTE=TeamCommando;5522516]Hey, VC, what part of she's totally out of the game didn't you understand from Rookie's post. Being new is not an excuse to be a moron.[/QUOTE]Yes reading is a fundamental skill. To bad the little head is super cognitively impaired except for the 10 minutes after it has expelled the poison.
[QUOTE=RayLatoole;5490211]Though not 100%. Masks do assist in curtailing the spread. Staying away from people most certainly lessens the spread. Vaccines to this point work, (99% of hospitalizations / deaths are non vaccinated). Think it's a little too early to pin mutations on the vax.[/QUOTE]The CDC lies, they were caught lying about Florida's numbers. Its a political organization. The CDC said 2 masks are better than one, of course earlier they said not to wear masks because they don't work. England has different results.
[URL]https://theconversation.com/most-covid-deaths-in-england-now-are-in-the-vaccinated-heres-why-that-shouldnt-alarm-you-163671[/URL]
If masks worked, you'd expect them to show up in the data, but they don't. Here's a quiz that superimposes data from states and countries that had masks mandates and those that didn't. If masks and lockdowns were highly effective, they should show up unambiguously in the data. They don't. If you're a believer in masks, see if you can spot where the mask mandates and other measures were introduced. Good luck!
[URL]https://www.covidchartsquiz.com[/URL]
Vaccines, on the other hand, [B]do[/B] work, but they are not show here.
[QUOTE=TampaMonger;5525343]If masks worked, you'd expect them to show up in the data, but they don't. Here's a quiz that superimposes data from states and countries that had masks mandates and those that didn't. If masks and lockdowns were highly effective, they should show up unambiguously in the data. They don't. If you're a believer in masks, see if you can spot where the mask mandates and other measures were introduced. Good luck!
[URL]https://www.covidchartsquiz.com[/URL]
Vaccines, on the other hand, [B]do[/B] work, but they are not show here.[/QUOTE]Check the source on that link. It was created by a Libertarian wackjob (Tom Woods) who doesn't believe government should provide guidance or make rules on anything (e.g. he's also strongly in favor of defunding the police but why don't you post that link?) Statistics can be selectively used to support any position you want. Instead of posting links to websites with a highly questionable political agenda why don't you post links to science based peer reviewed research on the subject like JAMA, Harvard Medical Review or others which ALL say that, while nothing provides 100% protection (even vaccines), masks are the simplest, least invasive thing we can do that provides substantially more protection (not just for ourselves but particularly for others who may not have the choice of being able to get the vaccine) vs. not wearing a mask or worrying about infecting others.
I suppose you could also show us statistics where people still die in car accidents despite wearing seatbelts or motorcycle accidents despite wearing helmets as evidence against seatbelt and helmet laws. We as a society have come to accept other public safety laws without so much debate. Why, other than pure politics, should there be so much staunch opposition to similar rules to protect us against a virus that has killed over 630 K Americans in just over a year?
[QUOTE=Pussylicker2;5522675]The CDC lies, they were caught lying about Florida's numbers. Its a political organization. The CDC said 2 masks are better than one, of course earlier they said not to wear masks because they don't work. England has different results.
[URL]https://theconversation.com/most-covid-deaths-in-england-now-are-in-the-vaccinated-heres-why-that-shouldnt-alarm-you-163671[/URL][/QUOTE]Did you actually READ that article? Or even just notice the last part of the title ("why that shouldn't alarm you")? It provides a reasonable explanation why, in that study, more people with at least a SINGLE shot of vaccine died from covid during that period than those who haven't gotten any shot. One reason is because, during the time period in question, most of the people who had been vaccinated up to that point (or certainly a much higher proportion of them) were the elderly, who were eligible for shots 1st. The vaccine has been shown to reduce the risk of death in an individual by a factor of [b]20[/b] which is amazingly effective but still not 100%. However, the risk of death from Covid in an elderly individual (say a 70yo) is [B]32 TIMES[/B] greater than it would be in someone who is only half that age. In other words, the risk of death in such patients is reduced but not enough to overcome the increased risk simply from age. Does that mean elderly people shouldn't get the vaccine or wouldn't benefit from it? Of course not! Unfortunately, some people select information (or in this case misread information) to support their already preconceived notions.
As for lying about Florida's numbers by a politically motivated entity, that IS going on. But it's not by the CDC. It's by a certain individual who hopes to use his position as a governor as a launching point to become the Republican nominee for President in 2024. This has been borne out by his administration s actions against a whistleblower who called him out on it.
Finally, as to the CDC's shifting positions on masks, that is also simply explained. They follow science, not politics, and scientific knowledge can (and should) change when necessary as more data becomes available. They also will change their recommendations due to other changes in circumstances. I don't believe they ever said masks don't work at all. There was a point early in the pandemic when there was still a shortage of PPE and they were telling people they shouldn't wear masks so that there'd be enough for the frontline medical personal. They've also changed positions on when to wear a mask, how to wear a mask and what types of masks work best as their understanding of droplets and transmission of virus improved. Lastly, they've most recently started talking about double-masking with the advent of the delta variant which is much more contagious than the earlier variants and wasn't even around at all when they first started talking about masks. So of course that's a new policy. To point out these shifts as some sort of reason to question the motives of the CDC is simply politics in of itself.
[QUOTE=ChaseStar;5528063]Check the source on that link. It was created by a Libertarian wackjob (Tom Woods) who doesn't believe government should provide guidance or make rules on anything (e.g. he's also strongly in favor of defunding the police but why don't you post that link?) Statistics can be selectively used to support any position you want. Instead of posting links to websites with a highly questionable political agenda why don't you post links to science based peer reviewed research on the subject like JAMA, Harvard Medical Review or others which ALL say that, while nothing provides 100% protection (even vaccines), masks are the simplest, least invasive thing we can do that provides substantially more protection (not just for ourselves but particularly for others who may not have the choice of being able to get the vaccine) vs. not wearing a mask or worrying about infecting others.
I suppose you could also show us statistics where people still die in car accidents despite wearing seatbelts or motorcycle accidents despite wearing helmets as evidence against seatbelt and helmet laws. We as a society have come to accept other public safety laws without so much debate. Why, other than pure politics, should there be so much staunch opposition to similar rules to protect us against a virus that has killed over 630 K Americans in just over a year?[/QUOTE]You claim that statistics can be selectively used to support any position you want. Correct, but can you point out how they've been manipulated here? It's hard to beat stats like "cases per million" with the dates when mask mandates were imposed, showing zero correlation. It doesn't get much more straightforward than that. If masks worked, you'd see a strong signal in the data. Where is it? If that strong signal was there, the media and the government would be shouting it from the rooftops, but they never do. I wonder why.
N95 masks probably do work, but we don't have any N95 mask mandates. We just have mask mandates. The evidence that mask mandates work is zero. When they impose an N95 mask mandate, we'll look at the data again.
[QUOTE=TampaMonger;5528370]You claim that statistics can be selectively used to support any position you want. Correct, but can you point out how they've been manipulated here?[/QUOTE]I'm not going to get into a case by case analysis of each question in that quiz but there are a number of ways in general the position that quiz was designed to support could be misleading. First of all, just look at the way each question was framed. In many cases he selectively mentioned just one aspect of what each state could do or else carefully selected 2 particular states (which may have been outliers) and / or are highly different in other factors which may have led to the results presented (e. G. Relative # of elderly or nursing home residents, level of urbanization, degree of income inequality (poor people having less access to affordable healthcare), degree of interconnectivity to neighboring states or non-state visitors, etc.). And that doesn't even get into issues like compliance. Alot of those states he was comparing were red states where even if they did have mandates enforcement was lax to non-existent and many people just flouted the rules or recommendations (answer me this how many people have you seen wearing masks but with their nose exposed or even just stretched out below their chin).
Just look at the country as a whole. The first time when there was a widespread relaxation of measures was late last summer which did lead to a huge surge in cases starting in late September and culminating in over 300k cases per day in January. Then we started getting widespread vaccinations (and in some places reimposition of LIMITED restrictions) and the case rate plummeted until mid spring. Now we have the much more transmissible delta variant (and for the most part reluctance to reimpose any serious mandate other than the meaningless "honor system" where non-vaccinated individuals are encouraged to wear masks when they go to public indoor spaces) and cases are soaring again. How much more correlation do you need? Why aren't government and media outlets screaming about this from the rooftops you ask? THEY ARE. Maybe just not the media outlets that you choose to listen to.
Organizations without such a clear political agenda as your zero-government libertarian wack job, and by that I'm referring to independent scientific and medical journals not even just more mainstream media outlets like CNN (who I know guys like you hate) have done rigorous studies that show that properly worn masks (particularly N95 but still albeit to a lesser degree more basic nose & mouth coverings) lead to a significant reduction in the transmittability of the virus when (through scientific / statistical means) they factor out all other potential factors / influences (aka look at correlation coefficients). Here's just one of them:
[Url]https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249891[/url]
Now, whether mandates are the most effective way to get people to actually wear masks in the face of such widespread (irrational) opposition, that is a whole other question. What we need more than mandates is simply a much more open-minded populace willing to follow sensible public health guidelines designed to help not just themselves but others just like they follow many other public health rules with little opposition such as wearing seatbelts or not smoking in public indoor spaces. What we need are political leaders on the right who are courageous enough to do what's best for the country, not just their own short-term political self-interest by encouraging their followers to mask up where and when the experts say they should. What we need is conservative media outlets to do the same thing - tell the truth for a change rather than play to their audience for ratings. And social media should play a part too by doing more to reduce the spread of disinformation.
[QUOTE=ChaseStar;5529027]I'm not going to get into a case by case analysis of each question in that quiz but there are a number of ways in general the position that quiz was designed to support could be misleading. First of all, just look at the way each question was framed. In many cases he selectively mentioned just one aspect of what each state could do or else carefully selected 2 particular states (which may have been outliers) and / or are highly different in other factors which may have led to the results presented (e. G. Relative # of elderly or nursing home residents, level of urbanization, degree of income inequality (poor people having less access to affordable healthcare), degree of interconnectivity to neighboring states or non-state visitors, etc.). And that doesn't even get into issues like compliance. Alot of those states he was comparing were red states where even if they did have mandates enforcement was lax to non-existent and many people just flouted the rules or recommendations (answer me this how many people have you seen wearing masks but with their nose exposed or even just stretched out below their chin).[/QUOTE]You're confusing two different things. Masks and mask mandates are not the same. The science of masks may be a slam dunk. I don't really care because that's not what I'm critiquing, at least not directly. Mask mandates, on the other hand, are a government policy, and it's pretty straightforward to judge their efficacy: poor. If they were effective, they'd show up clearly in the data, and they don't. Don't like Tom's charts? Fine. Find me some charts that show the success of mask mandates (and lockdowns while we're at it). Make sure they're normalized and include a broad selection of countries such as Sweden, Norway, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Denmark, United Kingdom, etc. As well as a large time span and the dates when mask mandates, lockdowns, and other policies were put in place. Data also exists on general compliance. For instance, compliance with mask mandates is very high in Australia and very low in most of the nordic countries (except maybe Norway).
If the efficacy of mask mandates showed up clearly in the data, Fauci, Wallensky, and Psaki would all be shoving the charts down our throats on a daily basis. "See, you ignorant right-wing rubes! Masks work. " They never have, because the data doesn't exist.
Your side has mask studies. I don't dispute them. Enjoy! Our side has the complete and utter lack of any data clearly demonstrating the efficacy of mask mandates and lockdowns as government policy.
From the very 1st line of your previous post:
[QUOTE=TampaMonger;5525343]If masks worked, you'd expect them to show up in the data, but they don't.[/QUOTE].
And now this:
[QUOTE=TampaMonger;5529891]You're confusing two different things. Masks and mask mandates are not the same. The science of masks may be a slam dunk. I don't really care because that's not what I'm critiquing, at least not directly.[/QUOTE]Maybe I AM confused but if I am it's because your own statements are inconsistent and shifting.
So now you're finally conceding that masks (or at least N95 masks) "probably"(?) do work at reducing the spread of Covid (and it's just the mask MANDATES that are wrong)? Or am I still confused?
BTW, FYI, while N95 masks are by their very definition 95% effective at filtering out contaminating droplets like Covid-19, numerous studies have shown that the more affordable, available (and tbh more comfortable) masks like those that simple cloth coverings that loop over the ears are still 37-69% effective, which, if you pardon my expression, is nothing to sneeze at (source: [URL]https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2769441[/URL].
But now you want to talk about mandates, then let's talk about mandates. You can start by rereading the last paragraph of my last post where I basically said outright that "mandates" by themselves aren't enough if we don't have people who comply with them and/or leaders and other social influencers who consistently encourage compliance (which unfortunately we don't have in this country on one side). I'll continue to be completely consistent in what I've been saying. Short of everyone who can be vaccinated actually getting vaccinated (which, unfortunately they aren't), socially distancing or wearing masks when we can't distance (preferably and-95's but of whatever type) are our next best lines of defense in the battle against this pandemic. How to get people to recognize that or at least do those things [B]IS[/B] the big problem. Parenthetically, it's often (if not usually) the very same people who refuse to get shots who also refuse to wear masks.
You say you won't believe masks mandates work until you see incontrovertible proof and that if they worked it would show up clearly in the data. You go on to request cross-national studies that factor in timing of lockdowns, compliance and any number of issues and suggest the absence of any such incontrovertible proof somehow proves the contrary. I'm sorry but that's unreasonable and completely absurd. It's a "strawman argument" essentially asking me to prove a negative. You know such studies don't exist, can't exist and even if they did exist, because of their inherent complexity, would be beyond the scope of the average person to understand.
For one thing that sort of data doesn't exist to even start to analyze. Data collection methods vary between countries and even between states. Poorer countries don't have the capacity to even gather such information and even where it can be collected (such as in the US) the data has often been tainted by political interference.
For another even if such untainted consistently collected data existed, it would take considerable time for it to be compiled and analyzed in the way that you're suggesting and that's time that we don't have. First of all this pandemic just started a year and a half ago, the mitigation measures that you're talking about didn't really get going until more recently than that and during that time the nature of the virus (the original and more recent variants) has been changing and our understanding about the effectiveness of different mitigation measures has changed as well (leading to those changes you mentioned in precisely what was mandated or more often only encouraged and when). Any study of various mandates (with differing levels of compliance, between states with different underlying demographics and even seasonal differences leading to differences in how many are out in the open outdoors vs. congregating inside, etc.) will make any such studies by their very nature like comparing apples and oranges. Meanwhile, while you wait for such studies, 650k Americans have died (most of whom probably didn't have to).
BTW, looking at other countries, you cite Australia which had both mask mandates and high compliance. It's notable that probably largely because of that they've had only a little more than 1000 deaths in their entire country vs over 46K here in FL alone despite our smaller population). Yes compliance with mask mandates in the Scandinavian countries tends to be low but that's mostly because their other early measures. (such as testing, isolation/quarantining of positives and an incredibly strong public health system) has led to a very low incidence of the disease such that residents (rightly) don't feel they really need to wear masks (for most of the time since the start of the pandemic, until delta, Norway's daily new case count has averaged less than 8 per 100k, that's less than a 10th of what we were peaking at in January (ie. Before vaccines). In other words, Scandinavian countries are different in that they don't really NEED mandates or compliance like we do. BTW, as long as you're mentioning Scandinavia, it should also be pointed out that Sweden failed to undertake the mitigation/mandate/lockdown measures like their neighbors and as a result have fared considerably worse than all of them.
Looking just at the US, you cite what you say is a lack of correlation between mandatory mitigation measures and case counts (hospitalizations, deaths, whatever) as if the borders between states weren't permeable or that super spreader events with 1000's of idiotic maskless visitors in non-lockdown states like FL or SD (e.g. Spring Break or Bike Week) who then return to their home states wouldn't flatten the differences between those states or that even in states with Governors trying to implement controls (like Whitmer in MI) there aren't 1000's of idiotic maskless protesters gathering in front of (or even storming inside) the statehouses and 1000's times more elsewhere in those states trying to thwart the mandates at every turn.
OF COURSE, THERE ARE NO STUDIES LIKE YOU ABSURDLY ASKED. You know what else there aren't? Studies to show how much worse our nation's death rate would be if we hadn't implemented any controls at all anywhere in the US (as many would have had it).
Do mandates work? I dunno. You tell me. Since 1975 when MANDATORY seatbelt laws took effect in the US, it's been estimated that there have been about 375 K fewer motor vehicle accident fatalities. Since the polio vaccine was REQUIRED for all school children starting in the 60's, the number of cases of paralytic polio dropped from over 16 k per year to absolutely zero. Since public smoking BANS started to take effect in the early 90's, it's estimated that cigarette use among men has dropped by 45% (somewhat less for women) leading to much lower rates of lung cancer which as a result has meant 2. 3 million fewer cancer deaths (other factors contributed but reduced smoking accounted for the largest share of that). It's estimated motorcycle helmet laws save nearly 2000 lives per year where they have been implemented and could save another 750 more if they were implemented throughout the US. So I think the answer to my question is pretty clear.
Meanwhile 650 k Americans have died from covid-19 so far in little more than a year and that was mostly from BEFORE the much more transmissible and deadly delta variant reared its ugly head or half the US population got their shots (which though not 100% effective, provides 20 x the protection vs. Going without). So you tell me how many more people would have died if none of us wore masks or had any lockdown. How many more would be continuing to die if they hadn't voluntarily gotten their shots. And how many more will die in the months and years ahead if we don't mandate the (now fully FDA approved) vaccine for everyone (including idiots who don't care if they get covid or spread it to someone else).
We used to come to this forum to talk and report about pussy? Pepperidge Farms remembers.