Vaccine

dad4 said:
Yes, I am kind of baffled by the willingness to say “I never studied it, I cannot describe any of the details of it, but I trust my own ideas more than I trust the people who have done this for 30 years.”.
Click to expand...
That’s not really fair. On most of the issues we’ve debated in this forum there has been a split of opinion with experts on both sides. Team panic has had the majority and establishment on its side most of the time but you’ve never been able to articulate how you chose among experts. For example, you are in the minority on child vaxxing and child masking. Now you are quickly headed into the minority in herd immunity too. If you have a methodology about picking beyond the us establishment I’d be happy to hear it, but if it’s just the establishment then the establishment has been wrong about a ton of stuff in this pandemic and has a poor track record not to mention other examples like the 08 crash, Iraq, Afghanistan and the 16 election. Not exactly brilliance in action
 
Grace T. said:
That’s not really fair. On most of the issues we’ve debated in this forum there has been a split of opinion with experts on both sides. Team panic has had the majority and establishment on its side most of the time but you’ve never been able to articulate how you chose among experts. For example, you are in the minority on child vaxxing and child masking. Now you are quickly headed into the minority in herd immunity too. If you have a methodology about picking beyond the us establishment I’d be happy to hear it, but if it’s just the establishment then the establishment has been wrong about a ton of stuff in this pandemic and has a poor track record not to mention other examples like the 08 crash, Iraq, Afghanistan and the 16 election. Not exactly brilliance in action
Click to expand...
Sentence 1: It isn’t fair to accuse Grace of ignoring experts.

Sentence 6: The experts are usually wrong.

I stand by my original comment. You are not qualified, yet you place your opinions above the actual research.
 
dad4 said:
Sentence 1: It isn’t fair to accuse Grace of ignoring experts.

Sentence 6: The experts are usually wrong.

I stand by my original comment. You are not qualified, yet you place your opinions above the actual research.
Click to expand...
Ha now you are just falling back on your old trick of deliberately distorting points. It’s not the experts that are usually wrong…it’s the establishmentarian experts in specific instances that got it wrong

there are experts on team reality too. You just don’t like em. Yet you have no mechanism for determining which ones are right and which ones are wrong. It’s not even majoritarianism because you are in the minority of child vaccines and masking. You just pick the ones in the establishment…typical of the mandarins that believe in the meritocracy. You’ve displayed no thought or reason in determining which advice to follow. You just blindly follow the ones in charge.
 
Grace T. said:
Ha now you are just falling back on your old trick of deliberately distorting points. It’s not the experts that are usually wrong…it’s the establishmentarian experts in specific instances that got it wrong

there are experts on team reality too. You just don’t like em. Yet you have no mechanism for determining which ones are right and which ones are wrong. It’s not even majoritarianism because you are in the minority of child vaccines and masking. You just pick the ones in the establishment…typical of the mandarins that believe in the meritocracy. You’ve displayed no thought or reason in determining which advice to follow. You just blindly follow the ones in charge.
Click to expand...

And out come the slurs. Mandarins, blindly follow, no thought or reason, etc..

Yawn. Been there. Done that.

My original comment stands. This isn’t about weighing advice from different experts. You can’t even name those Nordic epidemiologists to whom you think I should pay attention. You aren’t saying that their research stands above the others. You just think they are contrarian, and that therefore they must agree with you.
 
watfly said:
With all do respect, your getting too bogged down in the details and are missing the big picture. To discriminate against the unvaccinated but previously infected the burden of proof should be on the discriminators not the discriminated. They have completed failed that burden of proof no matter how you try to spin it or put it in a different context. Hence why you have the appeals court ruling and their comments:

"staggeringly overbroad"
"fatally flawed"
"grossly exceeds OSHA’s statutory authority."

The data speaks for itself. You don't have to put it in an epidemiologists magic blender to understand what it means. You don't need to drill down or synthesize. It's not about R values or herd immunity estimates. It's all about risk assessment. The data on risks are very clear. Healthy people have virtually zero risk and kids in particular, have risks in the 1000's of one percent for any negative impacts.

Lets stop with the smoke and mirrors, the discrediting around the edges and the myopic thinking. Let's see the forest, instead of just the trees, and move on...80% of the population already has. It's only the arrogance of academics and medical experts that are keeping the failed policies alive.
Click to expand...

You've said your piece. I've said mine. But since I like the myopic magic blender image...

One thing I believe to be true is that the data never speaks for itself. What data the public sees and how it comes to them are selective processes, both from the researchers that produce it and rising forces that seek to distort and manipulate it for their own purposes. Smoke and mirrors indeed. Way I see it, everybody works with a myopic magic blender plugged in between their shoulder blades, scientists, policy makers, digitial world bad actors, soccer parents, everybody. You, me, we get to choose what to feed into our blenders. You choose risk assessment/policy/government overreach asshole stuff; I choose IL6 feedback circuitry, MIS-C hypotheticals, etc. Whatever. We get to stop when it all homogenizes into a tasty smoothy that makes sense to us Others don't have that luxury. Its their job, their responsibility to try and crank it all through the hopper, imperfect as that may be, and try get a sense of it. There are often surprises along the way. You may feel they are acting at a disservice, arrogant, clouding the issue, etc. If so, it is what it is. There are lessons in humility for all of us in this pandemic. For most of us, there will be no consequences for not learning.
 
dad4 said:
And out come the slurs. Mandarins, blindly follow, no thought or reason, etc..

Yawn. Been there. Done that.

My original comment stands. This isn’t about weighing advice from different experts. You can’t even name those Nordic epidemiologists to whom you think I should pay attention. You aren’t saying that their research stands above the others. You just think they are contrarian, and that therefore they must agree with you.
Click to expand...
Yawn. I’m just too lazy to look up the Norwegian and Swedish guys name. As you fully know they’ve become quite infamous. Funny now you are back on “research”. You dismiss research you don’t like like the Texas mask study or the Denmark study, you twist stuff like the Bangladesh study to your liking and you fully embrace the garbage stuff out out by the cdc to justify their policies

face it. Let’s look back on your track record. You almost always picked the advice from the people in charge. Mask outdoors? Let’s do it. Cloth masks? All in. Close schools?Yup. Your default principle really just seems (with few exceptions like out of state tournaments you want to go to or stuff that is even more restrictive and authoritarian like australia) to be just obey those in charge, your attempts to rationalize that principle as something more glorious or to obfuscate notwithstanding. That’s your principle: obey…not follow the research, not listen to the experts, not follow the science…just blindly obey because those in charge know better even if there a dissenting minority and even if other countries are doing it different.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
You've said your piece. I've said mine. But since I like the myopic magic blender image...

One thing I believe to be true is that the data never speaks for itself. What data the public sees and how it comes to them are selective processes, both from the researchers that produce it and rising forces that seek to distort and manipulate it for their own purposes. Smoke and mirrors indeed. Way I see it, everybody works with a myopic magic blender plugged in between their shoulder blades, scientists, policy makers, digitial world bad actors, soccer parents, everybody. You, me, we get to choose what to feed into our blenders. You choose risk assessment/policy/government overreach asshole stuff; I choose IL6 feedback circuitry, MIS-C hypotheticals, etc. Whatever. We get to stop when it all homogenizes into a tasty smoothy that makes sense to us Others don't have that luxury. Its their job, their responsibility to try and crank it all through the hopper, imperfect as that may be, and try get a sense of it. There are often surprises along the way. You may feel they are acting at a disservice, arrogant, clouding the issue, etc. If so, it is what it is. There are lessons in humility for all of us in this pandemic. For most of us, there will be no consequences for not learning.
Click to expand...
The chief difference though is those of team panic/safety and those on team reality/team virus is when all is said and done we’ve been right (and not even close) far more than you all. If you look at the list of where dad4 has been willing (kicking and screaming) to admit he’s moved, he’s moved far more than any of us. Now it is a fair argument to say that we’ll they had to be more cautious because they were in charge, had imperfect information and lives were at stake, but that doesn’t justify the continuing non acknowledgement that hey we were wrong and we are sorry we caused such collateral damage starting first and foremost with the children
 
dad4 said:
And out come the slurs. Mandarins, blindly follow, no thought or reason, etc..

Yawn. Been there. Done that.

My original comment stands. This isn’t about weighing advice from different experts. You can’t even name those Nordic epidemiologists to whom you think I should pay attention. You aren’t saying that their research stands above the others. You just think they are contrarian, and that therefore they must agree with you.
Click to expand...
I remember all the thought that went in to your case hyping from day one while deaths were on the floor. You’ve ignored at least 30 years of virus history and ask for names to compare this pandemic to itself. Not very scientific at all. More like eloquent and willful ignorance.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
You've said your piece. I've said mine. But since I like the myopic magic blender image...

One thing I believe to be true is that the data never speaks for itself. What data the public sees and how it comes to them are selective processes, both from the researchers that produce it and rising forces that seek to distort and manipulate it for their own purposes. Smoke and mirrors indeed. Way I see it, everybody works with a myopic magic blender plugged in between their shoulder blades, scientists, policy makers, digitial world bad actors, soccer parents, everybody. You, me, we get to choose what to feed into our blenders. You choose risk assessment/policy/government overreach asshole stuff; I choose IL6 feedback circuitry, MIS-C hypotheticals, etc. Whatever. We get to stop when it all homogenizes into a tasty smoothy that makes sense to us Others don't have that luxury. Its their job, their responsibility to try and crank it all through the hopper, imperfect as that may be, and try get a sense of it. There are often surprises along the way. You may feel they are acting at a disservice, arrogant, clouding the issue, etc. If so, it is what it is. There are lessons in humility for all of us in this pandemic. For most of us, there will be no consequences for not learning.
Click to expand...
Nonsense
 
Grace T. said:
Yawn. I’m just too lazy to look up the Norwegian and Swedish guys name. As you fully know they’ve become quite infamous. Funny now you are back on “research”. You dismiss research you don’t like like the Texas mask study or the Denmark study, you twist stuff like the Bangladesh study to your liking and you fully embrace the garbage stuff out out by the cdc to justify their policies

face it. Let’s look back on your track record. You almost always picked the advice from the people in charge. Mask outdoors? Let’s do it. Cloth masks? All in. Close schools?Yup. Your default principle really just seems (with few exceptions like out of state tournaments you want to go to or stuff that is even more restrictive and authoritarian like australia) to be just obey those in charge, your attempts to rationalize that principle as something more glorious or to obfuscate notwithstanding. That’s your principle: obey…not follow the research, not listen to the experts, not follow the science…just blindly obey because those in charge know better even if there a dissenting minority and even if other countries are doing it different.
Click to expand...
The Danish mask study was fine, it just didn’t say what you think it said.

It was a solid demonstration of what a surgical mask can and cannot do to protect the wearer. You want to take that result and use it to draw conclusions about the ability of masks to reduce transmission. The study does not support that conclusion, but there you are making it anyway.

This is a recurring theme on this thread. Grace finds an interesting paper, and blatantly misrepresents the findings. Same as the Bangladesh study. And several before that.

You’re treating the research, and the researchers, as nothing more than tokens to be counted on my side versus your side. Contents of the paper? Who cares. The important question is whose side they are on.
 
dad4 said:
The Danish mask study was fine, it just didn’t say what you think it said.

It was a solid demonstration of what a surgical mask can and cannot do to protect the wearer. You want to take that result and use it to draw conclusions about the ability of masks to reduce transmission. The study does not support that conclusion, but there you are making it anyway.

This is a recurring theme on this thread. Grace finds an interesting paper, and blatantly misrepresents the findings. Same as the Bangladesh study. And several before that.

You’re treating the research, and the researchers, as nothing more than tokens to be counted on my side versus your side. Contents of the paper? Who cares. The important question is whose side they are on.
Click to expand...
You are deflecting again. Like always you choose to ignore those studies thar cut against you (Texas), distinguish those in the middle (Bangladesh, danish) and embrace those that support your priors (cdc)

you miss the recurring theme: it’s that the science research and policies you support are always those from whoever is in charge even when they are in the minority. And your answer is always the same: obey shut up and stop complaining.
 
Grace T. said:
And your answer is always the same: obey shut up and stop complaining.
Click to expand...
Dad needs to lose his job and opportunities to make a buck so he can relate to others not in his fake bubble. He has a tenured math job for life. I have a pal WHO can't even speak an opinion at his school lunch room or he will get retaliated against and sent out to Victorville or Blythe to teach.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
You've said your piece. I've said mine. But since I like the myopic magic blender image...

One thing I believe to be true is that the data never speaks for itself. What data the public sees and how it comes to them are selective processes, both from the researchers that produce it and rising forces that seek to distort and manipulate it for their own purposes. Smoke and mirrors indeed. Way I see it, everybody works with a myopic magic blender plugged in between their shoulder blades, scientists, policy makers, digitial world bad actors, soccer parents, everybody. You, me, we get to choose what to feed into our blenders. You choose risk assessment/policy/government overreach asshole stuff; I choose IL6 feedback circuitry, MIS-C hypotheticals, etc. Whatever. We get to stop when it all homogenizes into a tasty smoothy that makes sense to us Others don't have that luxury. Its their job, their responsibility to try and crank it all through the hopper, imperfect as that may be, and try get a sense of it. There are often surprises along the way. You may feel they are acting at a disservice, arrogant, clouding the issue, etc. If so, it is what it is. There are lessons in humility for all of us in this pandemic. For most of us, there will be no consequences for not learning.
Click to expand...
Thank you for proving my point. Your gaslighting by saying don't take the data at face value. I encourage you to read the Appeals Court ruling, while some of it is specific to OSHA, it really lays out clearly why mandates are fatally flawed.
 
Grace T. said:
You are deflecting again. Like always you choose to ignore those studies thar cut against you (Texas), distinguish those in the middle (Bangladesh, danish) and embrace those that support your priors (cdc)

you miss the recurring theme: it’s that the science research and policies you support are always those from whoever is in charge even when they are in the minority. And your answer is always the same: obey shut up and stop complaining.
Click to expand...
Distinguishing? You mean I read the study, think about the methods used and the results obtained, and try to understand what it does and does not demonstrate.

Of course. That’s what you’re supposed to do. Studies are best when they are tools for understanding, not cudgels to be used against political opponents.

If you think “the Texas study” is helpful towards building understanding, post a link.

On the other hand, if it’s just your favorite rhetorical cudgel, don’t bother. I can read it and tell you what it really means, but you’ll just find some other study to misinterpret.
 
Grace T. said:
The chief difference though is those of team panic/safety and those on team reality/team virus is when all is said and done we’ve been right (and not even close) far more than you all. If you look at the list of where dad4 has been willing (kicking and screaming) to admit he’s moved, he’s moved far more than any of us. Now it is a fair argument to say that we’ll they had to be more cautious because they were in charge, had imperfect information and lives were at stake, but that doesn’t justify the continuing non acknowledgement that hey we were wrong and we are sorry we caused such collateral damage starting first and foremost with the children
Click to expand...

"Team virus". Just a game. I want a T-shirt.

Real quick. Since you like trotting out these cohort studies and throwing them on one side of the scales or another. I think its cool you like browsing around. You should try popping the hood on some of these studies and start poking around. You might find it more fun. Like that Nature article you posted a bit ago. Nice piece of work. It's not saying what you attributed to it, but it's really a remarkable finding about the the flexibility of our amazing immune systems. But what I thought I'd ask is this. So, in the CDC overview of the set of extant cohort studies I posted in response to "looking at the data" one topline was what's below. What do you think it means? It's really a restatement of data you've posted previously, and it has a direct bearing on why the findings of these cohort studies bounce around in a way that let's you play with the whole "team natural immunity" vs. "team vaccine immunity" silliness.


"Multiple studies have shown that antibody titers correlate with protection at a population level, but protective titers at the individual level remain unknown".
 
dad4 said:
The Danish mask study was fine, it just didn’t say what you think it said.

It was a solid demonstration of what a surgical mask can and cannot do to protect the wearer. You want to take that result and use it to draw conclusions about the ability of masks to reduce transmission. The study does not support that conclusion, but there you are making it anyway.

This is a recurring theme on this thread. Grace finds an interesting paper, and blatantly misrepresents the findings. Same as the Bangladesh study. And several before that.

You’re treating the research, and the researchers, as nothing more than tokens to be counted on my side versus your side. Contents of the paper? Who cares. The important question is whose side they are on.
Click to expand...
Speaking of the Danish study not saying what Grace thinks. Your case hyping contradicts the ability of mask to reduce transmission.
 
Grace T. said:
You are deflecting again. Like always you choose to ignore those studies thar cut against you (Texas), distinguish those in the middle (Bangladesh, danish) and embrace those that support your priors (cdc)

you miss the recurring theme: it’s that the science research and policies you support are always those from whoever is in charge even when they are in the minority. And your answer is always the same: obey shut up and stop complaining.
Click to expand...
It's hilarious to see him accuse you of doing or thinking the same as he does in his post.
 
watfly said:
Thank you for proving my point. Your gaslighting by saying don't take the data at face value. I encourage you to read the Appeals Court ruling, while some of it is specific to OSHA, it really lays out clearly why mandates are fatally flawed.
Click to expand...
Hey bro, if you mandate your employee to jab or lose job, is the employer now reliable for this employee 24/7 365 dayz out of the year?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top