Vaccine

dad4 said:
Remember that, back when that article was published, you were still convinced that diseases do not display exponential growth. Grace was convinced that masks don’t work because people touch them. I was convinced that the initial IFR was correct. Epidemiologists were convinced it was important to limit access to outdoor gathering spaces. Not much room for any of us to brag about how right we were on any of those points.

I’m not saying the academics get everything right. I’m saying other groups are worse.

As an example, in April, we had to decide on what to do with recovered patients. The political answer was send them back, which is what New York and New Jersey did. The medical answer was keep them away from others, which is what Florida and California did. That worked out better.
Click to expand...


Err, they didn't display exponential growth (at least not the way the experts were talking about). That was a huge failing of the models. They were all limiting curves that, depending on the variant and other factors like seasonality, eventually burned out in waves. When the experts modeled the exponential growth, they were talking about a massive wave which if people weren't locked down would continue to increase until everyone was infected. We know that didn't happen because of Florida and Sweden...eventually the waves, for reasons not fully understood, burned out, irrespective of measures taken.

Again you are misframing the argument. The touching point is if we are concerned about surfaces why aren't we concerned about masks. But I was more concerned with the materials, times of exposure, quality of masks, and outdoors, all of which turned out to be right.

I and several others told you the initial IFR was wrong. I nailed the prime IFR within .1% give or take. You were wrong. At least you admit it.

Many of us said the epidemiologists were wrong about outdoors too. We were right.

You can try to frame this however you want to save face but the bottom line is team reality was much more on point about everything than team panic, which was wrong about almost everything.
 
Grace T. said:
Err, they didn't display exponential growth (at least not the way the experts were talking about). That was a huge failing of the models. They were all limiting curves that, depending on the variant and other factors like seasonality, eventually burned out in waves. When the experts modeled the exponential growth, they were talking about a massive wave which if people weren't locked down would continue to increase until everyone was infected. We know that didn't happen because of Florida and Sweden...eventually the waves, for reasons not fully understood, burned out, irrespective of measures taken.

Again you are misframing the argument. The touching point is if we are concerned about surfaces why aren't we concerned about masks. But I was more concerned with the materials, times of exposure, quality of masks, and outdoors, all of which turned out to be right.

I and several others told you the initial IFR was wrong. I nailed the prime IFR within .1% give or take. You were wrong. At least you admit it.

Many of us said the epidemiologists were wrong about outdoors too. We were right.

You can try to frame this however you want to save face but the bottom line is team reality was much more on point about everything than team panic, which was wrong about almost everything.
Click to expand...
Game-Set-Match...take the L @dad4
 
Grace T. said:
Err, they didn't display exponential growth (at least not the way the experts were talking about). That was a huge failing of the models. They were all limiting curves that, depending on the variant and other factors like seasonality, eventually burned out in waves. When the experts modeled the exponential growth, they were talking about a massive wave which if people weren't locked down would continue to increase until everyone was infected. We know that didn't happen because of Florida and Sweden...eventually the waves, for reasons not fully understood, burned out, irrespective of measures taken.

Again you are misframing the argument. The touching point is if we are concerned about surfaces why aren't we concerned about masks. But I was more concerned with the materials, times of exposure, quality of masks, and outdoors, all of which turned out to be right.

I and several others told you the initial IFR was wrong. I nailed the prime IFR within .1% give or take. You were wrong. At least you admit it.

Many of us said the epidemiologists were wrong about outdoors too. We were right.

You can try to frame this however you want to save face but the bottom line is team reality was much more on point about everything than team panic, which was wrong about almost everything.
Click to expand...
Not exponential?

What are you talking about? Doubling times were extremely consistent back then. Plot the early cases on log paper. You get an almost perfectly straight line, right up until just after the lockdowns started.
 
dad4 said:
Remember that, back when that article was published, you were still convinced that diseases do not display exponential growth. Grace was convinced that masks don’t work because people touch them. I was convinced that the initial IFR was correct. Epidemiologists were convinced it was important to limit access to outdoor gathering spaces. Not much room for any of us to brag about how right we were on any of those points.

I’m not saying the academics get everything right. I’m saying other groups are worse.

As an example, in April, we had to decide on what to do with recovered patients. The political answer was send them back, which is what New York and New Jersey did. The medical answer was keep them away from others, which is what Florida and California did. That worked out better.
Click to expand...
Actually there wasn't exponential growth in perpetuity, regardless I'm not holding myself out as an expert. Experts shouldn't speculate (because there is an implied sense of credibility which people like you fall for), if they don't have the evidence they should STFU.

When that article was published, my buddy who works at Scripps posted it on social media. I said it was BS fear mongering. How did I know that? It didn't pass the smell test and I've dealt with enough academia "experts" in court cases to know they rely on the theoretical. In the real world you get fired for making a prediction without any merit. These idiots are protected by tenure.
 
dad4 said:
Not exponential?

What are you talking about? Doubling times were extremely consistent back then. Plot the early cases on log paper. You get an almost perfectly straight line, right up until just after the lockdowns started.
Click to expand...

That's hilarious. Then you wouldn't have Sweden. You wouldn't have Florida. You wouldn't have Los Angeles, which curve looked very different. In Belgium in winter the curve turned the day the measures were announced.

The models were wrong. Now you are just blatantly engaging in historical revisionism. You are better than that.
 
Grace T. said:
That's hilarious. Then you wouldn't have Sweden. You wouldn't have Florida. You wouldn't have Los Angeles, which curve looked very different. In Belgium in winter the curve turned the day the measures were announced.

The models were wrong. Now you are just blatantly engaging in historical revisionism. You are better than that.
Click to expand...
Except exponential fits his claims perfectly. It grows exponentially until there are restrictions, then it gets better and we get complacent or restrictions loosened then it grows exponentially again, more restrictions...rinse and repeat. From his perspective our policies create the waves and not the virus itself. Never mind what happened in other countries without lockdowns or the fact there was a wave after the vast majority were vaccinated. Fear the wave.
 
dad4 said:
As an example, in April, we had to decide on what to do with recovered patients. The political answer was send them back, which is what New York and New Jersey did. The medical answer was keep them away from others, which is what Florida and California did. That worked out better.
Click to expand...
The arrogance you accused Grace of "bolded".
 
Australians remain in the soul-suffocating grip of Covid Derangement Syndrome

If you’re screening and excluding family members from Christmas lunch according to their vaccination status, you’re doing Christmas all wrong.

But Australia’s top rating breakfast television program suggested on Friday that you do just that.

Channel Seven’s Sunrise program featured a segment on “how to handle unvaccinated loved ones over the festive season”, insisting that unvaccinated family members will place everyone else in “a unique predicament” on Christmas Day.

Did mainstream media really need to go there? As if the last two years have not been divisive enough without using Christmas Day to promote fear and segregation.

Program host David Koch told viewers: “As Christmas approaches many of us will be faced with a new dilemma – how to handle unvaccinated loved ones and whether you should spend time with them over the festive season or sit next to them at Christmas dinner.”

Aldus Huxley, who said “the propogandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human”, would have been impressed.

Personally, I can’t imagine refusing to sit next to a family member – on Christmas Day no less – because they haven’t been jabbed. But that’s because I’m not a jerk. Clearly, the Sunrise producers have a different view of their audience.
 
THE LANCET:
COVID-19: stigmatising the unvaccinated is not justified


There is increasing evidence that vaccinated individuals continue to have a relevant role in transmission. In Massachusetts, USA, a total of 469 new COVID-19 cases were detected during various events in July, 2021, and 346 (74%) of these cases were in people who were fully or partly vaccinated, 274 (79%) of whom were symptomatic. Cycle threshold values were similarly low between people who were fully vaccinated (median 22·8) and people who were unvaccinated, not fully vaccinated, or whose vaccination status was unknown (median 21·5), indicating a high viral load even among people who were fully vaccinated. In the USA, a total of 10 262 COVID-19 cases were reported in vaccinated people by April 30, 2021, of whom 2725 (26·6%) were asymptomatic, 995 (9·7%) were hospitalised, and 160 (1·6%) died. In Germany, 55·4% of symptomatic COVID-19 cases in patients aged 60 years or older were in fully vaccinated individuals, and this proportion is increasing each week. In Münster, Germany, new cases of COVID-19 occurred in at least 85 (22%) of 380 people who were fully vaccinated or who had recovered from COVID-19 and who attended a nightclub. People who are vaccinated have a lower risk of severe disease but are still a relevant part of the pandemic. It is therefore wrong and dangerous to speak of a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Historically, both the USA and Germany have engendered negative experiences by stigmatising parts of the population for their skin colour or religion. I call on high-level officials and scientists to stop the inappropriate stigmatisation of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens, and to put extra effort into bringing society together.
 
… is from page 254 of the 2016 second edition of Thomas Sowell’s excellent volume Wealth, Poverty and Politics:

Unknown-15.jpeg
The crucial fact is that it is far easier to concentrate power than to concentrate knowledge.
Click to expand...
DBx: Undeniably true. It is, therefore, especially astounding that nearly all proponents of government intervention succeed in passing off as science-based their proposals for policies that will work only if sufficient knowledge is concentrated in the heads of those persons who wield concentrated power. These peddlers of faux scientific policy analyses simply assume that such concentration of knowledge not only can happen, but will happen.

If an engineer submitted a design for a bridge suspended by nothing but thin air, and in doing so announced that he assumes that gravity doesn’t operate on bridges, that engineer would of course be roundly criticized and never again asked to design a bridge (or anything else). Yet when the likes of economists, lawyers, and think-tank scholars submit – as they very often do – designs for public policy built on the assumption that the requisite knowledge will somehow be concentrated in the heads of the appropriate government officials, professors, pundits, and politicians Oooh! and Ahhh! as if they are witnessing the work of great geniuses.

The spectacle would be nothing but low comedy if the consequences weren’t so horrible.
 
National Review‘s Wesley Smith reports on the Covidocracy’s authoritarian nature – specifically here, on the demand by Francis Collins, the outgoing head of the National Institutes of Health, that those who dissent from his and other officials’ claims about Covid and Covid-mitigation efforts not only be censored, but “brought to justice.” A slice:

There are abundant reasons why our public-health leaders are less than universally trusted. For example, Anthony Fauci admitted to lying about masks early in the pandemic. He also prevaricated — at best — about U.S. goverment funding of “gain of function” viral research. And he seemed intoxicated by his fame, to the point that he often acted more like an A-list celebrity than a scientist.

Beyond personalities, people have noticed that our most prestigious scientific and medical journals have gone woke. This ideological poisoning of “science” breeds distrust in the process and the conclusions published in these journals — as I and others have written.

Not only that, but people have also noticed that many in “the science community” seem to relish their newfound power — and want to expand it beyond fighting COVID. For example, Fauci has urged that the U.N. and WHO be strengthened to “rebuild the infrastructure of human existence” to prevent future pandemics. Meanwhile, others want technocrats to be empowered to force policies on the public to fight climate change, as they have during the pandemic.
 
crush said:
My pal the teacher was told to get ready for layoffs next year in his district. It seems their losing customers everyday and word on the street they might lose 10%-15% of their customers.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to see how public schools evolve. They risk not only losing those who don't support their idealogical direction but also those high acheivers who found out they could do much more in less time when unshackled from the classroom. I don't expect public schools and their supporters to take this loss of power laying down - especially in bluer states such as CA. Expect legislation to make home schooling more difficult to be coming soon.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Not only that, but people have also noticed that many in “the science community” seem to relish their newfound power — and want to expand it beyond fighting COVID. For example, Fauci has urged that the U.N. and WHO be strengthened to “rebuild the infrastructure of human existence” to prevent future pandemics. Meanwhile, others want technocrats to be empowered to force policies on the public to fight climate change, as they have during the pandemic.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
- A. Lincoln
 
Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a Pfizer board member, told CNBC that people should get their booster as soon as possible because breakthrough infections are occurring more than the public realizes. Dr. Fraud said he is now super duper concerned about celebrating with the non-vax over the Thanksgiving and thinks this will be a very DARK WINTER! Here we go again. Nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. My pal got his 3rd jab and told me he's done and no more. My other best pal told me to just get the jab and stop holding things up. I told him again our reasons and he said they were stupid reasons. I told him again and again it ancestral from roots and he laughs. I laugh at him and we just both laugh all this off. 2020 and 2021 has been two crazy years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top