Coronavirus: The Great Unmasking

[Zardnaar]

inno, critiquing "tribes" while linking ideologically-spun content directly from anti-vaxxers. Hmm.

What I see it usthe vaccines have no real downside vs not taking them.

Even if they're 50/50 still better than no vaccine.

 

[innonimatu]

inno, critiquing "tribes" while linking ideologically-spun content directly from anti-vaxxers. Hmm.

This is an ad-hominen attack. It doesn't matter that the site which preserved the postings in better detail was "anti-vaxxer". The subject matter is what I'm pointing to. Is this a case of a lie then selected and amplified by the mass media or not?

If you have evidence you want to present, present it. The evidence given in your link was citing the CDC table claiming no deaths in under 50s, which as I explained above is wrong. There are 17 listed for 40-49, and a number between 1 and 9 in each of the 18-29 and 30-39 categories. You're the one making the claim she's a liar. Mining through county and hospital data is your homework, not mine.

Predictable. That's your style, sticking to your beliefs. The data is there and anyone interested can look at the numbers.

This medic works at Grandview Medical Center in Birmingham, according to this.
And I actually quoted a post above with Google search links that will easily give you the number of deaths where she works, in Jefferson County, in those months of May, June and July. You (and anyone else) had but to click on a link I provided, and search the numbers for that county. You refuse to and instead present bogus numbers that do not apply to this case, in an attempt to excuse the liar. You are excusing liars, what does that make you? And all because you're politically committed to a certain group and think they're members and so you must defeat the lies. Carrying on like this your country is utterly screwed. Mine is little better mind you...

Edit: Let me be clear. Even in your hypothetical that the deaths without an age group were these "young patients", the extremely few around that time, what is this medic, the hospital's death angel? IS it a one-medic hospital? Are all cases in her hospital? Her claims are impossible.
Personally, I suspect it was a case of a sadistic individual fantasizing about the "unworthy" dying. But I have to grant, It may have been a well-inteded lie, ineptly put, to lead people to vaccinate. In that case you know what they say about the path to hell... Lying to people does not persuade them, it pisses them off and makes them more resistant to the attempted influence.

 

[Gorbles]

This is an ad-hominen attack. It doesn't matter that the site which preserved the postings in better detail was "anti-vaxxer". The subject matter is what I'm pointing to. Is this a case of a lie then selected and amplified by the mass media or not?

What is an ad hominem attack? I'm describing the ideological bias of the site (which is plainly evident and makes no attempt to disguise itself) and it's self-evident goal in how it's attempting to characterise "worries" about the "vaccines". Nothing about me doing this is an ad hominem. I didn't say "the article was written by an anti-vaxxer and is therefore wrong", I explained exactly why the article was wrong, and so have others.

My point in the site being so obviously ideologically-biased is to critique your hypocritical attacks on others about belonging to "tribes". If you're going to sit there and pass judgement on "tribes", you'd best be prepared for the same thing to be levelled at you. Because it's normal human behaviour to associate with a group. However, what you're doing is (ironically) making assertions about peoples' motivations for posting the arguments they do.

Your "article" is misleading at best, and flat-out dangerous at worst. It misinterprets statistics, as you are continuing to do, to suit an anti-vaxxer, right-wing social agenda that you are apparently more than happy to defend. Them's the facts. I don't particularly care what you splutter up in response, because I tried with my first reply to you. I took the article at face value, I clicked through to the CDC table, and I explained why it was being misinterpreted. This didn't matter one iota to your midnight crusade, so hey. I tried. As usual, you completely ignore the facts when they don't support your bubble reality, and this time to boot you're accusing everyone else of lying. Amazing

 

[innonimatu]

It would have been more interesting if Covid19 was killing in a race-specific way. Now it is mostly the very old and compromised, so it might as well be regular life.

Covid Tsimiskes variant, the White Death of the Saracens, etc.

Please don't assume that. It's the immunocompromised that suffer the most from this virus, but it is also causing damage in the (relatively) young and with the current policies in place you risk catching it over and over throughout your like. Meaning you may not get to be old due to it.
The current bet is that natural immunity will tame it, if that bet is wrong we're all in for a world of pain.

@Gorbles What crusade? I chanced upon a known lie repeated here and called it. The crusaders are those who really, really want to think it wasn't a lie.

If I have a crusade here it's be honest with the public messaging. I put in a caveat about the site I linked to, didn't I? I don't endorse that site, It is just that it conveniently had the original postings and the actual critique (on point) to them. That was accurate and relevant.
It may even be that there are young people dying of covid in the hospital where this medic works, now. But her tale was a concocted lie. And I think it probably did more damage than good. Why make up lies, why carry and spread the lies, when the same positions can be defended with real data and truthful information? Because the reality is not so impressive? Well, being lied to is also very impressive, and it indisposes people tremendously!

 

[MrCynical]

Predictable. That's your style, sticking to your beliefs. The data is there and anyone interested can look at the numbers.

Funnily enough expecting the person making the claim to provide the evidence is fairly standard practice in rational debate, so I guess I'm predictable in that respect.

And I actually quoted a post above with Google search links that will easily give you the number of deaths where she works, in Jefferson County, in those months of May, June and July. You (and anyone else) had but to click on a link I provided, and search the numbers for that county. You refuse to and instead present bogus numbers that do not apply to this case, in an attempt to excuse the liar. And all because you're politically committed to a certain group and think they're members and so you must defeat the lies. Carrying on like this your country is utterly screwed. Mine is little better mind you...

Bear in mind I can only sort through stuff so fast, Innonimatu, and I've been a bit busy with the stuff you claimed was proof she was lying, and turned out not to be proof of anything except that people on anti-vaxxer websites can't read tables.

But you're almost to a coherent argument here. Well done! Now finish what you've described as "homework" and spell out your evidence she's lying, rather than directing me to a second hand search from someone with a serious agenda on a site full of garbage.

You are excusing liars, what does that make you?

Despite what you claim, I haven't excused liars anywhere. I have however insisted that if you are going to accuse someone of being a liar, your evidence had better check out. Which yours has not been, something which has been a persistent problem with the stuff you post, due to your tendency to cherry pick anything that you think supports your views. And ranting about hate and "tribes" and every other epithet you've dumped on this doctor's head hasn't done anything to get your credibility out of the mud with me either.

 

[Gorbles]

@Gorbles What crusade? I chanced upon a known lie repeated here and called it. The crusaders are those who really, really want to think it wasn't a lie.

This isn't calling out a lie:

Personally, I suspect it was a case of a sadistic individual fantasizing about the "unworthy" dying.

This is (ironically) fantasising over a made-up scenario where you can pass moral judgement on someone who you haven't even proven a liar. Get a better argument.

 

[Zardnaar]

No one's claiming vaccines are a miracle cure.

Anti vaxxers probably just a bunch of soft cocks scared of needles and don't want to admit it.

Take a concrete pill and harden the F up.

 

[innonimatu]

This is (ironically) fantasising over a made-up scenario where you can pass moral judgement on someone who you haven't even proven a liar. Get a better argument.

What for? My opinion of that person is personal opinion, I don't want to persuade you of it. Take it or leave it.

The issue of what she said, amplified by the mass media, is a matter of fact and I presented the reason why what she claimed was impossible. No point in argument further.

I will instead say one other thing, in response to the "anti-vaxx" accusations that so predictably arose here: this worship of the vaccine where no criticism can be right, it's all labeled "anti-vaxx", Is another thing tremendously wrong. This is causing real damage.

As you know the vaccines have been causing some cases of hearth inflammation. This is now acknowledged, though for months it was "disputed". Many months ago, February or march I can't recall exactly, the danish ventured an explanation: if vaccines happened to be delivered into the bloodstream the odds of causing hearth inflammation or vascular problems were higher. This makes complete sense: the mrna gets taken in cells of the vascular system, virus and thus spike protein gets released there in higher quantity that if the vaccine had been delivered intramuscular, and the toxic* effects of the spike protein when free in the bloodstream were causing these sometimes health problems.

And honest response to these problems would have been to immediately acknowledge them, investigate and change whatever required changing to lessen the problem. The danish decided to make sure that no vaccine got inadvertently delivered to the bloodstream, that's a simple extra step in the vaccination protocol. But this of course required admitting that there was a risk associated with taking the vaccine, a risk that was being thus reduced.

Many other countries refused to talk about it and afaik didn't change a think about their vaccination protocols. Now we get studies in animal models point out what the danish had suspected and acted on 4 months ago.
You see what not telling the truth causes? Delays in fixing problems. Loss of trust.


* yest it's toxic. What else is causing the vascular pathologies when ine gets infected with covid, and in the cases of myocarditis/pericarditis post-vaccination? It was obvious that the spike protein in the bloodstream is toxic. The vaccines release very little compared with an infection but it is nevertheless toxic and should be minimized as much as possible. Dosing and delivery of the vaccine matter. Instead of adjusting these, the questions were verbotten in polite society: to argue about making adjustments was to be an anti-vaxxer.
That has not been making science, that has been making politics. Bad politics because it results in errors being uncovered eventually and trust shattered, whereas admitting to and correcting mistakes should reinforce trust.

 

[Kyriakos]

No one's claiming vaccines are a miracle cure.

Anti vaxxers probably just a bunch of soft cocks scared of needles and don't want to admit it.

Take a concrete pill and harden the F up.

That's not a rational way to see it either. More meaningful to speak of risk vs gain; if you have high risk, it makes sense to do stuff even without full guarantee of benefit to you. If, on the other hand, you have low risk, it is less likely you will take chances.
Going to the extremes makes it easier to notice: if you are close to death, you will try a miracle cure without requiring full guarantee it will work.

A complication here is that neither the risk nor the benefit is sufficiently known for anyone, leading to also unknown degree of beneficiality of risking and riskiness of benefiting (those two are tied to side effects, known or potential future ones still unknown). It's multi-layered, and if you did get the vaccine you should realize that too.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's not a rational way to see it either. More meaningful to speak of risk vs gain; if you have high risk, it makes sense to do stuff even without full guarantee of benefit to you. If, on the other hand, you have low risk, it is less likely you will take chances.
Going to the extremes makes it easier to notice: if you are close to death, you will try a miracle cure without requiring full guarantee it will work.

A complication here is that neither the risk nor the benefit is sufficiently known for anyone, leading to also unknown degree of beneficiality of risking and riskiness of benefiting (those two are tied to side effects, known or potential future ones still unknown). It's multi-layered, and if you did get the vaccine you should realize that too.

I've had shot 1 shot 2 is tomorrow.

I'll listen to my doctor though vs random numbnut online. Only side effect was sounds from the mothership keeping me awake first night.

 

[Zelig]

Please don't assume that. It's the immunocompromised that suffer the most from this virus, but it is also causing damage in the (relatively) young and with the current policies in place you risk catching it over and over throughout your like. Meaning you may not get to be old due to it.

I'd bet that it likely acts like other coronaviruses. The Coronavirus Is Here Forever. This Is How We Live With It.

 

[innonimatu]

That's not a rational way to see it either. More meaningful to speak of risk vs gain; if you have high risk, it makes sense to do stuff even without full guarantee of benefit to you. If, on the other hand, you have low risk, it is less likely you will take chances.
Going to the extremes makes it easier to notice: if you are close to death, you will try a miracle cure without requiring full guarantee it will work.

A complication here is that neither the risk nor the benefit is sufficiently known for anyone, leading to also unknown degree of beneficiality of risking and riskiness of benefiting (those two are tied to side effects, known or potential future ones still unknown). It's multi-layered, and if you did get the vaccine you should realize that too.

I tried to explain this once but it went over most people's heads I believe.
In any case politics intervened. With governments hell bent on having everyone infected ("live wth covid", ordering kids back into the infection wards aka schools, etc) the calculation results shift heavily in favor of the vaccine as your odds of getting the virus approach one.

@Zelig we may be reduced now to hoping that immune memory will keep the virus' effects relatively tamed. But with the mutations we've already seen....I think this gamble will go terribly wrong.

 

[Drakle]

@innonimatu really showing their ass in how ridiculously stupid they take their anti-vaccine spiel. At least at one point, they had a fig leaf of pretence, now they have shown they are actively reading dumbass blogs and Facebook posts of anti-vaxxers, for all this inane posturing. You just can't admit you are wrong, so you trust a stupid blog's misreading of data, and still pretend that you are fact-driven.


Anyway, I'm about to have my second shot a bit later today, so going to move my vote soon.

 

[emzie]

No. "They thought because they had a certain blood type of a certain skin color they wouldn't get as sick". The tale (up until very recently indeed) has been that "minorities" are more vulnerable. The liar doesn't spell it out but the intention in alluding to skin color here is indeed unmistakable, I agree with the criticism directed at that piece of this enfabulation also.
In fact "minorities" were more exposed through work and poor living conditions. Currently, only now, that trend is changing in some areas in the US as the poor people have almost all been already exposed and finally the rich ones are getting it in large numbers, unable to evade delta anymore. But the "truth" everyone though they knew was that "minorities" were more at risk and that is what the fable alludes to.

Yes. To overly generalize, white conspiracy theorists don't think their skin colour makes them less vulnerable to covid. They don't think covid exists in the first place. In addition the BBC article I quoted from, there's this:

"Something that is scaring me, when I read the comments and some of the reactions, my people, black people, please, please understand that coronavirus is ... you can get it," Elba said. "There are so many stupid, ridiculous conspiracy theories about black people not being able to get it. ...That is the quickest way to get more black people killed. And I'm talking about the whole world, wherever we are. ... Just know you have to be just as vigilant as every other race."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk...s-dangerous-race-myths-pseudoscience-n1162326

While both articles are more than a year old, this is a view that still persists.

You all should know, this refusal to acknowledge a lie by a member of one's tribe is a real problem. And that's what I'm exposing here, why I picked this up and am insisting on this case. Both the replies and the likes make it clear that there's group-think and denial at work. This is the reason why problems can't get fixed. They're not even acknowledged because people stick to their group dogmas. The tribes' members must be right. Except they often are not!

I simply think your argument is not as persuasive as you seem to think it is.

You're back!!!

You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes. To overly generalize, white conspiracy theorists don't think their skin colour makes them less vulnerable to covid. They don't think covid exists in the first place. In addition the BBC article I quoted from, there's this:



https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk...s-dangerous-race-myths-pseudoscience-n1162326

While both articles are more than a year old, this is a view that still persists.



I simply think your argument is not as persuasive as you seem to think it is.



You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.

Yeah I've left a few times since 2003. But it always drags you back.

 

[innonimatu]

@innonimatu really showing their ass in how ridiculously stupid they take their anti-vaccine spiel. At least at one point, they had a fig leaf of pretence, now they have shown they are actively reading dumbass blogs and Facebook posts of anti-vaxxers, for all this inane posturing. You just can't admit you are wrong, so you trust a stupid blog's misreading of data, and still pretend that you are fact-driven.

I'm tired, you know? I'll try to give this a rest because posting here will hardly change anyone's view soon. And there are much better articles online expressing what I'm trying to: be honest with people. Tell them the full truth, good bits and bad bits and doubts. Don't sugar coat and don't over-promise. Trust them to decide after fully informed.

I often end up being the pessimist, bringing up the bad bits and doubts because that's what I see missing here.

 

[Zelig]

I'm tired, you know? I'll try to give this a rest because posting here will hardly change anyone's view soon. And there are much better articles online expressing what I'm trying to: be honest with people. Tell them the full truth, good bits and bad bits and doubts. Don't sugar coat and don't over-promise. Trust them to decide after fully informed.

I often end up being the pessimist, bringing up the bad bits and doubts because that's what I see missing here.

I actually don't get the feeling that politicians have over-promised per se (in the jurisdictions I care about) - because by and large, they've been too cowardly and/or incompetent to promise or commit to anything.

 

[Gorbles]

What for? My opinion of that person is personal opinion, I don't want to persuade you of it. Take it or leave it.

You said you chanced upon a "lie" and called it out. I was pointing out that that was not what you were doing.

You were making things up about a person to make her seem "bad" to you. To justify this screed of yours, with her as the current target. Does that pattern of behaviour sound familiar? I'll give you a tip: you normally criticise it

I'm tired, you know? I'll try to give this a rest because posting here will hardly change anyone's view soon. And there are much better articles online expressing what I'm trying to: be honest with people. Tell them the full truth, good bits and bad bits and doubts. Don't sugar coat and don't over-promise. Trust them to decide after fully informed.

This is nonsense. Arguments about vaccine efficacy doesn't mean people shouldn't take the vaccine. People should still get vaccinated. This is you (not this new article) being in clear anti-xavver territory, with your whining about "tribes" to boot.

Get vaccinated. Or have a much higher risk of dying from a particularly lethal SARS-derived virus. For once, it's a personal choice (assuming vaccine availability and a lack of discrimination in selection).

I often end up being the pessimist, bringing up the bad bits and doubts because that's what I see missing here.

Linking to what amounts to a conservative blog making stuff up about doctors online (the original thing you shared) is not "being the pessimist". It's clutching at straws.

 

[Zardnaar]

On the eve of lockdown alcohol sales up 500% with one town over 700%.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...f-alert-level-4-supermarkets-do-roaring-trade

 

[Samson]

I'd bet that it likely acts like other coronaviruses. The Coronavirus Is Here Forever. This Is How We Live With It.

Yeah, but which coronaviruses? From a immunological perspective SARS-CoV-2 is much more like SARS-CoV than 229E in that much more of the immune system is exposed to the antigen. If we get decade plus immunity as with SARS-CoV it is quite possible that the R will drop below 1 without restrictions, in which case it will go away. We should not rely on this happening, but we cannot discount it either.