I can see perfectly what you are doing. And I find it more interesting in who you chose to carry water for, than this topic which in 5-8 years is going to look completely different than what was hysterically reported on by the CDC, media, and other "influential" people. Hint: It already is starting to look different as the political spotlight wanes and actual scientific principles (based on past research) are being applied without the magnifying lens of political "fame".
That said, carry on on with your slap fight with SG.
In the light of history this is going to be seen as one of the worst pandemics of the modern era. Maybe THE worst depending on how it ends up comparing to the Spanish Flu. And the anti vax, anti mask, anti public health controls stuff we are dealing with now is going to be seen in a negative light.
There is absolutely no question, none, that the smart thing would be to do what public health officials recommend that you do and that the situation would not be as bad or have been as bad if people had done that instead of listening to right wing nuts.
The science is settled?
Re: Coronavirus COVID-19
Posted: Wed May 11, 2022 1:54 pm
by JohnStOnge
Now that I am getting into the field again and having to drive I listen to the dark side some. In this case it's the guys who replaced Rush Limbaugh. They are even worse in terms of misinformation. Today, I once again heard reference to the "Johns Hopkins Study" that is supposed to have shown that lockdowns didn't work.
At this point one would THINK they would know that the study has been widely panned. And it's not a "Johns Hopkins Study." One of the three authors...who are economists and not medical scientists, epidemiologists, or anything like that, is affiliated with Johns Hopkins and he posted it on the Johns Hopkins site.
This is ridiculous. The study is by economists. That right there should make any reasonable person take it with a grain of salt. At least with respect to the part about the effect of lockdowns on the disease situation. It's not that they HAVE to be wrong because they are economists. But you have an obvious consensus among public health professionals, epidemiologists, etc., that lockdowns did reduce deaths and ONE working paper by ECONOMISTS comes out and the denialists jump all over it as thought it nixes everything the actual medical scientists, public health professionals, epidemiologists, etc. say.
In the light of history this is going to be seen as one of the worst pandemics of the modern era. Maybe THE worst depending on how it ends up comparing to the Spanish Flu. And the anti vax, anti mask, anti public health controls stuff we are dealing with now is going to be seen in a negative light.
There is absolutely no question, none, that the smart thing would be to do what public health officials recommend that you do and that the situation would not be as bad or have been as bad if people had done that instead of listening to right wing nuts.
The science is settled?
The question with respect to listening to public health professionals is settled. Public health professionals will, when the science is NOT settled, take an approach whereby, if they err, they will err on the side of public health. And that is the smart way to do it The science is settled with respect to vaccines. We would be better off if we had 100% vaccination according to the current recommendations. It is settled with respect to masks. If we could get everybody to wear masks transmission would be significantly reduced. It's just a question of whether the threat is high enough at any given time to recommend that.
In the light of history this is going to be seen as one of the worst pandemics of the modern era. Maybe THE worst depending on how it ends up comparing to the Spanish Flu. And the anti vax, anti mask, anti public health controls stuff we are dealing with now is going to be seen in a negative light.
There is absolutely no question, none, that the smart thing would be to do what public health officials recommend that you do and that the situation would not be as bad or have been as bad if people had done that instead of listening to right wing nuts.
The science is settled?
I know. All I've done is parrot over 100 years of pandemic and respiratory illness knowledge and wisdom, but am now somehow a spreader of misinformation. Good thing we now have a Ministry of Truth!
The question with respect to listening to public health professionals is settled. Public health professionals will, when the science is NOT settled, take an approach whereby, if they err, they will err on the side of public health. And that is the smart way to do it The science is settled with respect to vaccines. We would be better off if we had 100% vaccination according to the current recommendations. It is settled with respect to masks. If we could get everybody to wear masks transmission would be significantly reduced. It's just a question of whether the threat is high enough at any given time to recommend that.
You're inching closer and closer to zero-COVID as this thread goes on. Is the "St" in the middle of your name pronounced "Xi" by any chance?
The question with respect to listening to public health professionals is settled. Public health professionals will, when the science is NOT settled, take an approach whereby, if they err, they will err on the side of public health. And that is the smart way to do it The science is settled with respect to vaccines. We would be better off if we had 100% vaccination according to the current recommendations. It is settled with respect to masks. If we could get everybody to wear masks transmission would be significantly reduced. It's just a question of whether the threat is high enough at any given time to recommend that.
You're inching closer and closer to zero-COVID as this thread goes on. Is the "St" in the middle of your name pronounced "Xi" by any chance?
The question with respect to listening to public health professionals is settled. Public health professionals will, when the science is NOT settled, take an approach whereby, if they err, they will err on the side of public health. And that is the smart way to do it The science is settled with respect to vaccines. We would be better off if we had 100% vaccination according to the current recommendations. It is settled with respect to masks. If we could get everybody to wear masks transmission would be significantly reduced. It's just a question of whether the threat is high enough at any given time to recommend that.
Man are you terrible at trolling. Worse than Houndawg.
I know. All I've done is parrot over 100 years of pandemic and respiratory illness knowledge and wisdom, but am now somehow a spreader of misinformation. Good thing we now have a Ministry of Truth!
You are not parroting the current State of knowledge with respect to those things. I interpret what you are doing as questioning the wisdom of everybody getting vaccinated per current recommendations. If you are not, I misinterpreted you. But, if you are, you are disagreeing with the American Medical Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the CDC, the FDA, the WHO, etc. Basically the consensus of the national and world public health community.
The question with respect to listening to public health professionals is settled. Public health professionals will, when the science is NOT settled, take an approach whereby, if they err, they will err on the side of public health. And that is the smart way to do it The science is settled with respect to vaccines. We would be better off if we had 100% vaccination according to the current recommendations. It is settled with respect to masks. If we could get everybody to wear masks transmission would be significantly reduced. It's just a question of whether the threat is high enough at any given time to recommend that.
Man are you terrible at trolling. Worse than Houndawg.
I know. All I've done is parrot over 100 years of pandemic and respiratory illness knowledge and wisdom, but am now somehow a spreader of misinformation. Good thing we now have a Ministry of Truth!
You are not parroting the current State of knowledge with respect to those things. I interpret what you are doing as questioning the wisdom of everybody getting vaccinated per current recommendations. If you are not, I misinterpreted you. But, if you are, you are disagreeing with the American Medical Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the CDC, the FDA, the WHO, etc. Basically the consensus of the national and world public health community.
Yes. We've seen how well the vaccination, masking and isolation has gone. About the same as those who didn't care.
Your consensus has been proven catastrophically wrong. Went against history and experience.
You're at step 2 of the process. The next step will be switching jerseys. "I was always for targeted isolation and vaccination".
The question with respect to listening to public health professionals is settled. Public health professionals will, when the science is NOT settled, take an approach whereby, if they err, they will err on the side of public health. And that is the smart way to do it The science is settled with respect to vaccines. We would be better off if we had 100% vaccination according to the current recommendations. It is settled with respect to masks. If we could get everybody to wear masks transmission would be significantly reduced. It's just a question of whether the threat is high enough at any given time to recommend that.
No on vaccines - especially ones that require 4 shots and are 12% effective after a week.
No on masks - especially when for YEARS prior to COVID, WHO and CDC both said masks were ineffective at halting/reducing the spread of flu viruses
No on lockdowns - proven to actually INCREASE rates of the virus
No on sending seniors back to nursing homes - they became kill zones
So yes, the science is and has been settled. Just not in the way the politicians chose to weaponize it.
In the light of history this is going to be seen as one of the worst pandemics of the modern era. Maybe THE worst depending on how it ends up comparing to the Spanish Flu. And the anti vax, anti mask, anti public health controls stuff we are dealing with now is going to be seen in a negative light.
There is absolutely no question, none, that the smart thing would be to do what public health officials recommend that you do and that the situation would not be as bad or have been as bad if people had done that instead of listening to right wing nuts.
The science is settled?
For him it is.
Good thing people following Archimedes didn't stop questioning things. We could still be thinking that the Earth is flat.
Re: Coronavirus COVID-19
Posted: Thu May 12, 2022 8:48 pm
by SDHornet
Re: Coronavirus COVID-19
Posted: Thu May 12, 2022 9:05 pm
by UNI88
Winterborn wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 1:49 pm
The science is settled?
For him it is.
Good thing people following Archimedes didn't stop questioning things. We could still be thinking that the Earth is flat.
JohnStOnge wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 1:54 pm
Now that I am getting into the field again and having to drive I listen to the dark side some. In this case it's the guys who replaced Rush Limbaugh. They are even worse in terms of misinformation. Today, I once again heard reference to the "Johns Hopkins Study" that is supposed to have shown that lockdowns didn't work.
At this point one would THINK they would know that the study has been widely panned. And it's not a "Johns Hopkins Study." One of the three authors...who are economists and not medical scientists, epidemiologists, or anything like that, is affiliated with Johns Hopkins and he posted it on the Johns Hopkins site.
This is ridiculous. The study is by economists. That right there should make any reasonable person take it with a grain of salt. At least with respect to the part about the effect of lockdowns on the disease situation. It's not that they HAVE to be wrong because they are economists. But you have an obvious consensus among public health professionals, epidemiologists, etc., that lockdowns did reduce deaths and ONE working paper by ECONOMISTS comes out and the denialists jump all over it as thought it nixes everything the actual medical scientists, public health professionals, epidemiologists, etc. say.
The purpose of economists is to give astrologers credibility.
You are not parroting the current State of knowledge with respect to those things. I interpret what you are doing as questioning the wisdom of everybody getting vaccinated per current recommendations. If you are not, I misinterpreted you. But, if you are, you are disagreeing with the American Medical Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the CDC, the FDA, the WHO, etc. Basically the consensus of the national and world public health community.
Yes. We've seen how well the vaccination, masking and isolation has gone. About the same as those who didn't care.
Your consensus has been proven catastrophically wrong. Went against history and experience.
You're at step 2 of the process. The next step will be switching jerseys. "I was always for targeted isolation and vaccination".
Don't get vaccinated. You know your rights - don't let the libtards sucker you into getting injected with Bill Gates' zombie vaccine.
Yes. We've seen how well the vaccination, masking and isolation has gone. About the same as those who didn't care.
Your consensus has been proven catastrophically wrong. Went against history and experience.
You're at step 2 of the process. The next step will be switching jerseys. "I was always for targeted isolation and vaccination".
Don't get vaccinated. You know your rights - don't let the libtards sucker you into getting injected with Bill Gates' zombie vaccine.
I've stated from the beginning, those at risk and those wanting a shot are free to take as many as they like. I'll wait until it's actually needed, like when I'm older than 65 to get mine.
Don't get vaccinated. You know your rights - don't let the libtards sucker you into getting injected with Bill Gates' zombie vaccine.
I've stated from the beginning, those at risk and those wanting a shot are free to take as many as they like. I'll wait until it's actually needed, like when I'm older than 65 to get mine.
My body, my choice. Right?
WTF? Where did you ever get THAT ridiculous concept?
