- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: White House preparing for major narrative shift: sudden deaths = Long COVID, not the vaxx.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 1:28 pm to David_DJS
Posted on 1/13/23 at 1:28 pm to David_DJS
quote:Remember the UK guy saying 8-10 million would be dead in a year? I watched with great entertainment (as a numeric modeler)... the Washington STate models be continually... wrong. In March 2020 they were predicting 0-covid by the following August.
Who specializes in making retarded calls about lockdowns for a virus like C19?
And notice... there is no accountability for those people. None. They are still "experts".
0
Posted on 1/13/23 at 1:34 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Doctors and medical groups wanted the nation shut down., totally oblivious to the social and economic costs, areas they're ignorant.
The smartest people in the world are big picture thinkers. Doctors and Medical people are rarely capable of that.
You see it in this very thread…a religious devotion to a study or a group without any thought or concern about the quality or integrity of the raw data.
These type of people who live in the trees should never be decision makers.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 1:38 pm to GumboPot
How long is the vax in your system? If you need boosters that tells me it shouldn't last long. So the side effects should be fairly recent after your shot, no?
Posted on 1/13/23 at 1:47 pm to GumboPot
I read the Ethical Skeptic religiously through the "pandemic" - he has proven reliably accurate.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 1:47 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Who else is going to do the science, Flats? Maybe you trust AI more or we can contract with 100% trustworthy aliens?
Now you're going from one cheap rhetorical trick to another. Do better.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 1:50 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
But we can probably come up with ways that give people better justifications to trust experts.
Good, TigerDoc! You're getting it now; experts should be trustworthy if they don't want people ignoring their sage input. They shouldn't lie and they shouldn't base their advice on politics. I think if they can manage those two simple things people will have better justifications to trust experts.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 2:04 pm to GumboPot
quote:
What is causing the massive 30 sigma spike we are currently seeing?
Posted on 1/13/23 at 2:11 pm to Taxing Authority
Do people realize how impossible a 30 sigma is under normal circumstances?
These are not normal circumstances.
These are not normal circumstances.
This post was edited on 1/13/23 at 2:12 pm
Posted on 1/13/23 at 2:15 pm to Flats
It's fine to be glib, the problem is still there - a significant problem in science is that it's made of agents who may not be trustworthy. Who are the agents you'd have to do the science?
It's also fine to say that experts should be trustworthy, but there's an additional problem of all sorts of intermediaries in trust networks (science reporters, editorial boards, courts, annoying message board posters like myself, social media cohorts) who bring us most of the information we have about our experts.
There are obvious trust problems there too.
My point is we can't simply insist experts be trustworthy. How would we know if they were in the corrupted and polluted information space we live in?
It's also fine to say that experts should be trustworthy, but there's an additional problem of all sorts of intermediaries in trust networks (science reporters, editorial boards, courts, annoying message board posters like myself, social media cohorts) who bring us most of the information we have about our experts.
There are obvious trust problems there too.
My point is we can't simply insist experts be trustworthy. How would we know if they were in the corrupted and polluted information space we live in?
Posted on 1/13/23 at 2:21 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
My point is we can't simply insist experts be trustworthy. How would we know if they were in the corrupted and polluted information space we live in?
Why are you going on about this? It doesn't mean anything practical.
Let me ask you - Covid lockdowns beyond the initial 15 days (which didn't make sense, either, but whatever), did you support them. If so, why? If not, why not?
Posted on 1/13/23 at 2:30 pm to David_DJS
It actually is quite practical - we have increased conflicts with others due to difficulties with agreement on trustworthiness of sources (e.g., I trust the CDC more than the ethical skeptic, but you probably do the reverse). How can that be resolved?
I supported lockdowns based on the consensus understanding of the illness transmission models at the time - droplet borne infection with a relatively low R0. I'm not very confident in this, however. I try to stay aware of the limitations in my understanding. None of these are my field.
I supported lockdowns based on the consensus understanding of the illness transmission models at the time - droplet borne infection with a relatively low R0. I'm not very confident in this, however. I try to stay aware of the limitations in my understanding. None of these are my field.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 2:31 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
The consensus position is that these vaccines are comparably safe to other vaccines in the short term, that the long-term is not known as they've only been around for 2 years, but that the community's priors are that they're reasonably safe to give with respect to long-term risks which are are usually minimal with vaccines and provided there be ongoing research (which is happening) to monitor them
So in summation, you have been a full of shite, word salad poster for the last 2 years on all Covid and vax related threads. You should have just stopped with "no track record of mRNA" with respects to worldwide inoculation. All of that other crap you spewed above is gaslighting bullshite.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 2:40 pm to Tomatocantender
If you have reasons why this wasn't ready to go full-scale in 2020 after first studies in 2001, tell me why. You might be right.
We're actually in a better public health situation because of these vaccines.
In an alternative timeline, the populist movement might have embraced these and celebrated them as being an accomplishment of American know-how, lording it over the terrible Chinese vaccine. But we've gotten people embracing an extreme form of skepticism that's beyond the evidence.
We're actually in a better public health situation because of these vaccines.
In an alternative timeline, the populist movement might have embraced these and celebrated them as being an accomplishment of American know-how, lording it over the terrible Chinese vaccine. But we've gotten people embracing an extreme form of skepticism that's beyond the evidence.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 2:50 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
If you have reasons why this wasn't ready to go full-scale in 2020 after first studies in 2001, tell me why. You might be right
Transparency and medical ethics. The mRNA approach was not ready to be a one-shot-fits-all approach. That was extremely irresponsible for the entire medical community to not speak up. Criminal actually. mRNA for an airborne virus with a 2 r Naught should have been targeted at elderly, compassion care continuity, and co-morbidity folks. Period. And that's before we even get into the unilateral mandates with zero transparency against the effective prophylaxis out there that was shitcanned.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 2:52 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
My point is we can't simply insist experts be trustworthy.
I'm not insisting on anything; it's a simple "if...then" statement. You're the one whose main concern appears to be that the commoners aren't qualified to reach their own conclusions. I'm telling you that IF you want them to trust the experts THEN the experts shouldn't piss down their back and tell them it's rain. Because once they do that, the commoner (who may not be an infectious disease expert but knows what piss smells like) won't pay attention to them any longer.
This post was edited on 1/13/23 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 1/13/23 at 2:57 pm to Flats
I agree with you that experts need to be better. Common ground.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 2:58 pm to Penrod
quote:
Anyway, this will resolve itself with one good, honest academic study. Who is dying? Were they vaxed? If it’s long-covid then we’ll have the same instance of dropping dead among both cohorts - vaxed and unvaxed.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 2:59 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
But we've gotten people embracing an extreme form of skepticism that's beyond the evidence.
I'd say most likely because in the last 6-7 years the curtain is being pulled back on how much we are lied to by the political/ruling class. We've only seen the tip of the iceberg in terms of lies we've been fed.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 3:03 pm to Tomatocantender
That's an interesting perspective - the general population should have been offered only J&J starting when it was ready around March 2021 or so? It would've been a big ask to not offer 2 vaccines that were both highly effective at preventing transmission in their initial studies across a broad age range from getting approved at a stage in the pandemic where we didn't have effective treatments yet.
Page 14 of 16
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News