What, no Chatty Cathies? No name-calling? You guys aren't living down to your reputation. And you act like learning the CDC lies to you about Covid deaths is a BAD thing. No, it's a GOOD thing to learn. Now that you know the truth, you can begin disregarding the bogus social control measures that your states and cities have placed on you.

This article bears repeating:

Actual Covid death rate should be 90% lower
"Had the CDC used its industry standard, Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting Revision 2003, as it has for all other causes of death for the last 17 years, the COVID-19 fatality count would be approximately 90.2% lower than it currently is..."
childrenshealthdefense.org/news/if-covi ... reopening/

For the Wuhan virus the CDC made a change on how they fill out death certificates. And the result is...what? Help me with my math here. If the actual number of deaths should be 90% lower then that's like, 9 out of 10 counted Covid deaths weren't actually Covid?

Imagine my surprise.

Anthony Fauci helped transfer the SARS-2 virus to Wuhan when the US outlawed experimentation with chimerical viruses. Now Fauci's virus has been released, but the death numbers just aren't there. But he's still plugging away, arguing against an effective treatment while his boss (Bill Gates) goes for the Kill Shot.

Fauci and his NIH lied to us, the WHO lied to us, and the CDC lied to us. Fauci should be arrested for questioning.

JAIL FAUCI: New Report Compares Turkey COVID Treatment with HCQ vs. USA Without HCQ and the Results Are Crystal Clear
thegatewaypundit.com/2020/08/jail-fauci ... tal-clear/

ant wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:

ant wrote:I've read The Plague 3x. The late Robert Solomon suggests The Plague is a philosophical consideration of the evils perpetrated by Nazi Germany in 1943-1945

That is just one rather oblique and metaphorical interpretation of a multi-faceted book. The psychology of dealing with a plague is quite different from the psychology of dealing with Nazi invaders.

Oh, it`s "just one" interpretation of The Plague?
I thought it was the only interpretation of it. Thanks for enlightening me. I just can't wait for you to start claiming that The Plague is really about astrology.

Very troll. As I said, The Plague is mainly about the existential psychology of how a community deals with an epidemic. Its relevance today for response to the Covid pandemic is far clearer in terms of the psychology of epidemic than the Nazi metaphor, which is a superficial and partial reading that deflects from the core theme of social epidemiology. The Nazi invasion of France was not an epidemic, and pretending that Camus was primarily writing a symbolic parable of the war misses the main content of the book. There are echoes of the German occupation, such as collaboration and the feeling of oppression and separation, but these are secondary to the main theme of response to an epidemic. The plague itself is personified in the book as displaying an active intentional agency in ways that are completely different from any Nazi reading.

On your comment about astrology, my analysis of the astrological content of religious work is precise and empirical. I understand that many bigoted people are in a state of denial about such metaphorical meaning, but the point is that we should analyse creative material against what it actually says, not what we want it to say.

Similarly with The Plague, a big theme at the start of the book is the denial that an epidemic is occurring. That denial was not a luxury afforded to the French under German occupation, showing a first instance of how this war metaphor fails. It is readily apparent that readers of the book wanted to find this war metaphor in it, and were indifferent to the main epidemic theme, having just lived through a war, not an epidemic. The brilliance of Camus is in his seeing the power of plague as a recurring historical theme, such that his direct observations only make full sense now as the world again grapples with this existential reality.

Tony Judt's Introduction - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/ ... lbertcamus

My first question about the article presented by the anti-vaccine organization Children's Health Defense was, who are the authors? The article wants to be taken as a scientific paper, has a bunch of authors as scientific papers do, but nowhere is information given about the authors. That's not standard practice. Is "S. Gupta" Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN fame? I'd like to know. Dr. Gupta has recommended reopening schools, with stringent requirements in place, but would he lend his name to such a severe downplaying of covid-19? That would be surprising in view of his recent work on CNN--definitely not a virus minimizer. It could be a different S. Gupta, but in any case we need background and qualifications on all of the authors.

CDH has a credibility bar to leap, since its conspiratorial leanings are well known. It should conform to scientific practice.

Dwill wrote:My first question about the article presented by the anti-vaccine organization Children's Health Defense was, who are the authors?

It's a quack site for quackerjacks like KS.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/children ... h-defense/

https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/04/01/an ... racy-14681

Quackerjack wrote:What, no Chatty Cathies? No name-calling? You guys aren't living down to your reputation.

We don't name call.

The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed yesterday, called "The Hidden Danger of Masks." It's very true that the science is mixed (and complex) and that more studies are needed to determine the efficacy of face masks. There's a a lot of variation in the quality of cloth face coverings that you can buy. Some of them are practically worthless; wearing a bandana, for example, is probably not a very good choice. It's also important to understand that the CDC recommends (good quality) face coverings in conjunction with social distancing.

An excerpt:

The question of how well masks prevent transmission and infection requires far more study. The decision to wear a mask would seem to be cost-free, apart from minor discomfort. But absolutism about masks and disregard for scientific uncertainties may promote a false sense of security that encourages risky behavior—including massive political protests.

The op-ed arguably goes a bit too far, especially with the "hidden dangers" of wearing face coverings. There's a certain amount of caveat emptor at work here. Buy good quality masks that fit your face well and be sure to wash them frequently. And obviously being in crowds is risky behavior. But otherwise the piece is right on with regard to absolutism about the science. We really don't know how well face coverings actually work, only that in conjunction with social distancing they seem to help keep transmission rates down.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hidden ... 1596561689

I'm all for wearing face masks

I can't believe I let you people breathe on me for years.

geo wrote:The op-ed arguably goes a bit too far, especially with the "hidden dangers" of wearing face coverings. There's a certain amount of caveat emptor at work here. Buy good quality masks that fit your face well and be sure to wash them frequently. And obviously being in crowds is risky behavior. But otherwise the piece is right on with regard to absolutism about the science. We really don't know how well face coverings actually work, only that in conjunction with social distancing they seem to help keep transmission rates down.

The most convincing argument to me against masks is that they give a false sense of security, and people ignore the other two critical measures: wash hands frequently, and maintain distance.

I noticed that as soon as mask mandates came out, everyone started standing a little closer to each other. As if it's pick two out of three.

There should be an advisory that counteracts the inherent psychology. Or at least makes people think.


Something like this, with shifted emphasis:

Wash Your Hands!
Maintain Social Distancing!
Wear a Quality Mask!

[/quote]
Very troll. As I said, The Plague is mainly about the existential psychology of how a community deals with an epidemic. Its relevance today for response to the Covid pandemic is far clearer in terms of the psychology of epidemic than the Nazi metaphor, which is a superficial and partial reading that deflects from the core theme of social epidemiology. The Nazi invasion of France was not an epidemic, and pretending that Camus was primarily writing a symbolic parable of the war misses the main content of the book. There are echoes of the German occupation, such as collaboration and the feeling of oppression and separation, but these are secondary to the main theme of response to an epidemic. The plague itself is personified in the book as displaying an active intentional agency in ways that are completely different from any Nazi reading.

On your comment about astrology, my analysis of the astrological content of religious work is precise and empirical. I understand that many bigoted people are in a state of denial about such metaphorical meaning, but the point is that we should analyse creative material against what it actually says, not what we want it to say.

Similarly with The Plague, a big theme at the start of the book is the denial that an epidemic is occurring. That denial was not a luxury afforded to the French under German occupation, showing a first instance of how this war metaphor fails. It is readily apparent that readers of the book wanted to find this war metaphor in it, and were indifferent to the main epidemic theme, having just lived through a war, not an epidemic. The brilliance of Camus is in his seeing the power of plague as a recurring historical theme, such that his direct observations only make full sense now as the world again grapples with this existential reality.

Tony Judt's Introduction - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/ ... lbertcamus[/quote]


___________________________________________________________________________________________

Your comment to my reply had an obnoxious condescending tone to it.
That is why I spoon fed you sarcasm, Robert.

Learn to be self aware of the pompous tone you carry with certain people.
Other than that, please share your "oblique" interpretation of The Plague when you've finished reading it.
If you need help, let me know.

Thanks

Interbane wrote:

Because it’s 2 months old. In Covid years, that’s 2 decades ago. Let's discuss this instead.

Stop it. You aren't being clever here. You are being deliberately obtuse and that is as nice as I'm going to be with you here.
Your red herring is obvious and does not invalidate my point - that people like you, and worse, the media, take studies like the one I pointed out and use it to falsify contrary findings.
In this case even the WHO used it as an argument against HC when in fact the study did not even release its data sources.
Publications can be just as misleading to laymen like yourself as anything else.
I'm willing to bet this was one of your "50"


So by your reasoning, in "COVID years" your 50 are too old to hang your hat on.
Like you are.

Why would I need to cite sources?

You claimed 50 sources. I called you out on it.
You're happy with considering yourself as an end-all fact checker. I'm not.
Willing to bet most of your 50 are "rushed science" which is what has been happening a lot this past year.

Luckily retraction watch databases are just now being created to monitor piss poor publications. The type that people like you are happy to reference as long as the science suits your political opinions.

ant wrote:Stop it. You aren't being clever here. You are being deliberately obtuse and that is as nice as I'm going to be with you here.
Your red herring is obvious and does not invalidate my point - that people like you, and worse, the media, take studies like the one I pointed out and use it to falsify contrary findings.
In this case even the WHO used it as an argument against HC when in fact the study did not even release its data sources.
Publications can be just as misleading to laymen like yourself as anything else.
I'm willing to bet this was one of your "50"

So by your reasoning, in "COVID years" your 50 are too old to hang your hat on.
Like you are.

The only thing I can link this incoherent rambling to is my mention of over 50 trial studies on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine earlier in this thread. Is that what you mean? I was going off the ClinicalTrials.gov site that listed 203 trials. Again, I really couldn't care less about citing my sources, but there's at least a bread crumb.

PS - I wasn't trying to be clever. The pace of science right now covering Covid is insane. A study that's 2 months old is outdated.

You claimed 50 sources. I called you out on it.
You're happy with considering yourself as an end-all fact checker. I'm not.

I'm most certainly not considering myself an end-all fact checker. Your fur is all bristled from Dwill's comment.

I don't care. It's like you TRY to find inane things to argue about. This is all meta and I'll ignore more of the same.