Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9159 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Post Volume: Total: 914,935 Year: 2,192/9,624 Month: 45/1,580 Week: 233/338 Day: 0/45 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Belief Versus The Scientific Method
Percy
Member
Posts: 22286
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 50 of 513 (885339)
04-05-2021 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Phat
04-05-2021 2:35 PM


Re: Frodo Lives
Phat writes:
We have been discussing this stuff here at EvC since roughly 2004. 17 years, jar.
Consistency should count for something, I guess.
--Percy
Edited by AdminPhat, : 17 not 27

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 04-05-2021 2:35 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2021 2:41 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22286
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 135 of 513 (890385)
01-05-2022 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by ringo
04-22-2021 11:46 AM


Re: Yet Another Attempt To Further reframe my arguments
ringo writes:
ALL evidence is objective.
I have a different take on this one. Observational evidence is only as objective as our efforts are successful at removing the human element. The more that is done, or the more people repeating the observation, then the more objective is a given piece of evidence.
My favorite example of this is the Millikan oil drop experiment. The early experiments performed by Millikan measured an electron charge that was lower than the actual value, and those who repeated Millikan's experiment also obtained lower values, in part an effect of following the methods Millikan outlined, but also biasing the values they obtained towards Millikan's values. More people repeating the experiment introduced objectivity through experimental changes and/or improvements, and also through different perspectives, and over time the value became the one we accept today.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by ringo, posted 04-22-2021 11:46 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by AZPaul3, posted 01-05-2022 2:05 PM Percy has replied
 Message 144 by drlove, posted 01-05-2022 3:21 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22286
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 404 of 513 (890831)
01-10-2022 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by jar
01-09-2022 9:53 AM


Re: Covid-19 death rate between vaccinated vs un-vaccinated by nation.
Post deleted. I'm moderating this thread and should not be posting here.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Delete content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by jar, posted 01-09-2022 9:53 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by jar, posted 01-10-2022 7:39 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 408 by drlove, posted 01-10-2022 8:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22286
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 455 of 513 (891071)
01-15-2022 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by drlove
01-14-2022 1:28 AM


Though this was from a while ago, that fact doesn't change anything and the points are still valid. The declaration was made on October 4, 2020, even before vaccines were available.
They join 916,000 others in that opinion, and that is just one site! Let's not pretend science says we need lockdowns.
Science doesn't say we need lockdowns. Science says that the virus is a respiratory illness that spreads through the air, leading one to think that minimizing the sharing of air among people would restrict the spread of the virus, and numerous studies have confirmed this unequivocally.
Lockdowns are one approach to help minimize the sharing of air among people and have drawbacks. Where one makes the tradeoff between virus caused illness and death versus various approaches to restricting human interaction is a difficult question, and the equation changes with the length of time involved. When we thought that everyone would be on board in fighting the virus by wearing masks and avoiding other people whenever possible we thought measures like lockdowns would be a short term thing and that by the end of 2020 the virus would be in our rear view mirror. In that context such measures seemed reasonable.
But everyone wasn't on board in fighting the virus, a great many still are not on board, and here we are nearly two years later with the virus raging worse than ever and likely to do so through at least much of the first half of the year. We now realize, as we didn't a couple years ago, that the virus will be a permanent part of our public health landscape.
But all public health measures that were employed, whether lockdowns or masks or social distancing or whatever, have their place. Lockdowns still merit consideration whenever there's a severe and dangerous viral outbreak, whether this virus or any other.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by drlove, posted 01-14-2022 1:28 AM drlove has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by drlove, posted 01-15-2022 3:09 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22286
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 460 of 513 (891078)
01-15-2022 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by drlove
01-15-2022 3:09 PM


drlove writes:
Others suggested herd immunity would better be achieved without the pretense of separation. After all, losing your job and business and then going to a restaurant with less people in it doesn't really make sense. No mask needed at the table yet a foot away it is 'needed'. That was not based on science.
I think you're on the right track, but this isn't quite accurate. Public policy responses for combating the virus, such as masks, social distancing, closing bars and restaurants and non-essential businesses, cancelling social events, cancelling sporting events, etc., used what science tells about how to prevent the spread of respiratory diseases, which is very simple: prevent people from sharing each other's air.
What wasn't based on science is the expectation that half measures would work.
Here you provide another example of not quite accurately capturing why what happened happened:
No singing in a church but you can line up in a Cosco round the block and round the store. Vaccinating little children! That is science?
First, a couple comments on the part about "vaccinating little children!". The Barrington declaration was issued pre-vaccine and took no stance on vaccinating children. And I hope you're not against vaccinating children. Shortly after birth babies are given a hepatitis B shot. The MMR shot is given around one year. Vaccinating children is very important.
And the example of singing in church and Costco (not Cosco) lines 'round the block isn't an apt comparison since church is indoors and lines 'round the block are outdoors.
But your point is clear and right on the money. It makes no sense to shutdown some businesses if many other businesses remain open (because they're essential) and if many people ignore the public health advisories. You don't need science to tell you that if your glass is full of holes that it won't hold water.
Advice from public health officials has been problematic from the beginning. The worst was also the earliest when we were told (including by Fauci) that the public didn't need to wear masks. This was patently untrue. The excuse given for telling this lie is that the nation had an insufficient mask supply, and masks were needed by the health care professionals tasked with treating infected (and very contagious) people. There weren't enough masks to go around for both health care professionals and the general public.
But many, many people knew that the public did need to wear masks and that telling them otherwise was a lie, and they said so. And when the lie was finally admitted it fomented distrust in public health officials, making dealing with the pandemic all the more difficult. I still can't believe Fauci participated in this. Here's a link to a CNN article explaining the whole affair, including what CNN seems to think are acceptable excuses, but they're not: Did Fauci say not to wear masks?
Public health officials are starting to do a better job of providing information to the public. The most common mistake made now, one Fauci is also making, is giving advice they think people will follow rather than advice they think will work. The advice they're giving now will definitely not work if the goal is to eliminate the virus, and they're starting to be honest about that, too, now saying that we'll be living with covid from here on out.
Whatever the virus was it is changing. The recent one for most people was like a cold, even lasting less time.
Yes, the virus is evolving. All viruses evolve, some fast, some slow, and some anywhere in between. The omicron variant has symptoms more mild and more cold-like than other variants, but it still has a much, much higher mortality rate than a cold (mortality rate 0.0003% max), and the actual mortality rate for omicron among nations will vary widely because of different conditions on the ground, different virus histories, and different vaccination rates. We don't yet have an approximate mortality rate for omicron, my guess is around 0.1%.
Mortality will also depend on how effective the vaccines are against omicron. We're know they're less effective, but how much? Consider this hypothetical. If omicron is 80% less fatal than other variants, but the vaccines are 80% less effective against it, then for vaccinated people omicron will be just as deadly. What will the actual situation be? We don't know yet.
The way to fight it, say many experts is early treatment.
Early treatment with what? Monoclonal antibody is in short supply, as are the newly available antiviral pills.
Most treatments known to work and recommended by some professionals were vilified and suppressed.
What "treatments known to work" do you mean? If it's hydroxycloroquine and ivermectin, they very likely do not work. Legitimate studies have so far found no benefit for either prevention or improved outcomes for either one.
And why would professionals who recommend treatments "known to work" be "vilified and suppressed?" That makes no sense. You're either making things up or someone has bamboozled you.
Some say that covid deaths should for the most part be considered murders!
"Some say"? More like, "Wingnuts say."
Others suggested that masks were abused and not the way to fight anything.
Gee, all those TV medical shows, all those wasted masks!
Some people try to vaccinate all the children and think that is the way to fight.
"Some say", "others suggested", "some people try," these are the lead-ins you use when you have no reliable sources of information.
That is not science.
Sounds pretty bogus to me, too. That's why it was all "Some say," "others," and "some people." This is the standard approach for introducing material from
It has nothing to do with people not wanting to fight! It has to do with wanting to fight in a way that will win.
Can't tell what this is in reference to.
The lying and oppression involved in the covid agendas has resulted in a little boy that cried wolf situation.
I agree that the public health response has been deplorable, but what you are proposing is far worse.
Many do not believe a word they say any more and never will even if they happened to yell out the truth.
To the extent this is true, they brought it on themselves.
Lockdowns are selective. Some get locked others don't.
Yes, exactly. Unless almost everyone is locked down and following the other protocols, the virus will still spread.
Some scientist's say they do not work. Others say they do.
If we're talking about preventing spread of the virus, of course lockdowns work. How could they not? You shutdown a workplace and make everyone stay home then none of those people can spread the virus at work. That lockdowns are 100% effective at keeping people from spreading the virus is just self-evidently true.
The problem is what people do aside from work, the aforementioned bars and restaurants and all that.
Again this is belief and opinion, not science.
You're right, it isn't science. It's public health officials attempting to define health measures to fight the virus using all the information at their disposal, including science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by drlove, posted 01-15-2022 3:09 PM drlove has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2022 10:00 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 463 by drlove, posted 01-16-2022 3:39 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22286
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 465 of 513 (891094)
01-16-2022 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by drlove
01-16-2022 3:39 AM


Re: wowsa
drlove writes:
There are also studies showing masks are a joke.
This is a bald assertion with no factual support. Can you provide links to these studies?
Showing lockdowns are not the way to go.
This is another bald assertion with no factual support. Can you also provide links to these studies?
The selective closures are also not related to science.
This is yet another bald assertion with no factual support that ignores everything I just explained about public health officials including science in their policy making.
Here is a passage from a man of science regarding the approaches taken.
And here is a passage from the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
If there are points from Qimron's letter that you'd like to make, please do it in the manner outlined in the Forum Guidelines and I'll be happy to respond.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by drlove, posted 01-16-2022 3:39 AM drlove has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by drlove, posted 01-17-2022 3:22 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22286
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 466 of 513 (891096)
01-16-2022 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by AZPaul3
01-05-2022 2:05 PM


Re: Yet Another Attempt To Further reframe my arguments
AZPaul3 writes:
But not all observations are evidence. Collected data should not be considered as evidence until they have been verified, the role of peer review and duplication.
I think we agree but are using the same terminology differently. To me observations are evidence, but humans are horrible observers. There are a couple excellent examples. Percival Lowell observed canals on Mars, and many others thought they saw them, too. And Prosper-René Blondlot observed N-rays, and many others thought they saw them, too. But neither the canals nor N-rays had any objective reality.
At least one webpage agrees with me, Empirical Evidence: A Definition:
quote:
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by AZPaul3, posted 01-05-2022 2:05 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22286
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 471 of 513 (891117)
01-17-2022 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by drlove
01-17-2022 3:22 AM


Re: wowsa
Thank you for your research efforts. Unfortunately the Internet is full of misinformation, and you have to be careful in choosing your sources. For example:
drlove writes:
"A former adviser to the World Health Organization and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has compiled a list of more than 150 studies and articles presenting data and evidence that universal masking is ineffective in stopping the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and causes harm."
150 studies show masks ineffective, harmful
The "former adviser" is Paul Elias Alexander, a Trump administration official at HHS who "pressured federal scientists and public health agencies to suppress and edit their COVID-19 analyses to make them consistent with Trump's rhetoric." (Paul E. Alexander - Wikipedia) He justified his actions by saying he wanted to make the reports " "more upbeat so that people would feel more confident going out and spending money", and that he "did not think agencies should contradict any president's policy". He believed scientists should back the president's positions instead of science.
You didn't actually go off and find studies showing masks ineffective. You instead found a webpage with a link to a webpage (More than 150 Comparative Studies and Articles on Mask Ineffectiveness and Harms ⋆ Brownstone Institute) listing studies purportedly showing masks ineffective, and you didn't actually look at a single study.
If you had looked at a few of the studies it might have given you pause before posting that link. I looked at the first three, and they don't show masks ineffective. The first didn't attempt to pinpoint mask effectiveness but was able to approximate it at less than 50%. The second study of marine recruits didn't actually assess mask effectiveness but found that in a group of three or four thousand recruits wearing masks that about 2% came down with covid - there was no control group. The third was a meta study (a study of studies) and about their own results the authors said, "Our confidence in these results is generally low...", for specific reasons see the study (Just a moment...).
Since none of the first three studies I examined showed masks ineffective there seemed little point in continuing down the list. But obviously the headline that there are 150 studies showing masks ineffective and harmful is off by at least three and probably a lot more.
Why don't you take another stab at finding studies showing masks ineffective. This time do your homework. Provide links to studies (not to a webpage making inaccurate claims) that actually show masks ineffective. Don't believe what others say about the studies. Examine the studies yourself, then provide links for those you're convinced show masks ineffective.
That list of 150 studies included studies purportedly showing the harm from masks. I didn't examine any of these studies since it wasn't a claim you made yourself, but I did give that part of the list a cursory look and several of the summaries showed that those studies looked at masks people had worn and examined them for bacteria, parasites, fungi and so forth, not whether the wearers had become ill. Undoubtedly they did not become ill, or at least would have become ill anyway, because any pathogens on the inside of the mask could only have come from their own exhalations and therefore were already within their body. And any pathogens on the outside of the mask would have been inhaled had they not been wearing it.
quote:
This is another bald assertion with no factual support. Can you also provide links to these studies?
If something may kill millions that is a bad thing.
"COVID lockdowns pushed nearly 100 million back into poverty"
COVID lockdowns pushed nearly 100 million back into poverty
You've gone in the wrong direction. No one questions that lockdowns have a negative impact on economic activity and can increase poverty. The question was whether lockdowns reduce viral spread, thereby reducing illness, permanent disability, and death. I made clear several times that that's what I was asking you about, and the one time I fail to reiterate that point you go off in another direction.
So I ask you once again, if when you say lockdowns don't work you mean they don't prevent viral spread, then produce links to studies showing this (after having examined the studies, of course).
World Net Daily isn't accurately characterizing the blog post from the World Bank (Updated estimates of the impact of COVID-19 on global poverty: Turning the corner on the pandemic in 2021?), but I won't get into the details since you obviously didn't. Increased poverty during the pandemic is very sad, no one wants it, but death is also very sad and also negatively impacts economies. For example, a family will likely descend into poverty if their breadwinner catches covid and spends a lengthy time in hospital or dies. How does one make the tradeoff between disability and death versus lost income?
Just to add a sense of perspective, a hundred million people is 1.2% of the world population.
One helpful clarification about lockdowns. The impact of lockdowns on business will vary according to the type of business. For a restaurant a lockdown is equivalent to a shutdown. For a software company, a lockdown only means everyone works from home. When assessing the impact of lockdowns these varying impacts must be taken into account and can be the means of targeting government aid to the right businesses.
Then there is this
"Peer-reviewed journal destroys lockdowns"
Peer-reviewed journal destroys lockdowns
Boy, you sure like WorldNetDaily. Since they're a frequent source for you I'll look them up. This is from WorldNetDaily - Wikipedia:
quote:
WND (formerly WorldNetDaily)is an American news and opinion website and online news aggregator which has been described as "fringe" and far-right as well as politically conservative. The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.
You're still on the wrong track. I have agreed with you about lockdowns. In a very recent message to you I said that lockdowns do no good if they apply to some organizations and not others. I just said this to you a message or two ago:
quote:
But your point is clear and right on the money. It makes no sense to shutdown some businesses if many other businesses remain open (because they're essential) and if many people ignore the public health advisories. You don't need science to tell you that if your glass is full of holes that it won't hold water.
Look familiar? If not it would explain why you're going off in the wrong direction.
Obviously lockdowns have both positive and negative consequences, and public health officials do their best to trade them off to get the best possible outcome. But as far as preventing viral spread, lockdowns definitely work. If people can't share the air, they can't spread the virus.
quote:
drlove writes:
The selective closures are also not related to science.
This is yet another bald assertion with no factual support that ignores everything I just explained about public health officials including science in their policy making.
"Lockdowns cause 10 times more harm than good, says peer-reviewed study"
Lockdowns cause 10 times more harm than good, says peer-reviewed study
Selective groups can meet and other groups cannot. How is that science? Support your bald assertions.
You're still ignoring everything I explained in Message 460. Again, more briefly this time, public health policy is set by officials who take many considerations into account, including science, in this case that preventing the sharing of air reduces spread of the virus.
But that lockdowns are the best approach in a pandemic is not a position of science. I think your main problem is that you're failing to distinguish between science and attempted applications of science, in this case in public health policy.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by drlove, posted 01-17-2022 3:22 AM drlove has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by drlove, posted 01-23-2022 2:46 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22286
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


(4)
Message 477 of 513 (891312)
01-24-2022 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by drlove
01-23-2022 2:46 PM


Re: wowsa
I read ahead in the thread before responding to this message, and given the things you say it seems that "wowsa" is actually a pretty appropriate title for this subthread, as in, "Wowsa! The things you say!"
drlove writes:
quote:
Thank you for your research efforts. Unfortunately the Internet is full of misinformation, and you have to be careful in choosing your sources
As do you
Well of course I do, but I cited no sources except for quoting Paul Elias Alexander's comments from Wikipedia. Did you find anything in those quotes to be inaccurate? Are they not what Alexander actually said? Did he not argue that people should get out and spend money while we were still in the middle of a pandemic? Did he not argue that government scientists shouldn't challenge what the president says when it is contradicted by science?
Rather than a personal attack on some guy whose politics you apparently don't like, what does that say to the studies that were not done by him?
Nothing was said about Alexander's politics, and Alexander didn't perform any covid studies. While serving in the Trump administration Alexander censored "COVID-19 analyses to make them consistent with Trump's rhetoric." (Paul E. Alexander - Wikipedia)
Do we hear you complaining about those that try to suppress voices in science and medicine?
I think if you present the evidence of the suppression of voices in science and medicine that most people here will be upset about it. When will you be presenting such evidence?
Today, thousands of them are in Wa DC testifying that we have been lied to about what is science or not.
Today? You wrote this on Sunday. You're saying that thousands of scientists are testifying in Washington D.C. on a Sunday? To who? Neither house of Congress is in session and no congressional committees have meetings scheduled. A Google News search couldn't find a thing.
quote:
Since none of the first three studies I examined showed masks ineffective
There are thousands of links for either opinion. The point is that if either side were fact and science, that could not be the case.
But we weren't talking about links. We were talking about studies. Of the three studies I examined (and that you obviously didn't and still haven't examined), none showed masks to be ineffective. I didn't examine more studies than that because your claim was already zero for three and it was very apparent that examining more of the studies would be a waste of time. If you think there are studies in that list that support your claims of mask ineffectiveness then find them and link to them. If you prove masks are ineffective at preventing covid infections so we can stop wearing them, everyone will thank you.
So since you originally claimed there are many *studies* showing that masks are ineffective, your claim that there are "thousands of links" is a bait and switch. You haven't yet produced a single study showing masks ineffective.
But let's say, hypothetically, that masks are actually ineffective. How could that possibly be? Is it untrue that an N95 respirator captures 95% of particles 0.3 microns and larger? Or is it untrue that SARS-CoV-2 viruses are transmitted in the air by small droplets predominantly larger than 0.3 microns? Please, tell us how it's possible for masks to be ineffective. Give us some reason for seeing your claim as something that is possible in the real world.
Even putting a lace doily over your face would be be effective in stopping at least some virus. Probably not a lot, but more than zero. So why would a specially designed and manufactured mask be ineffective? Please tell us?
example
"study and paper issued by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) which is part of the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM), a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
“We argue there really isn’t much of a benefit to the 6-foot rule, especially when people are wearing masks…It really has no physical basis because the air a person is breathing while wearing a mask tends to rise and comes down elsewhere in the room so you’re more exposed to the average background than you are to a person at a distance.”
First Masks Now Social Distancing Proven Ineffective Per New MIT
You're changing the subject, but nearly two years ago I was already arguing against the six-foot rule. I began one paragraph by saying, "The six-foot safe distance is nonsense," see Message 576. We agree about the six-foot rule and social distancing. Unfortunately many people continue to believe the social distancing nonsense. Just last night in our kitchen we commented to friends (all of us masked) that we're still not going to restaurants, and they said they were still going but they always sit a table away from other people. Because we value them as friends we said nothing, especially since we doubt they'd change their behavior just because of anything we said. We hope they don't get sick.
But your point is that masks are ineffective, and you still haven't produced a single study showing that. You did provide a link to First Masks Now Social Distancing Proven Ineffective Per New MIT which provides a link to the mask study (Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis - PMC) which contains this notice:
This article has been retracted.
I don't like wearing masks. I'm sure very few people like wearing masks. I would be absolutely delighted if it were shown that masks provide no benefit so that I could feel safe not wearing them. If you have evidence that masks are useless please bring it on. You'll be doing everyone a favor.
All aspects of the agenda around the pandemic (lockdowns,vaccinations,boosters,mandates,vaccinating children,etc) are opinion based, not science. Either side claims science.
You're repeating yourself and not responding to anything I said.
I can provide scientific studies for everything I say. In fact, that there are scientific studies is why I say what I say. But so far all your claims of links to scientific studies supporting what you say have found only a single study, and that one contained a retraction notice.
quote:
The question was whether lockdowns reduce viral spread, thereby reducing illness, permanent disability, and death.
If you put everyone into max security prisons that might reduce crime. It might even reduce some diseases.
I'll take this as grudging acknowledgment that preventing the sharing of air also prevents the spreading of respiratory diseases.
There is not one science opinion on all this. Some say one thing and others another.
I'm not sure what you meant to say here, but as written this is contradictory. If there are no scientific opinions, then how can some say one thing and some another since they don't exist? Please restate.
For example it is claimed natural immunity is better than vaccines.
CDC study affirms natural immunity superior to vaccines
This isn't a study, just an article at WND with links to other articles at WND. When you finally drill down to the actual Israeli study (https://www.medrxiv.org/...01/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf) you find that it doesn't claim what the short headline makes it seem to be claiming.
To understand the study you have to remember that the vaccines were developed for the original SARS-CoV-2 virus. For this virus these vaccines provide better immunity than natural immunity. But then variants evolved, and it was suspected that the vaccines might not perform as well against the variants. This Israeli study confirmed this, that infection with the delta variant produced stronger immunity against the delta variant than the vaccines, which remember were developed not for the delta variant but for the original virus.
Of course this Israeli study involving the delta variant is irrelevant now, because omicron has replaced delta. Studies are underway to see how well the vaccines perform against omicron, but initial indications are that they perform much less well, even worse than against the delta variant. Preliminary results seem to indicate that boosters are much more effective against omicron than just the two shot series.
This is all pretty much expected. Viruses evolve, we know that. Drug companies are developing variant specific vaccines now, and those will very likely provide superior protection from the variants than that conferred by infection by the variants.
In other words, you're forgetting (or at least WND is forgetting and is helping you forget) that the virus presents a moving target. The vaccines are for the original SARS-CoV-2 virus. They provide less protection from alpha, even less from delta, and yet less from omicron.
quote:
But that lockdowns are the best approach in a pandemic is not a position of science.
That sounds like you are coming down on the side of the people claiming that lockdowns are not science based. How about vaccinating little children? How about vaccine mandates?
I think a significant issue for you remains confusing science with attempted applications of science, which I've explained several times now and which you're still ignoring. Briefly this time, science has found that preventing the sharing of air prevents the spread of respiratory diseases. Public health policy has taken information from many areas into account, including science, in deciding whether lockdowns are appropriate for fighting the coronavirus. Science doesn't have a position on lockdowns.
About vaccinating little children, just a few messages ago I wrote how hours old infants are vaccinated, and that there's a vaccine regimen beginning around one year. You write as if you never read any of it.
About vaccine mandates, science has studied herd immunity, and whether vaccine mandates are an appropriate way of achieving herd immunity is public health policy. Public health policy takes science into account, but public health policy is not itself science or a scientific study or anything like that.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by drlove, posted 01-23-2022 2:46 PM drlove has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by drlove, posted 01-25-2022 3:22 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22286
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 482 of 513 (891329)
01-25-2022 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by drlove
01-25-2022 3:22 AM


Re: wowsa
I hope this last message from you is an anomaly. It is dense with meta errors, i.e., errors about the discussion itself rather than about the topic. Your last message to Tangle had the same problem. It will make discussion with you very difficult if we have to correct not only your science but also your misstatements about your own messages.
Frankly I'm a little alarmed at the error density in this last message. Previously they seemed the type of errors that can be innocently acquired because of the large amount of misinformation out there. This last message says something a little different about you, that you embrace virus-related misinformation and are seeking to actively promote it.
I'm also a little alarmed that you said nothing about mask ineffectiveness. Your previous couple messages had a heavy emphasis on this, about how there are all these studies showing masks ineffective, so your abandonment of this topic is a bit concerning. About mask wearing, I'll say it again. Most of us (if not all) hate wearing masks. If you can prove masks ineffective so we can stop wearing them, everyone will thank you. So please, please, present these studies showing masks ineffective.
I'm going to ignore some parts of your message where you go off track. When a discussion degenerates to the point where you have to keep reminding people of what they actually said then it's already a lost cause, and I'm hopeful we're not already to that point.
drlove writes:
Now as far as vaccines being a joke, here is an article from today.
"Government data show 'vax-free' LESS likely to get COVID
Rate of infection more than twice as high for vaccinated people"
Government data show 'vax-free' LESS likely to get COVID
You're linking to yet another WND article. Why do you persist in citing them? They're almost always transparently wrong or misleading. Also, we don't do discussion via links here where you post a link and I post a link in reply and no actual discussion takes place. Describe what the WND article said that shows "vaccines being a joke" and then provide the link as a supporting reference. This is in the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
I'll look at this WND article that you accompany with no discussion this time, but consider something first. If statistics clearly indicated that vaccines were doing more harm than good, then everyone would want to know that so that they could stop taking vaccines. That vaccines are harmful would be shouted from the rooftops at every media outlet. Yet it isn't, even though, as you seem to think, WND has laid out for us how harmful vaccines are. Why do you think everyone else isn't picking up on what WND has uncovered?
One possibility is that WND is lying to you. Have you considered that possibility? It would certainly explain why what WND is saying doesn't align with what is actually happening in the real world.
So with that out of the way, let's take a look at your WND article:
quote:
Data released by the Scottish government shows people who have been vaccinated with two or three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are more likely to become infected, be hospitalized or die than people who are unvaccinated.
The Public Health Scotland data from the past four weeks showed a rate of infection of 866 per 100,000 people for the double vaccinated and 481 per 100,000 for the boosted, or triple vaccinated.
The unvaccinated had a rate of infection of 413 per 100,000.
The death rate of those who have had two shots is about 12 per 100,000 which is more than 50% higher than the rate for the unvaccinated, [yes, they ended a sentence with a comma]
First, look at how the data makes no sense. For the "per 100,000" measure, it's 866 with two shots, drops to 481 with three shots just as you would expect, then drops further to 413 with no shots, which makes no sense at all. If it were true that vaccines make people more vulnerable to infection then the lowest would be no shots, higher would two shots, and the highest would be three shots, but it's not.
So obviously something is wrong with the data, and the article states very clearly that there's a problem with the data, which is probably why WND didn't link to the article, since it would reveal WND as being misleading in the extreme (some would call it lying). The article is Covid Scotland: Death rate 25 times higher in double-jabbed than boosted, and about the data it says (in part, see the article for more details):
quote:
However, PHS said it is likely that the size of the unvaccinated population is being overestimated - skewing the case rate downwards - because GP records are used to count this population.
I'll briefly describe the biggest contributor to the inaccuracy of the count of the unvaccinated population. GP (it apparently means General Practitioner in Scotland, just as in the States) records are used to count the unvaccinated population, and anyone without a regular GP isn't counted. Complicating matters is an April 2004 law which changed the way people register for care, now registering with a practice instead of with a specific GP at that practice. So Scotland is currently hindered in accurately counting the unvaccinated, and this causes the "per 100,000" number to be severely understated.
quote:
Recent figures from the province of Alberta show infections, hospitalizations and deaths from COVID all soar in the days and weeks after people receive their first vaccine dose, reports former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson.
This is absurd on its face. It simply isn't possible for the vaccines to cause infections, hospitalizations and deaths. This would only be possible if the vaccines were made with dead or deactivated virus, but they're not. They're made of mRNA that causes cells to produce proteins that cause an immune response that will produce antibodies that fight the SAVS-CoV-2 virus. They contain nothing of the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus whatsoever. The vaccines have no ability to cause illness. The worst the vaccines can do is cause a feeling of slight illness as the body begins producing an immune reaction, or an allergic reaction. That's it. The vaccines cannot cause covid-19. It's just not possible.
So let's look at the Alberta information (COVID-19 Alberta statistics | alberta.ca) and see what WND got wrong. Ah, it's obvious, and maybe also hints at why Alex Berenson is formerly of the New York Times instead of currently. About him Wikipedia says:
quote:
During the coronavirus pandemic, Berenson appeared frequently in American right-wing media, spreading false claims about COVID-19 and its vaccines.[2] He spent much of the pandemic arguing that its seriousness was overblown; once COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out, he made false claims about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.
Once again you've chosen a poor Internet source. You seem to have a talent for it.
Berenson's report (the WND excerpt several paragraphs up contains a link to it) has images from the Alberta data. He thinks this one shows vaccines cause hospitalizations shortly after vaccination:
For example, he thinks it shows that on day 0 after vaccination (in other words, on the day of vaccination) that there were 14 total hospitalizations from covid. This is not only wrong, it's impossible. Even if it were possible for the vaccines to cause covid-19 (which, again, it is not), no one is hospitalized on the day they're infected. Generally, in severe cases, it takes at least 10 days after being infected to require hospitalization.
So the graph can't possibly be showing hospitalizations caused by vaccination as Berenson thinks. What is it showing then?
What it's showing is the effectiveness of vaccines. On average it takes the vaccines around 14 days to cause an effective enough immune response to fight off the virus, and what you're seeing in the graph is that about two weeks after vaccination when immunization begins to really kick in the possibility of catching covid-19 and eventually being hospitalized begins to drop dramatically.
Berenson also provides a graph for deaths, which he misinterprets in the same way. The reality is that it shows the same thing as the other graph, that a couple weeks after vaccination the possibility of catching covid-19 and eventually dying begins to drop dramatically.
So if the science said vaxes were good then science is wrong! Either that or those claiming science said that were wrong.
I just demonstrated that WND and Berenson and you don't understand the science. I don't think you even read Berenson's report. I think you're seeing that graph for the first time.
Right-wing media has built an entire industry fabricating misinformation, and all you're doing is mining it without examining or understanding it. It only takes you a few minutes at most to find the latest misinformation at WND and type the link into a message, but it takes some real time to rebut. I'd put the ratio at at least 1 to 10, the time you put in to that WND link versus the time it took me to rebut it.
That's why the forum has a rule against bare links. When you think you have something promising then read it, understand it, present it, and include the link only as a reference. The reason for this rule is to make sure people understand the arguments they're promoting and are not, in essence, asking people to read and rebut links that they haven't themselves read or understood.
quote:
I think if you present the evidence of the suppression of voices in science and medicine that most people here will be upset about it. When will you be presenting such evidence?
No, it is the suppression of voices in education, media, government and etc. Not 'in' science (whatever that means)
And here we come to the part that makes discussion difficult. You're denying saying what you just said in Message 473:
Do we hear you complaining about those that try to suppress voices in science and medicine?
Apparently you understood what "in science" meant back in Message 473, since that's exactly what you said, and now you don't. And you said "suppress voices in science and medicine," and now you're saying that "it is the suppression of voices in education, media, government and etc."
Maybe you're actually two people, maybe twin brothers. Brad Love wrote Message 473, and Tad Love wrote Message 479. You guys ought to get together now and then and coordinate things, because you're contradicting the hell out of each other (and also reality).
And why, if it was actually "the suppression of voices in education, media, government and etc.", do you follow it with the claim about a blackout of a medical roundtable:
"MSM Blackout Of Medical Doctors Pandemic Response Roundtable Is A Crime Against Humanity"
Infowars Article
"A group of doctors and other medical experts gathered in Washington, D.C. on Monday for a panel discussion on Covid-19 hosted by Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI)."
Your whole presentation is chaotic and irrational. In the above quote there isn't a single word that is your own, and if you can't support your positions in your own words then don't make them. If you'd like to pursue this blackout claim then describe what you're claiming in your own words and use the link as a supporting reference.
Senator Johnson streamed the panel discussion live on Rumble, as other outlets would likely censor the conversation and do not support free speech in the first place.
You mean like Fox News? They didn't carry it, either. What outlets carry panels and roundtables hosted by congresspeople live? Do you think Fox News or anybody would give up any of their lucrative timeslots that have paid advertising to run a medical roundtable that would have people changing the channel from coast to coast? And your InfoWars link about an MSM blackout? Except for the headline, there was no mention of a blackout.
The Wisconsin senator’s YouTube account was suspended on Friday after the video platform accused him of “making false claims over treatments for Covid-19.”
Jesus, you are such a rube. Here's the link to Senator Ron Johnson's YouTube Account. It is alive and well. You're being lied to by Alex Jones.
quote:
Today? You wrote this on Sunday. You're saying that thousands of scientists are testifying in Washington D.C. on a Sunday? To who? Neither house of Congress is in session and no congressional committees have meetings scheduled. A Google News search couldn't find a thing.
They were marching and speaking. Not inside congress.
You said they were testifying, not "marching and speaking." This is you in Message 473:
Today, thousands of them are in Wa DC testifying that we have been lied to about what is science or not.
You're contradicting yourself yet again.
"The massive protest was organized by the Children’s Health Defense, Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical scientists, and the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance."
Infowars Article
This protest consisted of ordinary people, not people in science and medicine.
quote:
I'll take this as grudging acknowledgment that preventing the sharing of air also prevents the spreading of respiratory diseases.
Preventing breathing would do the trick also. I guess you could call that science.
You are continually smashing my hopes for a serious fact-based discussion into smaller and smaller pieces. One more time, science says that respiratory viruses spread when people share the same air. Obviously the less people share the same air the more difficult it is for a respiratory virus to spread. Hopefully you understand this and agree.
quote:
In other words, you're forgetting (or at least WND is forgetting and is helping you forget) that the virus presents a moving target. The vaccines are for the original SARS-CoV-2 virus. They provide less protection from alpha, even less from delta, and yet less from omicron.
They knew that when they made the first vaccine.
Yes, of course, and as you just quoted me saying, the vaccines they developed continue to provide protection against all variants, though not as great.
What, they thought they would force people to get endless vaccines that don't work anyhow?
The vaccines obviously work. Estimates are that they've saved around a million lives and prevented about ten million hospitalizations (The U.S. COVID-19 Vaccination Program at One Year: How Many Deaths and Hospitalizations Were Averted? | Commonwealth Fund).
It is possible that we'll need periodic booster shots or new shots for the variants. It might be similar to the flu shot for which a new vaccine is developed every year.
If they do not work against new variants and we know that there will be new variants, what is the point, and where is the science?
But the vaccines do work against the variants, just not as well as against the original SARS-CoV-2 virus for which they were developed. As I just said, they've saved many lives. They are very successful.
Who asked if young infants were vaccinated?
You said, "How about vaccinating little children?" You can't get littler than a newborn.
Point? Does that mean it is good to do so or bad?
It's good, of course. As I described in Message 460, newborns are given the hepatitis B shot within hours of birth, and the MMR series is given around one year.
Maybe there's something about your position I'm not aware of. Are you against only covid vaccines, or all vaccines?
If vaccines were a way to achieve herd immunity they would need to work, no? I just showed how double the sick are now vaccinated. That means it does not work. How would that result in herd immunity?
I think what you actually showed is how easy it is to fool someone about something they want to believe anyway. WND and Alex Jones really have your number.
"New research indicates the 46 mutations found in the COVID-19 Omicron variant have rendered antibodies ineffective, accounting for the high number of re-infections and breakthrough cases."
Attention Required! | Cloudflare
There's not a single word of your own in this. I'm not going to argue with a cut-n-paste. Please explain in your own words.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by drlove, posted 01-25-2022 3:22 AM drlove has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by drlove, posted 01-26-2022 6:36 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22286
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 483 of 513 (891330)
01-25-2022 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by AZPaul3
01-25-2022 4:06 PM


Re: Any Redeeming Value?
He's said some true stuff. For example, he's right that fighting covid-19 might require periodic shots just like the flu. And while I don't think the data is in yet and I reserve the right to change my mind, I do agree with him that partial lockdowns don't work well enough to justify them.
But he upped the error rate quite a bit in his last couple messages, and he seems quite determined in defending his positions using unvetted information, to an extent that calls into question the possibility of productive discussion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by AZPaul3, posted 01-25-2022 4:06 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by AZPaul3, posted 01-25-2022 7:56 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 486 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-25-2022 9:05 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 498 by drlove, posted 01-26-2022 6:49 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22286
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 493 of 513 (891355)
01-26-2022 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by dwise1
01-26-2022 4:04 PM


Re: Any Redeeming Value?
Doesn't really affect the authoritarian points, but Hitler may never have said that. The wording that is usually attributed to Hitler is, "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think," and while I can't prove he didn't say it, I can't find anything affirming that he did, like a time or place or letter of origin, etc.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by dwise1, posted 01-26-2022 4:04 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22286
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 512 of 513 (891380)
01-27-2022 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by drlove
01-26-2022 6:36 PM


Re: wowsa
Your message is disorganized, but rather than impose my own order on it I'll just respond to things in the same order you say them.
drlove writes:
quote:
This is absurd on its face. It simply isn't possible for the vaccines to cause infections, hospitalizations and deaths. This would only be possible if the vaccines were made with dead or deactivated virus, but they're not.
Raw statement with no support.
It has plenty of scientific support. In fact, it's fundamental to the way vaccines work, which I assumed was common knowledge, but apparently not for you. You're so resistant to knowledge that I won't waste my time providing the details of how traditional vaccines work. If you ever feel inclined to learn about it you can look it up in Wikipedia or any of the many medical websites.
The long term effects are not known.
But this is the opposite of what you claimed, in two ways. You made no claims about the long term effects of vaccines. You claimed vaccines are putting people in hospitals and killing them in the near term, shortly after they're taken.
You also didn't claim the effects are unknown. You claimed they caused people to become ill with covid-19, that more people catch covid-19 if they're vaccinated than if they're unvaccinated.
But If you learn about mRNA vaccines then you'll understand how the vaccines couldn't possibly cause covid-19. I explained this already. If you don't accept my explanation then discuss it with me, but don't pretend this hasn't already been explained.
If you can't support what you say, to such a large degree that you have to claim you said something else, could I suggest not saying it in the first place?
The actual causes of all the deaths since the vaccines started is not known.
We do know the cause of almost all covid-19 related deaths. There is no large collection of mysterious deaths out there.
Most are listed as something else or unrelated.
Yes, something else, but no, not unrelated. I explained this earlier. Almost everyone who dies due to a covid-19 infection dies of something else, the most common being pneumonia.
If a vaccine (regardless of what it was made from) triggered some things that made people sick or killed them, then it is possible they cause hospitalization etc.
There's the occasional allergic reaction and a small collection of fairly rare other kinds of reactions, but extremely few people are made sick by vaccines. If many people were becoming sick from the vaccines it would be readily apparent in urgent care facilities and emergency rooms all across the country as people show up there with mysterious illnesses within a few days of getting the vaccine.
Dr Malone and many others have ridiculous years of science with them and under their belt. So we have the situation where science is not one one side of the argument here in any way.
Dr. Malone seems to have lost his way and been promoting "misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines." (Robert W. Malone - Wikipedia). WND seems to be active in promoting his quackery. If you think Dr. Malone has any science-based claims you're welcome to describe them for us here.
Those who pretend it is are guilty of helping foster the loss of freedom and quality of life from the covid tyranny.
This is the writing style of a polemicist.
The issue is not 'my' science.
Not sure why you referred to "'my' science." You don't seem to know any science.
The issue is anybody's science.
There aren't multiple scientific perspectives on the virus and the vaccines.
Both sides claim science.
Well, yes, those who actually know and understand science believe that it is the best way of understanding the world around us, while the conspiracy theorists at WND and InfoWars make up false claims and lie that they are backed by science.
Obviously both cannot be right.
The conspiracy theorists are self-evidently wrong. Their skills lie in the areas of lying, misrepresentation and persuasion, not just about science but of everything (e.g., January 6th was a false flag operation perpetrated by the FBI). Those who understand science and have good bullshit detectors are not easily taken in by the liars at WND and InfoWars.
Would you not expect real science to be clear?
Science *is* clear, but you're not looking at science. You're looking at WND and InfoWars. Like I said, they really have your number. Because you don't understand science, misinformation goes right from their webpages into your brain, rotting it out from the inside.
On every aspect of the tyranny and agenda associated with covid polar opposite opinions from men of science. Why believe them?
The better question, especially because you're not making sense and cannot back up anything you say, is why believe you?
quote:
Right-wing media has built an entire industry fabricating misinformation
That is ignorant. Have you science to back up your bald claim?
I've been doing that right along. Just in my previous message I provided this image from Alex Berenson's report that he took from COVID-19 Alberta statistics | alberta.ca:
He thought that this shows that vaccination causes many hospitalizations a short while later, in some cases the same day. But what the graph instead shows is the effectiveness of vaccines and how after about two weeks they initiate a significant decline in the possibility of hospitalization.
I'm still concerned that you dropped your argument about mask ineffectiveness. We're all still hanging on the edge of our seats hoping you provide the studies that show they're ineffective so that we can all stop wearing them.
We're also hoping you provide the studies that show the vaccines dangerous so we can stop taking them, too.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by drlove, posted 01-26-2022 6:36 PM drlove has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024