COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)

[Guardian]

Love subjective anecdotal discussions.

I’m more interested in factual based discussions. Not emotion.

[MCO]

6 hours ago, brabus said:

Actually it’s an unemotional point referencing CDC data, made by a guy with a 5 page long vax record. You do you, but you look like a dip shit when you launch ad hominem attacks on someone because they have a perspective differing from yours. 

Actually it was an unemotional response just pointing out that the argument you are making is like the argument anti-vaxxers make. It wasn’t an attack. Sorry I’m not sorry you’re offended there are similarities in the arguments.

Personal opinion, no one should be forced to get a vaccine, it shouldn’t be held against you before it’s fully approved, and after approval you should just have to deal with some places not being OK with you being around. Just like every other vaccination.

Edited June 27, 2021 by MCO

[pawnman]

50 minutes ago, BroncoEN said:

So much emotion with this from everyone.  My family got the vaccine because my wife works with immunocompromised children that can’t get it…. not because we are concerned about ourselves. Every M.D. we know got it the minute they could (even pregnant or nursing)… so we trusted their decisions and followed, because as it turns out, I’m a pilot and not a medical professional.

Lot of military folks who were political scientists last October have suddenly become epidemiologists with the vaccine roll out.

[Guardian]

Brabus got bit by the I just deleted a message but someone already quoted me bug.

Jokes on you brabus. I don’t even know what ad homonym means!

[uhhello]

On 6/25/2021 at 9:17 AM, Royal said:

I highly, highly recommend everyone listen to episode 1671 of Joe Rogan's podcast with guests Bret Weinstein and Dr Pierre Kory. It's the closest thing that I've seen to an incontrovertible conspiracy theory play out in real life. Summary: Critical information on the benefits and efficacy of the drug Ivermectin for treating Covid has been suppressed by media outlets, tech companies, the pharmaceutical industry, and the government for almost a year now. It's possible that Covid could have been close to completely eradicated within six months using this ultra-inexpensive, ultra-effective treatment.

But "Trust the science" bro.  I finally got around to listening to it.  Out of curiosity I typed ivermectin into google.  Top hit was FDA saying not to take it.  🙂 Infuriating  

Edited June 27, 2021 by uhhello

[Boomer6]

7 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Thank you for answering my questions with another question.  Makes it obvious that you can’t or don’t want to answer them.

But coming from a guy who would give anyone an Article 15 for speeding, not wearing a reflective belt, etc…I’m not surprised.

You do know that you can see the foolishness of your ways and admit that you were wrong, right?  Or are you sticking to your original post below?

I don’t post on here very much and I’m sure this post will get a lot of hate…but it needs to be said. If I recall you were passed over not too long ago. After reading this statement about handing out Article 15s I’m thinking maybe big blue got something right the first time. This kind of “leadership” is the problem, not the solution.

[HeloDude]

32 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

I don’t post on here very much and I’m sure this post will get a lot of hate…but it needs to be said. If I recall you were passed over not too long ago. After reading this statement about handing out Article 15s I’m thinking maybe big blue got something right the first time. This kind of “leadership” is the problem, not the solution.

I’m assuming this was meant for Pawnman?

[Boomer6]

Yep.

[brabus]

11 hours ago, MCO said:

Actually it was an unemotional response just pointing out that the argument you are making is like the argument anti-vaxxers make. It wasn’t an attack. Sorry I’m not sorry you’re offended there are similarities in the arguments.

Personal opinion, no one should be forced to get a vaccine, it shouldn’t be held against you before it’s fully approved, and after approval you should just have to deal with some places not being OK with you being around. Just like every other vaccination.

Citing CDC numbers is not a prime anti-vaxxer trait...they claim religious exemptions, vaccines don’t work, vaccines cause things like autism, etc. I made zero claims, just presented a factual number from the “expert source.” You’re attacking the person, not the numbers-driven risk management discussion...ergo, ad hominem.

But to your last point, I agree. 

 

10 hours ago, Guardian said:

Brabus got bit by the I just deleted a message but someone already quoted me bug.

Jokes on you brabus. I don’t even know what ad homonym means!

Que? It’s on page 65, half way down...with ad hominem spelled correctly I might add. 

[FLEA]

10 hours ago, pawnman said:

Lot of military folks who were political scientists last October have suddenly become epidemiologists with the vaccine roll out.

It really isn't a discussion on epidemiology though. It's a discussion on policy, government reach and ethics. Turns out being an officer in the military does give you a great handle on those worlds because many of us often deal with them day to day. 

[pawnman]

8 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

I don’t post on here very much and I’m sure this post will get a lot of hate…but it needs to be said. If I recall you were passed over not too long ago. After reading this statement about handing out Article 15s I’m thinking maybe big blue got something right the first time. This kind of “leadership” is the problem, not the solution.

Well, joke's on you, 'cause I got picked up APZ.

Never thought it would be so controversial to suggest we follow the guidance from the SECDEF, but here we are.

[FlyingWolf]

23 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Never thought it would be so controversial to suggest we follow the guidance from the SECDEF, but here we are.

There is a significant difference between this statement and the witch-hunt you have supported.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

 

Congratulations on APZ!

 

[TreeA10]

Listening to a podcast the other day and heard an interesting numbers comparison from the VAERS data. VAERS is the government reporting system for Vaccine Adverse Reactions. In a 4 or 5 year period @2010, 2000+ people died from vaccine reactions. Since the beginning of this year, over 5000 people have died from vaccine reactions. Years vs months and 2000 vs 5000. Those are hard data numbers from HHS. Something isn't right. 

[pawnman]

12 minutes ago, TreeA10 said:

Listening to a podcast the other day and heard an interesting numbers comparison from the VAERS data. VAERS is the government reporting system for Vaccine Adverse Reactions. In a 4 or 5 year period @2010, 2000+ people died from vaccine reactions. Since the beginning of this year, over 5000 people have died from vaccine reactions. Years vs months and 2000 vs 5000. Those are hard data numbers from HHS. Something isn't right. 

Means nothing without the denominator.  2000 vs 5000 deaths sounds scare...how many more vaccines were given in that time frame?  

[kaputt]

VAERS data is NOT people dying from vaccine reactions. It’s people dying of any cause after getting a vaccine.
 

To my unscientific brain it seems highly likely that a vaccine that was emphasized in an elderly and immune compromised population would have a high probability of some of those people dying of any cause after getting a vaccine.
 

I’m not accusing anyone on here of this, but one thing I have found hilarious is the people who cast doubt on COVID death numbers (a doubt I agree with btw), all of a sudden cite VAERS data like it’s gospel truth, despite it having much of the vagueness as COVID death numbers. 

[TreeA10]

Just now, kaputt said:

VAERS data is NOT people dying from vaccine reactions. It’s people dying of any cause after getting a vaccine.
 

To my unscientific brain it seems highly likely that a vaccine that was emphasized in an elderly and immune compromised population would have a high probability of some of those people dying of any cause after getting a vaccine.
 

I’m not accusing anyone on here of this, but one thing I have found hilarious is the people who cast doubt on COVID death numbers (a doubt I agree with btw), all of a sudden cite VAERS data like it’s gospel truth, despite it having much of the vagueness as COVID death numbers. 

I have no problem casting doubt on both. Some county in CA reduced their COVID death count by 25% after reviewing death causes. I'm sure all the VAERS data can be thinned out as well but why the massive increase in numbers? Reduce the VAERS data by 50% and you still have the same number of deaths in 6 months that usually occurred over years. 

[Sua Sponte]

9 minutes ago, kaputt said:

VAERS data is NOT people dying from vaccine reactions. It’s people dying of any cause after getting a vaccine.
 

To my unscientific brain it seems highly likely that a vaccine that was emphasized in an elderly and immune compromised population would have a high probability of some of those people dying of any cause after getting a vaccine.
 

I’m not accusing anyone on here of this, but one thing I have found hilarious is the people who cast doubt on COVID death numbers (a doubt I agree with btw), all of a sudden cite VAERS data like it’s gospel truth, despite it having much of the vagueness as COVID death numbers. 

It’s almost like people skew data to confirm their confirmation bias. Almost…

[BFM this]

10 minutes ago, kaputt said:

VAERS data is NOT people dying from vaccine reactions. It’s people dying of any cause after getting a vaccine.
 

To my unscientific brain it seems highly likely that a vaccine that was emphasized in an elderly and immune compromised population would have a high probability of some of those people dying of any cause after getting a vaccine.
 

I’m not accusing anyone on here of this, but one thing I have found hilarious is the people who cast doubt on COVID death numbers (a doubt I agree with btw), all of a sudden cite VAERS data like it’s gospel truth, despite it having much of the vagueness as COVID death numbers. 

So...pre-COVID, old people weren’t getting flu shots?

Your supposition might be correct, but leaves doubt.

[kaputt]

15 minutes ago, BFM this said:

So...pre-COVID, old people weren’t getting flu shots?

Your supposition might be correct, but leaves doubt.

I’d love to know the rates of COVID vax vs Flu vax in elderly. I haven’t been able to find that data. 
 

I’m not saying the VAERS deaths shouldn’t be looked at. It would be nice to get some actual research on the numbers. 
 

But citing them as “vaccine reaction deaths” is spreading false information because that data does not track that. 

[pawnman]

2 hours ago, BFM this said:

So...pre-COVID, old people weren’t getting flu shots?

Your supposition might be correct, but leaves doubt.

1. Not nearly as many

2. It's not like we stopped all other vaccination efforts. 

[BFM this]

21 minutes ago, pawnman said:

1. Not nearly as many

2. It's not like we stopped all other vaccination efforts. 

Exactly

Which is why the spike in morbidity/mortality is notable.  That there is no potential for causality, while valid as a null hypothesis, is more dubious than its counter hypothesis.

2000/4years vs 5000/.5years is an extreme jump, no matter how you parse the data.

Edited June 27, 2021 by BFM this

[pawnman]

22 minutes ago, BFM this said:

Exactly

Which is why the spike in morbidity/mortality is notable.  That there is no potential for causality, while valid as a null hypothesis, is more dubious than its counter hypothesis.

2000/4years vs 5000/.5years is an extreme jump, no matter how you parse the data.

Again...useless without total number of vaccines distributed in the same timeframe.

Also, 5000 deaths in 171 million vaccinations is still way better than 600k deaths in 32 million Covid cases. 

[BFM this]

13 minutes ago, pawnman said:

600k deaths in 32 million Covid cases. 

As we’ve seen, also dubious...

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, BFM this said:

As we’ve seen, also dubious...

So 100% faith in 5000 deaths from vaccines, but no faith in 600K deaths from Covid?  From the same agency?

What WOULD you accept as valid estimates for Covid fatalities?

[brickhistory]

3 hours ago, pawnman said:

So 100% faith in 5000 deaths from vaccines, but no faith in 600K deaths from Covid?  From the same agency?

What WOULD you accept as valid estimates for Covid fatalities?

Absolutely NO government source would be accepted by me.  From nearly the get go, federal/state/local "leaders" have politicized this goatrope to the point where nothing is trustworthy.

It's a scary world; I'll make my own decisions for me and mine.