Total posts: 98
-->
@Greyparrot
In a world where everyone trusts the authority they agree with, there can exist no fraud by definition.
Trump supporters like Ashli Babbit have shown they are willing to confront law enforcement and die for him, cloak themselves, their homes and their vehicles in Trump paraphernalia while chanting for him at rallies and parades like he's some kind of Kim Jung Un, devote themselves to supporting him and defending him unconditionally even at their own expense... but tend to mock other people's allegiance to authority and groupthink which I find very funny.
These so called "anti authority" "free thinkers" emphatically endorse anything Trump says as gospel (and insist the lack of evidence for what he says actually proves he is correct.... ha). They mock other people's obedience to politicians and authority while promoting Trump as THE supremely righteous and premier authority. That is the irony of people still complaining about the election fraud they have never been able to produce any evidence for.
Created:
So because Republican Establishment does not like Trump (even though many ride on the coat tails of his popularity) and Democrats do not like Trump, everything Trump says must therefore be true and lack of evidence doesn't matter because everything is a big conspiracy. You can't trust anyone or anything, especially if they are considered legitimate resources. This is where we are folks, enjoy the ride.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Oromagi, address what pue just said. If there is no fraud why did the convenient break in happen?
That is a fallacious question - an Appeal to Ignorance. This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. You are concluding there was a devious break-in (even though you have offered zero proof of that) and asking oromagi to disprove your conclusion which is based on nothing but an assumption. You can't disprove someone's guess.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Also the fact that after the judge, a Democrat, announced his decision, the place where ballots were kept was mysteriously broken into. Ofc officials claim nothing happened and nothing happened to the ballots. The same officials that would have had a hand in this voter fraud.
And what about Georgia's Republican Secretary of State and Republican Attorney General both insisting after many investigations there was no fraud?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Unfortunately now many people are incapable of feeling shame
I don't see any defense contractor feeling shame when they receive government handouts in the form of massive contracts, even if people die over it. I don't see any oil tycoon or Wall Street banker feeling shame when the government bails them out to the tune of billions of dollars. These are people who are millionaires but have no problem looking for financial assistance from the government.
I understand what you are saying, but to expect people to feel guilty for taking what's offered or provided by government, when they feel government often screws them over and doesn't protect them does not seem very reasonable. I would imagine many people on welfare feel they are deserving for some reason, just like the rich people getting handouts do. I have not seen any of them convey shame, have you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
You are correct. Single motherhood is taught to be a virtue and so is irresponsible behavior IE: the welfare state rewards it with a check every month. The more irresponsible the bigger the check.
There will always be people looking to exploit any system or any benefits, but for the most part nobody glorifies single motherhood except for anti abortion activists.
Society believes in a social safety net for children who are born into circumstances that would condemn them to lack of resources and opportunity (no access to food, shelter, healthcare or education) simply for being born through no fault of their own. That is why we have welfare and you have to prove a need for it. I can't imagine the morality of a person who advocates to make innocent children suffer the consequences of their parent's irresponsibility or misfortune by taking away what little they receive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Politics is based on whatever makes someone feel good about themselves. If you are lgbt or poc, and you feel supported or included by the left because they put up signs for you, then even if some of their policies are not great or they have used you as political pawns you are still going to associate them with making you feel supported.
If you live in rural America, even if Republican politicians have continuously chosen to reward the elites over you, but they are the ones vocally glorifying your love of guns and Jesus, then you are going to stick with them because they make you feel supported.
It is about groupthink but that goes back to what makes people feel good about themselves. That's why you are more likely to see poc in rural areas support Trump, because their peers in the community support Trump and it makes them feel good to be included by them (especially if they already stand out). If you are white and privileged living in some $500,000 condo, it might make you feel good to think supporting leftist causes somehow alleviates you of any other moral responsibility.
I think your politics can change when the other side makes you feel better about yourself in some way. "You're not the problem, they're the problem."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
This consists of deadbeat dads getting a mandatory vastectomy and deadbeat moms getting their tubes tied. The funds for this are paid for by the government and intended to be a deterrence to people to not abandon their parental responsibilities in order to provide their kids with hopefully a better life than they had. If you abandon your parenting responsibilities once, you easily could do it again.I fail to see the problem with this idea.
Some problems - your proposal would use Big Government to punish people for being ignorant or poor, which comes with many moral concerns for people who do not think the government should be used in that way. Sterilizing people infringes on their bodily autonomy, and provides little empathy or room for growth and change. Someone might not have any education and struggle immensely. With some assistance and time, they might mature and see the error of their ways as well as create opportunities for themselves to be a better parent. We do not punish criminals who commit grave crimes against humanity with forced sterilization or lifelong sentences unless they murder someone, so why create this kind of psychological, physical and long-term punishment for someone being selfish? Abandonment is a terrible crime and comes with penalties, but sterilization seems cruel and unusual unless you want our government to start acting like China where they regulate the population "for the good of society." I am curious by what a "deadbeat mom" is, and abortion would have to be 100% legal across the board in every state under this proposal, or else you would just see back alley abortions left and right to try and avoid this penalty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Anecdotes are meaningless to me, do you have statistics showing that police are more likely to get off for shooting an unarmed black person than an unarmed white person?
There are statistics for a lot of things, and what you are asking for is fair, but not fair to only presume there is one criteria to prove racism in criminal justice. Based on exonerations, statistics show a black person is 3.5 times more likely to be falsely accused of sexual assault, not sure why that is. Some believe it is because they are misidentified more often, but I have not confirmed that. Based on exonerations, innocent black people spend more time in jail than innocent white people, probably because they have public defenders more often. Now this is not because of their race, but because black people are more likely to be poor and unable to afford an attorney, but that does not change the statistics in numbers. If you look up false confessions, many black people plead guiltyto drug possession, but lab tests later showed theyhad no illegal drugs. This impacts black people more, as they are arrested more for drugs, and many studies show cops themselves falsely plant drugs on black people. Laws that should apply to everyone equally, tend to harm blacks the most such as drug laws, with black people using drugs at similar rates to whites, but being arrested and therefore convicted and punished far more often. Studies have found that theyare more likely to be stopped by the police, detained pretrial, charged with more serious crimes, and therefore sentenced moreharshly than white people. Black people tend to live in densely populated areas with high crime, that are subject to "broken windows" policing, zero tolerance policing that punishes people for minor infractions like loitering, littering, etc., again placing black people in more confrontations with officers, increasing their exposure to risk of harassment or mistreatment or arrest. If you look up Rockerfeller Drug Laws, it shows how things like mandatory minimum sentences have significantly punished black people, especially when they made crack cocaine a higher offense than more expensive (white people) cocaine. There are many studies showing evidence of racial biasagainst black people at all parts in the court process from prosecutors to judges and juries making decisions about charges, verdicts and sentencing disproportionately. This link shows many of them at the end.
I VERY strongly disagree with you that when a white person wrongs a black person the social presumption is that the white person is innocent.
That is not what I said, what I said was if a white person is killed by another white person, and especially a black person, there is a presumption that there will be fairness in the justice system, that the killer will be investigated, charged, and likely convicted. This is to contrast the killing of black people, where things like bias are taken into account at many levels. For example, look through these forums and you will see several people argue that certain force is warranted, and even killing may be warranted, if a black person was a "career criminal" or on drugs, which is false. Police are legally and morally not allowed to shoot someone just because they have a very rough past, yet until the black lives matter movement, you would always see black victims of police portrayed in the media as horrible people, thugs, exaggerating their backstory, etc., anything to make it sound like the person "got what was coming to them" or the police were acting reasonably given the person was bad in general. They also tend to solve homicides against black people less often for a number of reasons, but it explains why people feel "black lives don't matter" when their bodies are seen of as disposable or not worthwhile to pour resources into investigating the way you investigate other crimes.
I DO agree that juries are incredibly lenient with the police when they go on trial. I'm not 100% sure why this is.
I agree, and until the last few years, I have always tended to side with the police, believing very strongly in law and order. I still think police have a very important, tough job, but I think it would be naive to think they can check their biases at their door. We all have bias, and police have more power than the average person, as does everyone involved in the criminal justice process. To think there is no bias or no different treatment does not seem to be supported by the statistics or anecdotes. I do not think every claim by black lives matter is correct by any means, but I think there should be criminal justice reform toward accountability for cops and more equal punishment for the races. I do not know every solution but we could work toward better attorneys for poor people, less strict policing for minor or non violent crimes, more training, more cameras, more resources invested in solving black murders, maybe even looking at gun laws. I am open to many ideas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Do you have empirical evidence that 1) police/vigilantes unjustly kill black people at a higher rate when you adjust for violent crime and 2) that these killings are more likely to go unpunished than killings of a white, hispanic, or asian person?
I am not sure what you are asking me for regarding killing black people at a higher rate. I specifically said it's not only about that. When cops harass black neighborhoods, when they use excessive force with impunity, when they take black lives unjustly but it is presumed to be justified, these are all things BLM is about, not just the rates of death but the non punishment for death and force that is not warranted, and again it does not only apply to cops.
If a white person is killed by another white person, and especially a black person, there is a presumption that there will be fairness in the justice system, that the killer will be investigated, charged, and likely convicted. When a black person is killed by someone, especially a cop, the presumption is the cop or white person was justified (does not apply to black on black crime). Even looking through these forums you can see the racism and disgusting analysis that cops are justified in killing "career criminals" which is ludicrous...... that is not how the justice system works. You aren't allowed to kill someone just because they have a violent criminal history, you aren't allowed to kill someone just because they are on drugs, yet this is a common mindset, and you see it being presented here but want to pretend this is just made up and not factual without "statistics."
Statistics say judging from exonerations, innocent black people are about seven times more likelyto be convicted of murder than innocent white people.
Statistics say black prisoners who are convicted of murder are about 50% more likelyto be innocent than other convicted murderers. Part of that disparity is tied to the race of thevictim. African Americans imprisoned for murder are more likely to be innocent if they wereconvicted of killing white victims
There are many other statistics proving racism in criminal justice, but it seems you only want to focus on one or two statistics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
It isn't a separate conversation, it's the entire conversation. If black people are NOT being unjustly killed at a disproportionate rate, adjusted for rates of violent crime, then All Lives Matter is actually a more appropriate slogan when it comes to police brutality.
That is not all that Black Lives Matter is about. It is about people not being held accountable for killing blacks, especially police but not only police. George Zimmerman killed a black teen for walking home with Skittles, Treyvon Martin did nothing wrong. And yet George Zimmerman walked. Ahmaud Arbery was shot by 2 white guys and the police were advised to make no arrests. It took months and publicity for charges to be brought against them. When cops harass black neighborhoods, when they use excessive force with impunity, when they take black lives unjustly but it is presumed to be justified, these are all things BLM is about, not just the rates of death but the non punishment for death and force that is not warranted.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Because "risk-reduction" is not the same as "prevention."
Straw man. I never said they were the same.
Non sequitur. Once again, you're alluding to "impact" despite my repeating my argument
Not a non sequitur. Throughout this thread you have been saying that covid vaccines were futile and getting them wouldn't help old people or immunocompromised people because they don't affect spread, so there was no point in most people getting the covid vax. Now you want to make it sound as if the only thing you claimed is "the vaccine prevents neither the contraction or spread of the virus" which is fine because you haven't offered any proof that's true anyway.
It is based on the sample number in their trials. There's a difference between saying that Joe Shmoe has an 80% chance of not contracting the virus, and 80% of the participants in our trials didn't contract the virus during our experiments. The CDC is using the reasoning of the latter to propose the former.
So the CDC is only reporting data on people they've actually studied. Imagine that. Funny that you think the CDC is such a shoddy source that it's the one you chose when I asked you for a source. So what you're saying is their data is so bad and unreliable that it's the one you're relying on to make your point.
The vaccine doesn't introduce antibodies.
I said vaccines help the body recognize spike proteins and create antibodies.
Never said that it could.
You said a more practical response instead of vaccination is "to just simply practice good hygiene (and nutrition.)" And I said washing your hands doesn't help create antibodies. So no you did not say that washing hands creates antibodies, but you're saying washing hands is "a more practical response" which is not true for many people.
It is unnecessary to delineate that which I am "free" to do. If I intend to continue "preaching [my] anti vax fear mongering," I will. But just remember, you engaged me.
It is unnecessary to tell me that it is unnecessary for me to say you are free to do something. If I intend to continue to tagging you in posts and replying to you, I will. And you can do what you want in response. But yes I did engage you, and you did not even answer the first question I asked you when you said most people in "hotbeds" have already had covid. I asked you how you came to that conclusion and you chose to ignore that question.
But the CDC does support it--at least, the argument for which you wanted data.
No, the CDC does not support your argument. I asked if you can show me the data you have where it says vaccines have no impact on contracting or spreading the virus. You responded with a CDC source which explicitly says vaxxed people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to contract and transmit covid, which is the opposite of your claim.
The CDC also said one dose of the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 80 percent effective at preventing infection, and two doses were 90 percent effective at preventing infection. Less infections means less opportunity for spread.
They believe vaxxed people may get infected but not develop the symptoms that cause spread through respiratory droplets. The studies are ongoing, but I am still not sure why you are using CDC data after calling it fallacious and unreliable.
You're extending your arguments based on the same non sequitur.
This is not making a point or claim so I won't bother asking which alleged non sequitur you're referring to.
Quote me verbatim.
You did not explicitly use the word "useless." You said, "Injecting the virus especially with some corticosteroid is an exaggerated response to that which can be addressed by simply practicing good hygiene (e.g. the way one avoids contracting the cold or flu viruses.)" This implies the vaccine is useless. I will repeat that washing your hands doesn't help the body create antibodies.
You said "It's the immune system that produces the necessary antibodies that may "stop" the disease. The vaccine helps with this, but so does contracting the infection in the first place should one not succumb to it." Here you are implying that the vaccine is useless because it is just as effective or ineffective as contracting the infection in the first place, which is not true as there are people who get the vaccine and do not die or get sick (for instance, people over age 80) whereas if they contracted covid, their risk of becoming sick or dying would be much higher than just from the vaccine dose. The vaccine does not produce the same response as contracting the virus itself.
You said, "If you're getting vaccinated every five years, what has the vaccine accomplished? If it's to bolster one's immune system, then there are alternatives that don't require intravenous introduction of an infection/disease/syndrome." This implies what you said in another post, that just practicing good hygiene and eating healthy would be enough, which it isn't for many people.
You might say that these inferences are not verbatim quotes. That is like if you said "these potatoes are good" and I said "so you enjoy the potatoes" and you say "no, I never said that verbatim" as if that is not what you meant. If you want to go that route that is fine. But throughout this thread you have implied the vaccination is not useful and poses more risk than potential rewards, because it does not prevent spread, which does not appear to be true. And you said the vaccines don't help people who can't fight off the covid infection anyway, which is also not true, because people who get the vaccine can and often are perfectly fine and not at risk of serious illness or death whereas contracting a full on covid infection without any antibodies already present does pose those risks to them.
Created:
-->
@Athias
So let's once again look at my argument:The vaccine prevents neither the contraction nor the spread of the virus.Does the vaccine prevent the contraction of the virus? According to the CDC references, NO. Does the vaccine prevent the spread of the virus? According, once again, to the the CDC references, NO.
Your CDC source says the vaccine reduces the risk of viral spread, so explain how that proves your point that the vaccine does not prevent spread given the reduced risk. Why would the risk be reduced if there is no impact on transmission.
The CDC also said one dose of the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 80 percent effective at preventing infection, and two doses were 90 percent effective at preventing infection, which disputes your claim that the CDC says the vaccine offers no prevention to contracting the virus.
The coronavirus that causes covid-19 has spikes of protein on each viral particle. These spikes help the viruses attach to cells and cause disease. If they do not attach to the cells then you don't get covid. The vaccines help the body recognize these spike proteins and create antibodies so they don't attach, and you don't contract covid simply by coming into contact with the viral material. So yes the vaccine does prevent contraction of covid, and if less people are contracting covid, then less people are transmitting covid.
Also, if people are fighting off covid because they have antibodies already introduced from the vaccine, that is not something that can be accomplished just by washing your hands. You are free to keep preaching your anti vax fear mongering, but expecting the CDC to support that makes no sense. At this time they are still researching the effectiveness but have not determined there is no impact, so you are just drawing that conclusion that vaccines are useless while simultaneously saying the trials are not substantive or long enough. If they are not long enough then how can you be certain they are useless.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the main reason i say that, is because the police man's supporters say floyd was gonna die anyway as he was doped up. they seem sure of it.
It does not matter what they say. It matters what the toxicology report and autopsies say. They say he had drugs in his system, and other health complications, but there is no indication he would have stopped breathing or went into cardiac arrest from that if nobody had jammed their knee into his throat for nine minutes. Before the cops arrived Floyd was impaired but walking around, not collapsing or showing any signs of physical distress. I have looked much worse than that after many nights of hard drinking.
The issue to me isn't whether Chauvin is guilty, it has always been about which degree of murder he is guilty of. He is charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. The police training says to subdue suspects, not kill them or continue to press down on their neck after they have been unresponsive for four minutes. I think his case will fall apart because of the last five minutes. The first 4 minutes 45 seconds when he was conscious is one thing, but the defense will have to explain why it was necessary to keep restricting the airways of someone who was pinned down to the ground and not moving with no signs of breathing.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Why didn't you highlight the part of your source that says "A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others." Is it because it goes against your claim that vaccines have NO IMPACT on transmission? Very dishonest.
The same source also says "While some prevention measures will continue to be necessary regardless of vaccination status, fully vaccinated persons may be able to engage in some activities with low or reduced risk of acquiring or transmitting COVID-19."
Nothing you put in bold from the second source proves in any way that vaccines have no effect on transmission. It says vaccinated people still have to follow social distancing protocols, wear masks, and follow other guidelines which is obviously to slow the spread among UNVACCINATED PEOPLE. But even if you could transmit covid with the vaccine doesn't mean vaccines have NO IMPACT.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I said lockdowns slowed the spread of covid. I did not think I had to clarify what lockdowns meant since it is so obvious. The moment you asked me to clarify, I did, so saying that I "refused" to clarify is just you being very dramatic. I never refused so that is a misrepresentation of what I said or rather did not say.
You are also saying I "refuse" to give more than one anecdotal example. Another dramatic lie. Twice now I have clarified if I am home, or if the majority of people are home (so as to not be anecdotal and not rely on one singular example, but use a generality of the entire population instead - the OPPOSITE of an anecdote) then how is the virus spreading at the same rate? I don't think you even know what the word anecdote means if you think I am relying on one here.
Of course I did not cite data to support my claims because I did not make any claim. I asked 3RU7AL a question. "If I am home with nobody in my household infected, can you explain how I am contracting the virus?" That is not a claim. But you decided to chime in to complain that I did not go after 3RU7ALs sources. Why should I be responsible for attacking his sources when I did not even once reference a single point he or his sources even made?
All I did was ask a question and then field these useless replies from you, first saying you don't know what lockdown means, then accusing me of not explaining what lockdowns mean even though I did the moment you asked me, and now saying I did not include data when I have never made a claim to cite and show data for. Show me the claim I made that requires data.
You think you are being objective and philosophically critical when you're really just misrepresenting and imposing burdens of proof on me that I absolutely do not have. That is what my debate is for. There is no burden on my part for asking a question in these forums because questions do not require any "proof."
You said you agree with my conclusions. What conclusion are you even talking about. I asked 3RU7AL how covid spreads equally fast during lockdowns and I asked Athias for data he has that shows vaccines do not slow the spread. So I don't even know what "conclusion" you are referring to and you have not proven me wrong about anything.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You are going out of your way to criticize what I'm saying without making any good points at all. I said lockdowns slow the spread of covid. Your retort is that I have not specified what lockdown means. Nitpicky semantics. When I say lockdowns slow the spread, I quite obviously mean when people are staying at home or not frequenting non essential businesses.
According to Wikipedia the lockdown is a restriction policy for people or community to stay where they are, usually due to specific risks to themselves or to others if they can move and interact freely. The term "stay-at-home" or "shelter-in-place" is often used for lockdowns that affect an area, rather than specific locations.
So let's go back to what I said-lockdowns slow the spread of covid. When people are not going out to businesses, or staying at home, the rate of covid transmission is lower than if people are out and about.
Now that we all know what lockdown means, let's get back to my point. Maybe you would like to try answering given how much of a critique you have for the questions themselves. If I am home, or if the majority of people are home (so as to not be anecdotal) then how is the virus spreading at the same rate with limited contact to others compared to if we were all in normal proximity to others? If he read the source then he should be able to explain how people can contract a virus at the same rate if they are sitting at home as when they are out and about.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I did not argue in favor of lockdowns. I said society seems to brush off 550,000 covid deaths, or 11,000 deaths of people under age 40, while in other instances agreeing to massive social changes with far less casualties. Cuomo shut down New York in March-April, back when very little was known about the virus, and Florida, the crown jewel of the radical right, did the same thing. On March 17, Desantis ordered all bars and nightclubs to be closed for 30 days, and extended school closures to April 15.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The problem is that you are assuming what he means by lock down, and assuming that everybody in lockdown did the same thing - the two are assumptions that cannot be granted
Why doesn't 3RU7AL have that same problem? Why can he make a blanket statement about lockdowns without clarifying what "lockdown" means?
Created:
Since multiple people agree with 3RU7AL that lockdowns have no impact at all on the spread of covid, maybe one person would be willing to debate it and explain to me.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't have to attack his source, assuming you are talking about my post to 3RU7AL. I did not say he was wrong. I asked a question? If I am home, or if the majority of people are home (so as to not be anecdotal) then how is the virus spreading at the same rate with limited contact to others compared to if we were all in normal proximity to others? If he read the source then he should be able to explain how people can contract a virus at the same rate if they are sitting at home as when they are out and about.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
about 15 new babies were born in America for every Covid death. There is no "Crisis"
In 2001, for every American that died in 9/11 there were 1,351 babies born, yet people still felt that was a crisis for big government response. Less than 3,000 people died. 550,000 Americans died from covid in a year, or 1,500 per day, but the response is well those people were not that healthy anyway. Yes, I understand a terrorist attack is much different from a virus, but the way people look at the value of people's lives seems much different even though you would think a life's value would be the same regardless of how they died. We are more cavalier about people's lives with the virus. I am willing to bet a lot of the people working in the World Trade Center had comorbidities, but nobody was saying "Rest in Peace Tommy but you were a smoker so chances are you would be sick soon regardless," or "Rest in peace Diana but you were 65 with asthma so statistically speaking you did not have much longer anyway." From looking into all our personal data and eroding privacy, to changing TSA rules, laws, sending soldiers to war after war, we decided there was no cost too big or freedom too important to change the way our society operates in response to 9/11, but with this it is as if 550,000 American lives don't matter because many were old. 11,000 Americans that died from covid were under age 40. Our country only wants to respond with big action if there is money to be made in defense contracting, otherwise we will tell ourselves 11,000 people under 40 dying in a year is no big deal. I am not saying we should be making big, permanent moves like we did after 9/11, but at least people seemed to care about lives lost in 9/11, instead of brushing them off as just another tragedy. Again I know a terrorist attack is different, it comes with different risks, and there is someone specific to blame (kind of) but I see the way people don't care much about vulnerable people dying from a virus. After the Titanic sank there were new regulations, after many fires they made legislative changes, after some crimes they made us all give up our privacy and live under big surveillance, and we accept that all, but ask people to wear a mask, or limit capacity in places during a virus (we already have max people capacity for safety) and they think that is a bridge too far in eroding our freedoms. It is interesting how society looks at things.
Created:
-->
@Athias
The vaccine prevents neither the contraction nor the spread of the virus.
"A new CDC study provides strong evidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections in real-world conditions among health care personnel, first responders, and other essential workers. The study looked at the effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections among 3,950 study participants in six states over a 13-week period from December 14, 2020 to March 13, 2021. Results showed that following the second dose of vaccine (the recommended number of doses), risk of infection was reduced by 90 percent two or more weeks after vaccination. Following a single dose of either vaccine, the participants’ risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 was reduced by 80 percent two or more weeks after vaccination."
Can you show me the data you have where it says vaccines have no impact on contracting or spreading the virus?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no relationship between lockdowns (or whatever else people want to call them to mask their true nature) and virus control.
I see. If I am sitting at home with nobody in my household infected, can you explain how I am contracting the virus?
Created:
-->
@Athias
That's one of the arguments I've persisted to make. If we are to take the epidemicity of this virus seriously, then that would suggest that most who live in the "hotbeds" have been exposed. If one has been exposed, then what is the point of risking taking these vaccines if one's immune system has already developed a response? And, if the vaccine prevents neither its contraction nor its spread, why is it being recommended even to those who are at low risk of dying from it?
Why would you assume that people living in hotbeds have been exposed, if there have been lockdowns, social distancing, and masks? Is there data that says most people have already contracted covid 19? That would be great. I was arguing with coal in another thread about the efficacy of lockdowns, and while I do not support them, I understand that if people are home and not going out, they are less likely to contract the virus.
A handful of recent studies suggest that the vaccines not only prevent people who are exposed to the virus from contracting it, but also prevent them from spreading it. I am not one to blindly trust authority or research I do not understand, but I also do not make it a habit to say that "experts" or researchers are wrong when I have not done any research of my own. What research have you done, or facts do you have, that prove the vaccine does not actually stop people from getting the virus?
It seems that vaccines shield people who get the virus from becoming seriously ill, which could be a benefit if you do not know your level of risk. I go back and forth guessing as to how covid might impact me given my attributes. I took an antibody test and have not had covid despite living in one of the hotbeds.
Some say a good way to think of the vaccine's value is to consider what would happen without the vaccine. Two to four more years of this where people are dying at similar or even lower rates, we could have a million die from covid, especially as people get more lax about social distancing because we're all just so sick of it. I understand many people think that would be acceptable, and many do not, but if we place a value on life then surely saving lives is valuable. I am curious, are you against getting the vaccine all together or just young and healthy people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You did not respond to my question. How does China create a better outcome or livelihood for its citizens living there today?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yes, I know that China is not superior, that's why I was looking for an explanation from Greyparrot but he did not respond.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Why do I need to show you a source for something you've already looked up yourself. Are you saying if President Biden took a colleague to speak at his press conferences that would satisfy your desire for more Biden air time? I do not think it is very important when presidents just read off a teleprompter anyway. Kayleigh McEnany only read pre written answers that were recorded in a binder. It is all scripted, phony nonsense. Does not matter much to me.
Created:
Posted in:
Someone ask coal how would 2k checks pass without Joe Manchin's support. He blocked me for proving him objectively wrong about covid spread. I guess that hurt his feelings.
Created:
Posted in:
President Trump had one press conference his first year in office.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The Spanish never had such a saying until after World War 2 where a lot more about Japanese culture was discovered by the Europeans.
So it is a Spanish proverb that originated in Japan. Good to know, but I am more interested in learning how China creates a better outcome or livelihood for its citizens living there today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"If you fall seven times, get up 8" is a Spanish proverb that is popular everywhere. There is also "God helps those who help themselves." Lots of nuggets of wisdom from cultures all over the world, that are not necessarily superior.
How does China create a better outcome or livelihood for its citizens living there today? It would be fair to say we should adopt different policies from many places, while leaving other ones behind.
Created:
I do not think people in nursing homes would have an easy time social distancing and practicing good hygiene on their own.
Republican men will not take the vaccine because they do not trust government. They were singing a different tune when Donny was pushing the vaccine, bragging about how amazing it was that "he" could deliver such a miracle to the American people. Now they say it is rushed and unnecessary, of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Your attitude is unavailing.
You have been nothing but condescending.
It is at this point obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about,
It has been obvious for awhile now that you have no idea what you're talking about.
If you decide you want to understand, let me know.
I asked you to explain multiple times. You replied in 5 separate posts with no explanation at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
This desperate effort to distract is not working. You have now replied to me four separate times with no attempt at all to explain how your link backs you up despite saying the exact opposite, lol.
To save face, you should shrink away quietly. The petty one line responses with no substance only serve as a reminder that you do not come equipped with any facts.
I have now proven you wrong with a source linking to research (you didn't respond), logic premises and conclusion (you didn't respond), and a very long explanation for an extremely simple concept about how people staying at home and not working or traveling slows the spread of a virus...... because it limits their contact and exposure to others (you didn't respond). It is pretty clear that you are not interested in having a discussion and so I am no longer interested either. Have a great day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
What do you think the word "falsify" means?
The word falsify means "to prove a statement to be false." You cannot prove any of those premises to be false, and you cannot prove the logical conclusion to be false. That is why I am right and you are wrong. See the research I cited or re-read the explanation if you need to.
1. No it does not. I see you are not interested in understanding the science, data or methods of analysis for the issues implicated by your claims.2. I sent you two links. Not one.
Why should I care about the second link when you won't address the first.
The source you sent quite literally says the exact opposite of what you are saying. It reads, "without business closures, cases and deaths would be about 40% higher at the end of May." You have done nothing at all to explain how your source actually backs you up despite you saying the exact opposite. You haven't even tried. You haven't referenced its contents or statements even once ever since I pointed out your mistake. And the reason you have done nothing to explain how your source backs you up despite saying the exact opposite, is because you can't. Thus you are trying to save face or change the subject with that "I sent two links" and "what do you think the word falsify means" nonsense. There is no need, I have no interest in gloating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
What you're doing is repeating some pretty shallow claims you heard in the media,
Premise 1, You admit that population density is the foremost issue in covid spread.
Premise 2, Population density is the foremost issue in covid spread, because of people's closeness and proximity to others who spread germs.
Premise 3, When people are restricted to being at home, they cannot spread or receive germs from others.
Logical Conclusion, People being at home inherently slows the spread, because they are not in proximity to others, and cannot spread or receive germs.
You cannot falsify any of these premises, and you cannot falsify the logical conclusion.
Because you cannot falsify the premises or its logical conclusion, you are wrong, and I am right.
The link you provided contradicts everything you have said. I cited it verbatim, and you said I did not understand it even though I quoted it word for word. And then, you asked if I would like for you to explain why the verbatim text I cited, which explicitly contradicts your points throughout the entire thing (so I am not sure you read it, to be frank) is somehow wrong or my understanding is wrong. So I am wondering why none of what you said in your last post to me referenced the information contained in the link. You did not cite any of its contents let alone explain in any way, how I "do not understand it." It clearly says businesses being shut down saves lives. Saying I am I am wrong wrong wrong, and do not understand, does not prove anything. You are trying to prove your point with a link that quite literally says the exact opposite of what you are trying to say, and what I have logically proven with the premises above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
I am claiming that lockdowns slow the spread of a virus, because if you are sitting at home and not exposed to other people, the opportunity for transmission is little to nothing. That is a fact. You have acknowledged population density as the biggest factor in covid transmission, meaning more people proximation = higher rate of transmission. This confirms my point that limited exposure to people (lockdowns) slows the spread even if that has many other negative repercussions.
You have also repeatedly confirmed my point to thett that looking at overall numbers alone (FL vs NY) proves nothing. So if you would like to explain why the direct quote lifted from your source is wrong, you can, but you have already proven me to be correct multiple times, and I am satisfied with that being the end of the discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
It turns out that, in the final analysis, the only actual predictor of how fast COVID spread was population density.
All you're doing is repeating and confirming my point repeatedly. Why does population density matter when it comes to viral spread? Because when you are exposed to more people, the likelihood of transmission is higher. If you are sitting at home and not exposing yourself to anyone, the opportunity for transmission is lower. That is a fact. Your source confirms this fact for you even though it is very obvious. It says "not implementing stay-at-home orders would have increased cases by 6 to 63% by the end of May." So there would have definitively been more cases without lockdowns per the link you provided. Statistically speaking, some of the people that would have contracted covid would have comorbidities that increase their risk of dying. That is probably why your link says "without business closures, cases and deaths would be about 40% higher at the end of May."
All findings I have read suggest that stay-at-home orders combined with testing, tracing, and travel restrictions, likely played a key role in significantly reducing the covid growth rate. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/10/1601/5879762
So far you have provided no evidence indicating that lockdowns did not slow the spread.
Did you send the wrong link by accident, or did you not realize that your source proves my points?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Essentially every claim that you made in this post is wrong. No evidence exists to support the proposition that lockdowns saved a single life. What the data actually say is that outcomes are all over the place no matter what the state did. There aren't even credible correlation studies that pass minimal scrutiny that support the claim that lockdowns saved lives, although there are several that try. They typically cite state-by-state comparisons, relying on manipulated data-sets that support their claims and ignore entirely those that disprove.
Essentially every claim that you made in your post is wrong, except for the ones where you repeated what I said and framed it as if you are saying something different. There is evidence to support the proposition that lockdowns saved lives, and no evidence claiming that lockdowns did not save any lives. The data does say that outcomes are all over the place with different state responses. That is the point I made to thett, disproving the idea that lockdowns had "no effect" by his using FLs numbers compared to NYs. Citing state by state comparisons alone without context is useless, with population density being a huge factor, so you are confirming my point.
When I said the rate of transmission for an airborne virus is mitigated by limited interactions with people and spaces, you said that's a very vague statement, and generally reflective of the level of most people's understanding of this stuff. What is your level of understanding of this stuff? Are you a virologist? If you are just pulling things off google and sending them to your doctor friends to interpret for you like the rest of us, I doubt your level of understanding is very superior to mine. For starters you claim to not understand how limiting interactions with people and spaces reduces the rate of transmission. If a virus is airborne and you are home, you are not contracting the virus from other people or places. I am not sure how this could be any more clear.
But, from a common sense perspective, consider the difference between upstate/rural New York and Manhattan. Would you expect the level of human interaction in rural upstate NY to be the same as that of Midtown? No. The reason is because of differences in population density. In the less densely populated areas of upstate NY, COVID spread at about the same rate in upstate NY as it did in states that never "locked down," whereas in NYC it spread rapidly.
Yes, and it would have spread even more rapidly in New York City, which does have different policies than upstate New York, if people were crowding in bars and restaurants instead of being at home. Cities have more human interaction because they are more densely populated, as you noted. Therefore the rate of transmission is faster. The denser the city, the more easily disease can spread. I do not think less dense places needed to lockdown. I am not sure if rural places like upstate New York did lock down for very long. States did so early in the pandemic when much was still unknown about the virus, and that includes Florida. All we saw was devastation in Italy and China going above and beyond to contain the spread in Wuhan, so of course there was fear. More rural places were initially concerned about their lack of medical infrastructure, but it should not have been too surprising that densely populated cities posed the greatest risk. Again this is reason not to look at FLs numbers vs NYs alone and think that proves anything, so you are again confirming my point.
Exceptions to this really only exist where one of three things happened:1. Hospital admissions policies resulted in higher COVID exposure during the pandemic's earliest stages, which is very similar to what took place in Italy (and the reason why Italy had such egregious outcomes despite its NPIs);2. Cuomo's policy of sending virus-shedding COVID patients to certain nursing homes in NY state; and3. Volunteers who went to NYC at the height of everything, who contracted COVID, and thereafter brought it back to less populated areas upon their return home.
This all validates my point even further. Cuomo's nursing home policy accounts for a significant amount of NYs death toll, so thett using NYs total death numbers and saying that is indicative of the effectiveness of lockdown policy is useless. You have to account for the other variables.
Hospitals admitting and mixing covid patients early in the pandemic, and volunteers bringing covid back home, explains how exposure to more people and places increases the likelihood of transmission. That is why lockdowns slow the rate: because if you are sitting home working or playing video games, and not traveling to other states, your exposure is inherently lower than if you were out and about. That is common sense.
Moreover, even if we were going to make sweeping and unsupported claims about COVID deaths,
I'm not
your analysis cannot be limited to only the amount of COVID fatalities you think that lockdowns saved (assuming you could make such an estimation). You would need, at least, to also consider the number of deaths that might result from lockdowns themselves, such as preventable deaths due to the lack of receipt of routine health care (e.g., heart attacks, cancer, etc.). It doesn't seem like you thought about that.
I have thought about it. Multiple times I have referenced the net negatives of lockdowns. Multiple times I have said I do not agree with lockdowns. 55% of people have avoided medical care because of covid. That doesn't allow us to quantify the number of lives lost as a result, so we cannot venture a guess as to how it compares to the utility of lockdowns in lives saved. But people choosing to stay home and not seek medical care out of fear can't be blamed on lockdowns, and neither can hospital overcrowding. Without lockdowns, more people were at risk of exposure, and therefore hospitalization, which could have also increased the death toll. By how much can only be a rough estimate. What I would say to the people making this point about lockdowns, who tend to be Republican, is that more than 26,000 Americans die every year due to lack of health insurance. Why suddenly care about lack of access to medical care now.
In hindsight, it looks like only a portion of the population was at significant risk of covid, which we did not know early on. States have responded according to what the scientists have been telling them, which is what they should be doing. That's why we have scientists. Just like we have lawyers to provide legal guidance (and they are sometimes wrong). Just like we have doctors to provide medical guidance (and they are sometimes wrong). We know better now, but the idea that lockdowns had NO effect, as in did not save any lives, is not true. That is the only thing I responded to when I said it was "subjective" whether lockdowns were effective. You might not agree, but all the people with comorbidities who were allowed to work from home might disagree with you. That's what subjective means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
You are proving my point.
What exactly is your point? You said, regarding lockdowns, there is "little evidence that these restrictions did much to help." I said that was subjective, because lockdowns did slow the spread and did save lives early in the pandemic. So lockdowns did help for those that value saving lives above all (I do not). It is common sense that lockdowns slowed the spread, but you asked for a source and I provided one. You said you agreed with the conclusions of the source, that keeping people home from work (which lockdowns obviously accomplished) slowed the spread. So it seems you accept that lockdowns slowed the spread and therefore saved lives, as scientists have concluded.
You do not have to agree that lockdowns were worth it while acknowledging the reality they saved lives. I personally do not think lockdowns were worth it, and I think most people agree in hindsight. But you repeatedly referring to FLs numbers does not in any way prove that lockdowns "don't help" at saving lives. I have explained why comparing FLs death toll numbers compared to NYs while not accounting for other variables and context is useless.
And the numbers I gave do not seem prove your point, whatever it is, because it shows a lower death toll per million in NY post June than FL. I have explained why using June as a starting point is most logical.
Even if I grant you that we should only look at deaths that happened after spring (an INCREDIBLY generous assumption I would not give you if we weren't just having a friendly conversation)
Why is that INCREDIBLY generous? Obviously the rampant spread of Covid with no protocols at all between Jan-March matters in looking at NY's numbers. That is a valid explanation for why the early parts of the Spring must be discounted in looking at NYs response to a pandemic, so explain how you are being friendly and generous as opposed to completely logical in ignoring the Spring death toll.
Again, we had a lot more information, social distancing, mask mandates, screening, testing, quarantine protocols and treatments in July than we did in April, so FLs numbers should have been better even with its senior population, especially if they were quarantining at their homes in Boca Raton.
Not worth, in my view, utterly traumatizing a generation of children and potentially destroying several economic segments.
Agree.
If you're so hung up on New York
I'm not. You're the one who said lockdowns don't work because NYs entire death toll numbers are higher than Florida's, and I'm explaining why that makes no sense.
....are you sensing a pattern? Because I'm not.
Correct, factors other than lockdowns impact the numbers, which is why solely using the totality of FL and NY death toll numbers to prove your point was not effective.
Vermont and Maine have very low death rates of Covid and they were on lockdown for two months. Why not compare their numbers to Florida instead of only using New York's? Obviously you need much more context (population age, density, health, financial status, etc.) than death toll numbers alone when analyzing the effectiveness of government response, which I have been saying repeatedly.
Again lockdowns were only meant to slow the spread, which they did. You seem to want to make it out like I am arguing for lockdowns just because I corrected the position that they have had "no effect." They obviously have an effect, especially in densely populated places like New York City. Last year we did not know how contagious the virus was nor how to treat the virus, so retroactive criticism ought to be a bit more nuanced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
You didn’t cite a single source or give a single statistic.
Which part of what I wrote before requires a citation?
And New York is a lot more than just NYC.
The reasons for acknowledging that NY is home to the most densely populated city in the country when you are talking about the number of deaths in NY is very significant. Do you need me to explain why?
Sort by deaths per million. New York’s is 2698. Florida’s is 1512. Do the math, New York’s death rate is 78% higher
I have explained two times that looking at numbers alone is useless. I will do so again.
The biggest chunk of NY's deaths happened in the first few months of the pandemic. Government was telling people there was no concern of a US outbreak. No testing was happening in the U.S. and no screening except for questionnaires were being administered to people coming in from other countries up until late March. Because of this the virus spread unchecked through the New York metro area as early as January. It ran amuck for months which did NOT happen in Florida. Therefore comparing NY to FLs numbers in totality as you are doing is not useful at all in looking at the results of government responses.
In order to do a fair comparison between the local level response , you have to back out deaths from the early months of the pandemic where NY and NJ started with a significant handicap, not of their own making. When you backout deaths prior to June 1, 2020 for instance the deaths per million in NY is 1,270.9 and in FL it's 1,396. An argument can be made for backing out deaths even further up through July 1 given the mortality latency of the virus, (i.e up to 10 days to start showing severe symptoms and up to 7 weeks on ventilators), but I thought I would be generous in my calculation.
Nearly all of the deaths in FL happened after we knew better, when we had the information necessary to make good public health decisions. So nearly all were highly preventable or could have been significantly reduced with a better public response, and again FL is less populated than NY. The majority of NYs population live within NYC metro.
The math on these numbers and conclusions is as follows:
48, 624 - NY total deaths
23,905 - NY deaths as of June 1, 2020
_______
24,719/
19.45 - Pop by million
1,270.90
32,448 - FL total deaths
2,406 - FL deaths as of June 1, 2020
_______
29,988 /
21.48 - Pop by million
1,396
There is good reason to suspect that FL is underreporting its cases and deaths, but since it is not yet provable, I will accept the current numbers at face value. Are these the things you would like me to provide citations for - the population of each state and when their deaths occurred? I can do that but it is all googleable.
Analyses must consider that NY's first peak daily case rate occurred April 15, 2020 and its first and only real peak daily death rate occurred April 14, 2020. At that time and the 1.5 months leading up to it, the medical community had almost no knowledge on how to treat the virus, except rest, let it run its course, supplemental oxygen and then ventilate which it turns out they were doing incorrectly.
Conversely, FL's first peak daily case rate occurred July 16, 2020 and its first peak daily death rate occurred August 4, 2020. So FL had the benefit of significant development in the understanding of how to treat Covid by that time. They had already locked down for 30 days and been social distancing and wearing masks for 4 months prior to their peak, whereas NY had NO distancing measures prior to its peak. Moderna and Pfizer's Phase I/II vaccine trial data had already been published by the time FL peaked. The Remisivir Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") was issued on 5/1/2020. Convalescent Plasma received its EUA by August 27, 2020. Thus, using overall death numbers alone to compare FL and NY is not at all indicative of anything.
Obviously lockdowns did slow the spread. Less exposure to people = slower rate of transmission. That's common sense. Whether or not that means lockdowns "work" in light of all the net negatives they bring is unclear. Most people would not agree with lockdowns with the benefit of hindsight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes that is why their cops and teachers make 35,000 a year and in blue states they make 80,000.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Is it evidence that their impact was mostly marginal: Yes.
If you agree that NY was the epicenter at the start of the pandemic, that the virus had likely been around NY for months before any social distancing measures were put in place at all, that half of all Covid deaths in New York stemmed from nursing homes, and that NYC has a population density that is 12x the state of Florida's, then I'm not sure why you think FLs numbers being better than New York's proves anything. That is comparing two different areas and populations on different timelines. FL had implemented a 30 day shutdown months before its peak (slowing the spread) whereas NY implemented a shutdown simultaneously with its peak. Looking at numbers alone without context is very tricky.
I have not seen any data indicating that statistic to be accurate (the death rate does not seem to be 70% higher in NY than in Florida), but given the airborne spread it seems obvious that no lockdowns = faster spread. That does not mean people have to agree with lockdowns, and I don't. But we will have to look at more than FL's numbers to get an idea on the overall impact of government measures. Other states like Florida did not have strict Covid responses and fared much worse. South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, and Indiana have done poorly among others. All data seems to verify that social distancing saves lives. That justifies things like mask mandates or limiting capacity with indoor dining and other venues, which is what most "lockdowns" amount to.
Governors in blue states are trying to figure out how to remain popular. They are not looking to crush their own economies and ruin the lives and businesses of their constituents. They are trying to keep hospitalizations and death toll low so they aren't accused of handling things poorly. Right now Governor Newsom is fighting with CA teacher unions who refuse to go back to school until their numbers get better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
It seems to be a lot less related to policy and much more related to seasonality, population density, and obesity rates
Sure, overweight people benefitted most from lockdowns as they are among the most at risk. As I said it is common sense that the rate of transmission for an airborne virus is lessened by limited interactions with people and spaces. You seem to acknowledge that by highlighting population density being a factor.
I've found this source to be credible. Epidemiologists studied various lockdown measures in China, South Korea, Italy, Iran, France, and the US. They found the most effective measure was getting people not to travel to work, while school closures had relatively little effect. Many people with pulmonary issues and other comorbidities were allowed to work from home solely because of state mandates (and densely populated cities like New York likely have a lot of office jobs which made it possible to work from home). Now they are back to work after improved treatment discoveries and vaccination.
In that case New York must have had a much higher background rate before/after peaking since their overall deaths per million is around 70% higher than Florida's. Remember, I brought up Florida because it's notorious as a state that had few restrictions and no mask mandate, and yet it ended up well below the national mean. I brought up Florida because it's notorious as a state that had few restrictions and no mask mandate
Florida had a 30 day lockdown last Spring and major cities across FL have had mask mandates all along. I know DeSantis challenged them in the fall but I do not recall the legal outcome.
Florida's population density is 327 people per square mile compared to NYC which is 27,000 people per square mile. There weren't any social distancing measures early in the pandemic in New York until March, and the virus had been in New York City since at least January. That probably had a lot to do with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Lockdowns were meant to slow the spread, not contain the spread, which they did. Obviously the rate of transmission for an airborne virus is mitigated by limited interactions with people and spaces. It's common sense that more people would have died without lockdowns, and all the data seems to confirm that. But even if we don't accept that and believe only the same amount of people would have died regardless, we know 535,000 have perished in the US with draconian lockdowns and mask mandates in place. So without those things, the same amount of people or more would have died at a faster rate. This would have very likely put strain on hospitals and other industries like morgues and emergency services. It's easy to say that would all be "worth it" in hindsight without having to go through it. Los Angeles and some other places got a glimpse of what that could have been like and it was not pretty. The value we place on lives vs. money is never consistent among civilians or politicians. All bias.
And the comparison of FL and the northeast using total numbers alone lacks context. You have to look at the timing. NY had 237 deaths per 1 million ppl during its peak (April) vs. 223 deaths per 1 million during Florida's peak (July). Very similar. You are right that most deaths in NY were in nursing homes, so their numbers would be much better without that. I don't buy the argument that Democrat run places are intentionally trying to run their cities and states into the ground for no other reason than "exercising authoritarian control." That is an incredibly stupid accusation people are making.
Created:
Posted in:
little evidence that these restrictions did much to help
seems subjective
Created: