Covid 19 (OPEN DISCUSSION)

[Godfather32]

Well, things would be considerably less weird between us if you did. Kind of feel like you follow this thread to project step mom issues onto anyone who has anything less than sycophantic about the Pfizer vax.

I think we tend to agree on at least one issue and thats that NSW should be removed from the commonwealth, Dr John did a great video on the new variant you are concerned with and why it is that yet again NSW will ruin everything for everyone once again. I know that since I watch him he must be wrong about everything but this guy is probably responsible for convince millions upon millions of people to get vaccinated. Even recovering Pfizer evangelist and well known contributor to these threads Dazzler9 watches him.





PS: Not that there is any point in saying I told you so to any of you guys, but I did tell you months ago that there was no chance delta would be a thing by the end of the year and the vaccines everyone has taken [including me] up until this point are going to count for nothing at the point WA is actually due to open up. Something else you didn't care to believe.

 

[Moose1414]

Joe Rogan has 8.2 million subscribers. He dwarfs anything associated to government health authorities or scientific bodies.

That does not mean I take my advice on COVID from Joe Rogan.

At the risk of getting my post deleted again - stop going down this rabbit hole. You have been grifted, cop the L and take the jab.

I am vaccinated you absolute pleb. Cop what L? Everything I have been posting about for the best part of a year has proven in the fullness of time to be accurate. This will continue to be the case because I follow the science and share the science. You have declared yourself in the other thread to be in the minority of extremist's who think that vaccinated persons talking about vaccine limitations or costs vs benefits are anti-vax. This is an idiotic position that does more harm than good to the cause of eradicating covid. And what does Joe Rogan have to do with the price of fruit? Are you trying to intimate that because Joe Rogan has a youtube channel [not sure thats even true anymor btw] than everything thats on the internet is false? Where do you get your information from if I may ask?

 

[Moose1414]

0.3% is 3 in 1,000. Or 1 in 333.

0.3% 0f 1600 is 4.8, so 5 people near enough. 5 people out of that 1600 is what the study initially found.

Yeah but if 0.3% of 1600 people get x then 1 in 5000 people get x. And thats how I took it.

You may be right that that the study shows what you say, I didn't find a study in that link that was provided. If you have read the study it relates to please post it because I have some questions. Primarily, was the study based of a group of people who were identified as covid positive due to being symptomatic with covid? Cause if so...

Anyway, I think that you an I Daz are on the same page about the necessity of anti-virals. Given that the vaccines are only mildly protective, and that maybe soon not protective at all from Omnicron, then regardless of vaccination status anyone who catches covid should be treated with antivirals as soon as possible. An antiviral that reduces severe disease by up to 80-90% [as Pfizer claims for Pfizermectin] is going to greatly reduce the damage covid does.

 

[Moose1414]

So...

Don't think!

And if you do think, don't be right!

Do either, I cry.

Mature position.

 

[Godfather32]

So...

Don't think!

And if you do think, don't be right!

Do either, I cry.

Mature position.

Was just waiting for you to stop talking yourself up.
0.3% of 1600 is 4.8. It's not 0.3 people out of 1600, that's where your math mistake is.

 

[Moose1414]

Was just waiting for you to stop talking yourself up.
0.3% of 1600 is 4.8. It's not 0.3 people out of 1600, that's where your math mistake is.

Or, maybe not. Show me the study. Those are the things scientists do that you go out of your way to ignore 99% of the time. If I'm wrong I'm wrong. Go prove it. 0.3 people in 1600 is 1 in 5000. Maybe I read the journalists overview of the numbers wrong or maybe I didn't. This is why I like to link the actual studies for you guys to ignore all the time, so if anyone actually wants to check they can.

 

[Godfather32]

Or, maybe not. Show me the study. Those are the things scientists do that you go out of your way to ignore 99% of the time. If I'm wrong I'm wrong. Go prove it. 0.3 people in 1600 is 1 in 5000. Maybe I read the journalists overview of the numbers wrong or maybe I didn't. This is why I like to link the actual studies for you guys to ignore all the time, so if anyone actually wants to check they can.

I don't really care enough to do that, all I'm saying that 0.3% of 1600 does not = 1 in 5000

 

[Moose1414]

This is actually a huge opportunity for all you guys to show me up in a public debate, you have chosen a battle ground finally, go pull up the study and lets talk about it. Should be simple enough to prove your vastly superior intelligence's despite spending the past 12 months proving on a daily basis you're all scientifically illiterate.

 

[Moose1414]

I don't really care enough to do that, all I'm saying that 0.3% of 1600 does not = 1 in 5000

I'm not saying it isn't. And I didn't say it wasn't. And I know you don't care, you just like to make your feelings known that all this vaccine talk in the vaccine thread is uber unsatisfactory. Ok then. Forward Press Dazzler9 any takers?

 

[Godfather32]

I'm not saying it isn't. And I didn't say it wasn't. And I know you don't care, you just like to make your feelings known that all this vaccine talk in the vaccine thread is uber unsatisfactory. Ok then. Forward Press Dazzler9 any takers?

When I want to read a novel I pick up a novel, I don't come on bigfooty.

 

[Dazzler9]

Or, maybe not. Show me the study. Those are the things scientists do that you go out of your way to ignore 99% of the time. If I'm wrong I'm wrong. Go prove it. 0.3 people in 1600 is 1 in 5000. Maybe I read the journalists overview of the numbers wrong or maybe I didn't. This is why I like to link the actual studies for you guys to ignore all the time, so if anyone actually wants to check they can.

You are correct. 0.3 people in 1600 equates to 1 in 5000.

There is no such thing as 0.3 of a person.

The study referred to 0.3% of 1600 people in the study. Which is five whole, fully formed human beings.

 

[KERRPOW]

What did i just walk in on

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Yeah but if 0.3% of 1600 people get x then 1 in 5000 people get x. And thats how I took it.

I don't really care enough to do that, all I'm saying that 0.3% of 1600 does not = 1 in 5000

I'm not saying it isn't. And I didn't say it wasn't.

You absolutely did.

You got your maths wrong. Just admit it. There’s no harm in admitting you’re wrong, but some people seem to find it harder than the actual maths.

 

[Moose1414]

You are correct. 0.3 people in 1600 equates to 1 in 5000.

There is no such thing as 0.3 of a person.

The study referred to 0.3% of 1600 people in the study. Which is five whole, fully formed human beings.

Go on, link the study.

I'm going to agree that I likely just read it the wrong way.

However, its is certainly no uncommon for people in statistics to be represented as fractions of a whole. What if the study contained 10,000 participants, 1600 had Corona, 10 complained of heart pain or some type [they are athletes are they not?] and then of those 10 1 had been covid positive. That person would be counted as less than 1 if the researches wanted to express it in that way.

Am I happy for you to be right about this, I'd be interested to see the study because the finding is concerning but does seem to be an outlier.

If the study was done at one university, potentially important considerations are:

What state was it is?
What time or year was it?
What was the vaccination status of the cohorts?
What ration or male to female?
Were covid affected treated during their illness?
Did all participants receive the same treatment?
What was the % of African American's in the study?
What was the rate of myocarditis among those who complained of cardiac issues, as in before they did imaging to confirm true rate of incidence?
What background rate of myocarditis in the general population were they citing comparatively?
Were they making a comparison to background rates of myocarditis in athletes pre-covid or just to gen pop?

I am open minded to the study being significant. These are important questions though because as an outlier it conflicts with other studies that and the FDA's data putting mRNA myocarditis hospitalisations on par with all cause wild covid hospitalisations.

 

[Moose1414]

You absolutely did.

You got your maths wrong. Just admit it. There’s no harm in admitting you’re wrong, but some people seem to find it harder than the actual maths.

I explained what my math was and have readily, and immediately, ceded that it probably was misreading the intended conclusion of the article linked, what more admission do you want?

If you want to have a discussion in any danger of having substance to it go find the study and we can debate its conclusions as endlessly as you would like, what possible fear could of have of losing a discussion on this virus to a single one of you scientifically illiterate plebs*

*scientifically illiterate but occasionally mathematically literate plebs

 

[Dazzler9]

Go on, link the study.

I'm going to agree that I likely just read it the wrong way.

However, its is certainly no uncommon for people in statistics to be represented as fractions of a whole. What if the study contained 10,000 participants, 1600 had Corona, 10 complained of heart pain or some type [they are athletes are they not?] and then of those 10 1 had been covid positive. That person would be counted as less than 1 if the researches wanted to express it in that way.

Am I happy for you to be right about this, I'd be interested to see the study because the finding is concerning but does seem to be an outlier.

If the study was done at one university, potentially important considerations are:

What state was it is?
What time or year was it?
What was the vaccination status of the cohorts?
What ration or male to female?
Were covid affected treated during their illness?
Did all participants receive the same treatment?
What was the % of African American's in the study?
What was the rate of myocarditis among those who complained of cardiac issues, as in before they did imaging to confirm true rate of incidence?
What background rate of myocarditis in the general population were they citing comparatively?
Were they making a comparison to background rates of myocarditis in athletes pre-covid or just to gen pop?

I am open minded to the study being significant. These are important questions though because as an outlier it conflicts with other studies that and the FDA's data putting mRNA myocarditis hospitalisations on par with all cause wild covid hospitalisations.

Post 1203

On SM-G970F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I explained what my math was and have readily, and immediately, ceded that it probably was misreading the intended conclusion of the article linked, what more admission do you want?

You didn’t “misread the intended conclusion of the article”. You got the maths wrong, plain and simple.

 

[Moose1414]

When I want to read a novel I pick up a novel, I don't come on bigfooty.

What sort of novels do you like? Any recommendations?

I'm a fan of this insolent breakfast club type persona you've got going on. You're here but you're too cool to be here, like "look my mum and the government forces me to go to school but no-one can force me to learn anything. Your all nerds and losers btw" very Judd Dredge. Super cool. Ladies in the chat be swooning at the dark mysterious energy no doubt.

 

[Moose1414]

Post 1203

On SM-G970F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Gee. Thanks, went out of your way cheers bro.

 

[Moose1414]

You didn’t “misread the intended conclusion of the article”. You got the maths wrong, plain and simple.

If you say so. As always I defer to you and honeysticklers assertions as to what I really mean when I say something. There were two ways to interpret the numbers, my mind went automatically to the path that lead to 1:1 since that is what the FDA figures say. This was a result of bias. Dazz pointed out that there is another way to read it, I immediately agreed that that's likely what the study intended to say. But ok, if you MUST insist that I interpreted it the correct way but then arrived at an impossible calculation then you're the authority on how my mind works, hard to argue otherwise.

Go find the study would you. I'm not done being flexed on by my betters for the night. Big points to be scored by you if you dare strings.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

It’s not that the numbers can mean different things. It said pretty clearly “0.3% of 1,600 surveyed”.

If your brain turned that into “0.3 of 1,600 surveyed” then that’s on you.

Go find the study would you. I'm not done being flexed on by my betters for the night. Big points to be scored by you if you dare strings.

I looked. Couldn’t find it. We’ll have to wait for Ilkka.

 

[Moose1414]

Just a heads up before anyone replies demanding I fess up to any thought crimes, I'm going to be offline for the next couple of hours cause I'm doing something in real lyfe. Absence does not imply guilt.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

If you guys are going to spend all day sniping at eachother in this shitshow of a thread, could you instead just not?

Nobody is changing anybody’s mind and the concept of nuance has long since left the building so instead of a days worth of posting cause someone can’t do maths, why don’t we just do something productive like bitch about draft picks instead.

The new world order isn’t out to get you, there’s no such thing as 0.3 of a person, some people enjoy the concept of free travel and unrestricted movement. All very easy concepts to grasp, so please. I beg. Grasp them.

 

[Forward Press]

Just a heads up before anyone replies demanding I fess up to any thought crimes, I'm going to be offline for the next couple of hours cause I'm doing something in real lyfe. Absence does not imply guilt.

I was also offline for a few hours doing things in real life but you still replied to me and tagged me repeatedly, Mr Superior Thinking (to borrow a line from the greatest songwriter of our generation imo).

Have fun going down your rabbit hole.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

None of these scientific studies have addressed our contested ball problem.