Coronavirus
- Thread starter BuckSutherland
- Start date
- Status
Knehrke
5 year old buck +
You are on the right track...but let's not stop there!! Why do anything for anybody else? It's all just a form of "virtue signaling". Anything that society claims is for society's benefit is by definition a slam on your personal freedoms.
Right wingers don't want anybody to be able to tell them what to do, and think that personal responsibility is enough to avoid the consequences of potential negative actions. Left wingers don't think that anybody can make their own decisions, and want to be able to keep other people from doing things that impact anyone negatively. Close? Because IMHO every argument boils down to this.
Obviously, I'm speaking tongue in cheek, but it illustrates a fundamental difference in the way folks think and how they weigh conflicting arguments. I hope that these differences ultimately lead to better decision making - I am of the opinion that when any one side gets too much power and can force their agenda without having to compromise, bad stuff happens.
And so I appreciate other viewpoints, even when I disagree with them. I know that there's folks on here who think that because of my views on COVID, I must be a raging liberal. Which is hysterical, as I'm a lifelong Republican moderate on almost all other fronts, social, economic, political. I thought our ex-pres was an arrogant bully, but I agreed with most of his policies. I feel the same way about Cuomo, our current governor, but I disagree with most of his policies. However, I don't get the anti-science sentiment that's on the rise. It feels like political fear-mongering.
Finally, I can count on SD to make me chuckle every morning. I think he has a meme factory somewhere. KK, gots to work now. Beware the dangerous new variants and make sure to quad-mask (testing...).
Right wingers don't want anybody to be able to tell them what to do, and think that personal responsibility is enough to avoid the consequences of potential negative actions. Left wingers don't think that anybody can make their own decisions, and want to be able to keep other people from doing things that impact anyone negatively. Close? Because IMHO every argument boils down to this.
Obviously, I'm speaking tongue in cheek, but it illustrates a fundamental difference in the way folks think and how they weigh conflicting arguments. I hope that these differences ultimately lead to better decision making - I am of the opinion that when any one side gets too much power and can force their agenda without having to compromise, bad stuff happens.
And so I appreciate other viewpoints, even when I disagree with them. I know that there's folks on here who think that because of my views on COVID, I must be a raging liberal. Which is hysterical, as I'm a lifelong Republican moderate on almost all other fronts, social, economic, political. I thought our ex-pres was an arrogant bully, but I agreed with most of his policies. I feel the same way about Cuomo, our current governor, but I disagree with most of his policies. However, I don't get the anti-science sentiment that's on the rise. It feels like political fear-mongering.
Finally, I can count on SD to make me chuckle every morning. I think he has a meme factory somewhere. KK, gots to work now. Beware the dangerous new variants and make sure to quad-mask (testing...).
Bill Loser
5 year old buck +
Correct, all this is an infringement on everyones rights because you are scared of a government funded almost completely non deadly virus, which at the end of the day no one can really do anything about. If it wasnt for 24/7 commercials and accomplice media coverage no one would even know the virus was here .
The rest of that diatribe....... LOL
TreeDaddy
5 year old buck +
I am not anti scientist if I disagree with you
I am against the perversion of science to advance a political narrative as espoused by The Church of Darwin, global warming, COVID,etc
If That defines "anti science", I am guilty
bill
Bill Loser
5 year old buck +
Why is it only science denying when you disagree with their science? Why are they not the deniers for ignoring all the science against all this bs?
SD51555
5 year old buck +
Actual science collapsed when opportunistic hustlers realized they could hijack it to acquire wealth and power. It was at the moment those folks started attacking other scientists as "anti-science" that organized science itself began its slow death.
I'm not down about it. Frankly, I'm excited for the future as the need for science and knowledge is greater now than ever before. Corrupted science has caused an underground movement for genuine knowledge. All the breakthroughs in nutrition, health, agriculture, economics, monetary policy, foreign policy, politics, etc have come from decentralized places, and almost exclusively without profit or lobby. It's really caused science to have to work overtime to protect old narratives and systems by having a standing goon squad at the ready to go out and attack anyone who dares step off the state science plantation.
The only thing state science produces anymore are narratives for controlling and profiting off a vulnerable population. The very use of the words anti-science and political fear mongering is the core of the problem with science. It doesn't matter if you have a white coat or an overpriced placemat in a frame on the wall. You don't get to choose who's allowed into the discussion and who isn't. To brand anyone anti-science or a fear monger is anti-science. Oh my, I'm afraid we're caught in a feedback loop now.
Knehrke
5 year old buck +
I certainly don't disagree with you on how science has been harnessed for political objectives, but how can you differentiate "good" science from "bad". Just because the outcome is at odds with your personal beliefs doesn't make it wrong. I said it before, and I'll say it again. Scientific method is a process, not an outcome. If you want to deny an outcome, and you want scientists to buy into you argument, you need to use scientific method.
I deal with this everyday. Scientists argue like a bunch of third-graders! Bill, this addresses your comment: it's not denying when you disagree. But disagreement is based on solid information, and consensus emerges from multiple parallel lines of evidence from independent groups. Honestly, there's an enormous feeling among the scientific community that CDC bowed to political pressure at the beginning of the pandemic, and this resulted in much confusion. And equally honestly, I'm not putting down anyone's intellect or casting shade in any way, but just as I wouldn't expect to be able to run a backhoe or program a computer, I don't expect laypersons to engage in peer review of science. Training matters. It doesn't make scientists right, but it does make them better able to appreciate nuances or details that change interpretations. Like the famous comma example: "Let's eat Grandma" versus "Let's eat, Grandma". So, you can disagree, but the impact of your argument is going to depend on your ability to convince those with select training that your ideas have merit. Support your hypothesis with hard facts and deep thinking, and folks will listen.
But given the overall distrust, how do we convince folks that scientists themselves do not have an agenda? I myself could give two craps about politics. My motivation for any opinions that I've espoused here have nothing to do with a political agenda. That's as close to farm-to-table as you can get. And yet every opinion I offer gets squashed as if I'm some secret operative (like SD is for Russia, lol). Frankly, most days I'm simply not up to engaging, as I have other fish to fry, and it's mainly the same crew that posts here routinely. But it is a testing ground for broader interactions.
Bottom line, how can scientists educate rather than alienate, if what they are saying differs from what the audience wants to hear? That is my goal - although I will admit to some frustration and, yes, pride clouding my judgement at times. Seriously, I am open to ideas.
I deal with this everyday. Scientists argue like a bunch of third-graders! Bill, this addresses your comment: it's not denying when you disagree. But disagreement is based on solid information, and consensus emerges from multiple parallel lines of evidence from independent groups. Honestly, there's an enormous feeling among the scientific community that CDC bowed to political pressure at the beginning of the pandemic, and this resulted in much confusion. And equally honestly, I'm not putting down anyone's intellect or casting shade in any way, but just as I wouldn't expect to be able to run a backhoe or program a computer, I don't expect laypersons to engage in peer review of science. Training matters. It doesn't make scientists right, but it does make them better able to appreciate nuances or details that change interpretations. Like the famous comma example: "Let's eat Grandma" versus "Let's eat, Grandma". So, you can disagree, but the impact of your argument is going to depend on your ability to convince those with select training that your ideas have merit. Support your hypothesis with hard facts and deep thinking, and folks will listen.
But given the overall distrust, how do we convince folks that scientists themselves do not have an agenda? I myself could give two craps about politics. My motivation for any opinions that I've espoused here have nothing to do with a political agenda. That's as close to farm-to-table as you can get. And yet every opinion I offer gets squashed as if I'm some secret operative (like SD is for Russia, lol). Frankly, most days I'm simply not up to engaging, as I have other fish to fry, and it's mainly the same crew that posts here routinely. But it is a testing ground for broader interactions.
Bottom line, how can scientists educate rather than alienate, if what they are saying differs from what the audience wants to hear? That is my goal - although I will admit to some frustration and, yes, pride clouding my judgement at times. Seriously, I am open to ideas.
SD51555
5 year old buck +
You may very well be the only scientician here. For the rest of us, we've got to operate in the realms we know. Math, stats, and politics are hobbies of my own. You cannot object if you cannot reason, which is what made it so easy to buffalo the masses with BS. This is likely the same reason state science is now disregarded as an entity of any truth or effectiveness. They also could not reason with the people for their continued path when nothing they'd done the entire way worked. At some point, a lay person has to just realize the person telling them what to do is wrong, they've always been wrong, and it doesn't matter why.
You can differentiate good science from bad very easily when you discover all the data has been falsified, and very publicly might I add. The entire story ends there. If the CDC didn't change the way deaths were classified on 3/24/20, the 'vid would have claimed 15,000 and gone down as one of the mildest cold and flu seasons on record. I gotta tell ya, I learned a hell of a debate tactic from the CDC on this one. While true that we can have our own opinion but cannot have our own facts, you can change the facts. Genius.
Bill Loser
5 year old buck +
Heres the difference from side to side as i see it.
I dont agree with masks, but im not going to tell you ,you can't wear one. Your side does agree with masks ( based on highly flawed science and opinion) but want to tell the rest of us we must wear one to protect you. That is not your right.
I will not get the "vaccine" that is my right. I will not tell you ,you cannot get it. But your side wants to tell me I must get it .... to protect you. That, again is not your right.
I know we are all dirty ,inbred, laypersons here ( except for k of course) but we all have a modicum of common sense. This common sense which tells us to look past what the gobmint is forcing down our throats and see things for how they really are.
Everything SD said above this is 100% true and 100% provable, yet some still want us to blindly follow the leader? UM, NO!
I dont agree with masks, but im not going to tell you ,you can't wear one. Your side does agree with masks ( based on highly flawed science and opinion) but want to tell the rest of us we must wear one to protect you. That is not your right.
I will not get the "vaccine" that is my right. I will not tell you ,you cannot get it. But your side wants to tell me I must get it .... to protect you. That, again is not your right.
I know we are all dirty ,inbred, laypersons here ( except for k of course) but we all have a modicum of common sense. This common sense which tells us to look past what the gobmint is forcing down our throats and see things for how they really are.
Everything SD said above this is 100% true and 100% provable, yet some still want us to blindly follow the leader? UM, NO!
SD51555
5 year old buck +
Mortenson
5 year old buck +
I used this risk calculator to determine my risk of dying from the vid is .0002% and my wife is half that at .0001% and the kids are even lower. Gosh IL's general pop vax can't get here soon enough!
Knehrke
5 year old buck +
Okay, I hear you. And I acknowledge your argument. You feel, like Bill, that folks who died, died with COVID rather than from COVID. Here are my fact based arguments as to why that is extremely unlikely, looking beyond what the pundits or websites say (and yes, I read the directive issued by CDC on March 24th, 2020 - and it was transparent, and it was prospective - going forward - which means that it wasn't "falsifying" anything, since you can't falsify what hasn't happened yet lol).
First off, the CDC doesn't determine how deaths are classified across the globe, or anywhere but the US. The pandemic outbreak initiated prior to March 24th, and was much worse in other countries before it got bad here. Hence, the CDC's directive had nothing to do with mortality elsewhere, and the effects of COVID were felt across the globe (except perhaps Australia, which has done a remarkable job following some draconian restrictions).
Second, if CDC guidance applied throughout the United States, then why was mortality restricted to areas that were experiencing outbreaks, and why has that mortality rate gone down as doctors have learned to manage the virus more effectively (ie -ventilators. Bad idea. Last resort.). Again, this does not mesh with the CDC's guidance being the cause of COVID mortality.
Third, how do you explain excess mortality when considering deaths by all causes, coincident with the periods of COVID outbreak? I've added a graph below to illustrate this point, taken from a screenshot. If the CDC were simply labeling deaths COVID when they were in fact from some other cause, then 2020 would look like 2017, 2018, and 2019 (and most other years prior). A bad flu season will show up, as you can clearly see for 2018 - which was the worst since the 2009 Swine Flu. If these numbers are incorrect, then there's more wrong than simply the CDC. You've got to believe something, or you may as well disbelieve everything.
Simply put, there are multiple independent, parallel arguments that support increased mortality during the pandemic that has nothing to do with CDC's issuance last March. No BS, no obscurification, and I have no reason to mislead anyone. If you were to tell me that these excess deaths were premature harvesting of future deaths from susceptible individuals who would have died soon anyway, well - I guess we will have to see whether the future mortality from all causes drops off soon. But the data from the last year doesn't point in that direction. Still, it is formally a possibility. And I'm willing to listen to any other reasonable, fact-based arguments that might support a different position.
But it seems fairly cut and dried to me, based on logic and data, not opinions.
Buckly
5 year old buck +
The writing is on the wall now. There is little interest in getting vaccinated. There was a big rush at first and with limited supply put everybody in a vaccine panic. Now , around these parts when they run a clinic it takes 3-4 days of heavy advertising to fill up slots. So they now are opening it up to anybody because they don’t want to look like idiots and need to fill slots. We’re about 30% participation right now and I would bet it‘s going to end at about 50%. You’re just not going to get more participation than half. When the CDC to the President say that even if you’re fully vaccinated you still shouldn’t travel, should still distance and still mask people lose interest
Bill Loser
5 year old buck +
The real facts are that the numbers were padded. It has been proven time and time again. The cdc changed the way cases and deathsare recorded shortly after this all started. Why? Imo in an effort to distort the numbers. I personally saw the manipulated #s , it did happen. And it happened for a reason. Part of that reason is money. Bigger part is power.
Numbers are higher in more populated areas.... seems normal, any illness would be higher there.
Population goes up. So does the number of reported deaths.
Numbers are higher in more populated areas.... seems normal, any illness would be higher there.
Population goes up. So does the number of reported deaths.
Knehrke
5 year old buck +
I disagree strongly with your point of view. Society is generally acknowledged to be able to instruct individual action "for the greater good" - and the best available evidence is used to guide these decisions (I say this tongue in cheek, because I know very well that this is not always true - but I really want to have faith in people). Nevertheless, it is dissenting opinions like yours (and many others) that keep these powers in check. So while I disagree with your point of view and will argue against it, I also strongly feel that you are entitled to your opinion - so long as you follow the law of the land. Either that, or accept the consequences of civil disobedience, which is both a right and privilege.
But all of that is about personal freedoms and philosophy of living - you don't have to justify either faith or belief. It just is, and not much is going to change the underlying nature of a person.
Finally, putting nasty words (dirty? inbred? what are you talking about, some strain of laboratory mice?) in someone's mouth isn't conducive to a civilized argument. But you know that, I suspect. That's simply inflammatory rhetoric designed to solicit a response. A way of distinguishing "you" from "them". Further division when that's the last thing we need.
Knehrke
5 year old buck +
It's hard to argue with a "Is too, nah, nah, nah , nah, nah" response that "everybody knows". LOL. But thanks for your participation.
- Status