Political Debate Thread

I've heard conversation coming out of animal pens that is more intelligent than what is going on in here.
m121c
Posts: 3056
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

m121c wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:35 pm I think we can agree we all have the common goal of not dying and wanting this disease to go away. Unfortunately, it seems only a minority also want to preserve freedoms, social and physical well being, economies, etc.
Fixed that for myself.
Boblob801
Posts: 3998
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:59 am
Team: <3 Andy
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by Boblob801 »

m121c wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:35 pm
Boblob801 wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 2:27 am
m121c wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 10:00 pm
Sounds like you are in the right country for you then if you are okay with that.
My understanding was that the vast majority of people worldwide preferred this outcome.
What outcome is that?

You just spoke about how bad your countries housing has been and mental health. Sure it's easy for you to say that you just got to have a lovely holiday and a simple jab in the arm. People who have small businesses might think different. People with small children might think different. People who will incur life altering effects for "doing their duty" might think different. Here in the US we have fundamentally fucked entire generation of young students over a virus that has no statistical risk to them at all, and to add to it, we now want to jab them with a vaccine that has NO testing on it's lasting effects on them. There are even some signs of risk, but you don't hear Pfizer telling that to them before they sign their kid up.

This is not isolated effects either, this is common stuff.

I think I can agree we all have the common goal of not dying and wanting this disease to go away. Unfortunately, it seems only a minority also want to preserve freedoms, social and physical well being, economies, etc.
The outcome is the covid approach outcome, aka the entire topic we've been conversing about..... you okay?

Exactly we have far worse problems than a needle.
Hi
Boblob801
Posts: 3998
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:59 am
Team: <3 Andy
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by Boblob801 »

m121c wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:35 pm"Ma Freedoms"
Let's just wrap things up.

It's hard to know your standpoint because there are so many anti-covid-19 jab people with so many illogical theories.

Their theories range from:
- The govt wants to kill us all (you're no good to them dead but ok)
- The jab is a tracker (unlike google?)
- The jab is magnetic (we could use it to make anti-gravity if this was true)
- Let's compare the mandate with the other vaccine mandates... oh wait nvm we'll compare it to the mass genocide of the jews, such a great comparison.
- Everyones going to get sick in the future (maybe but probably not)
- The jab doesn't even work (then what's the problem?!?)

When you get old and you're telling your grandkids about all the freedoms you used to have as a kid. They'll gather around and ask. Papa, papa, what were all the exciting freedoms you used to have when you were young. And you'll reply, you know how you have to scan into a building every time you enter to validate your vaccine passport... We didn't have to do that.... And they'll go wow papa papa, whatever did you do with that extra 2 seconds of freedom every day.

Realistically what do you thinks going to happen so we can come back to this and have a chuckle.
Hi
DBRider251
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 5:38 pm
Team: Elevated Motorsports

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by DBRider251 »

Boblob801 wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 7:29 pm
m121c wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:35 pm"Ma Freedoms"
It's hard to know your standpoint because there are so many anti-covid-19 jab people with so many illogical theories.
My main standpoint, and I'd say is probably Mason's too (he can correct me if I'm wrong), is that it's still in clinical trials. Their clinical trials aren't set to end until Jan 31 2023 for Pfizer and Oct 27 2022 for Moderna. I want time to know if anything is going to affect me later on. Until then, I'm happy to wear a mask, test, and do whatever else is necessary to ease your mind while I wait to ease mine. To be clear, I'm not anti-vaccine. I don't think Mason is either. Vaccines require years of testing.
TeamHavocRacing wrote:it's all the liberals fault
m121c
Posts: 3056
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

Boblob801 wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 7:29 pm It's hard to know your standpoint because there are so many anti-covid-19 jab people with so many illogical theories.
Are you saying you are finding it hard to know my stance relative to other "anti-covid-19 jab peoples illogical theories"? Or are you saying I am not clear on my position as to why I am personally not getting the vaccine at this moment?

We've talked about a lot of things here. What do you think my stance is or what would like me to sum up?
Boblob801 wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 7:29 pm When you get old and you're telling your grandkids about all the freedoms you used to have as a kid. They'll gather around and ask. Papa, papa, what were all the exciting freedoms you used to have when you were young. And you'll reply, you know how you have to scan into a building every time you enter to validate your vaccine passport... We didn't have to do that.... And they'll go wow papa papa, whatever did you do with that extra 2 seconds of freedom every day.
The time that is taken to scan the vaccine passport is the only freedom, or potential freedom, that is taken in this scenario?
Boblob801
Posts: 3998
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:59 am
Team: <3 Andy
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by Boblob801 »

m121c wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:22 pmWhat do you think my stance is or what would like me to sum up?
I had asked for you to sum it up yes.

It's hard to say, you sometimes dip into illogical things. You stated if I took Ibuprofen a couple of times that I'd have medical issues a few years from now. You also mentioned the govt would use this to overstep power despite history proving the exact opposite. You've used singular doctors in a battle against masses of scientists for a subject based on science. It's like a group of engineers against a construction supervisor for beam design, it's silly.
m121c wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:22 pm The time that is taken to scan the vaccine passport is the only freedom, or potential freedom, that is taken in this scenario?
That was my forecast, so based on that forecast, it's the only freedom taken. There could also be a "Future Man" situation in there. You were supposed to state your forecast also.
Boblob801 wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 7:29 pm Realistically what do you thinks going to happen so we can come back to this and have a chuckle.
DBRider251 wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:01 pmTheir clinical trials aren't set to end until Jan 31 2023 for Pfizer
Their stage 3 clinical trial has finished. they just let it run until that date to collect extra data. As far as the systems are concerned (the same ones they use for most other things), it's done.
Hi
jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 14912
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by jlv »

m121c wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:19 pm So you selectively chose Aus and NZ to benchmark freedom, because they are doing better than us although being completely different, citing that they are somehow more free because someone told you they didn't have to wear masks or lockdown for most of the pandemic? Only to find out first hand they had lockdowns for 3-4x longer than we did, still are restricted, have severely locked down the border (in NZ's case) and in Australia's case they have actual quarantine camps.
I picked them out because they did a good job and as a result their people enjoyed complete virus free freedom while we were wearing masks and watching a half million of our countrymen die.
m121c wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:19 pm
jlv wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:18 am You don't have much freedom when you're dead.
What a cheap response.
Not sure what response you were looking for.
m121c wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:19 pm You still think this is a worth while policy? Clearly the things we have been doing are not working. If what Dr. Mcullough said in his interview (not sure if you watched it) is true, you don't think there might be some measures that can be taken to improve our situation that doesn't further the risk of known social and economic issues?
Yes it's still a worthwhile policy. It's insane that you could catch covid, have it mutate into a new strain inside you, and then fly around the world infecting every country you visit and only be stopped in Australia, NZ, South Korea and maybe a few other Asian countries.
m121c wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:19 pm
jlv wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:18 am Whatever it takes to get Rt under 1. So for the original virus, vaccination alone probably got it near 0. With delta, you might need some masking in addition to the vaccination to get there. Now with omicron it sounds like we're screwed. Hopefully it's more mild but we really don't know that yet.
As of 2 days ago (might be different due to Omicron) we are pretty much right on that line according to this model: https://epiforecasts.io/covid/posts/nat ... ed-states/.

So for you it's case load, not mitigating deaths? I get no one wants to be sick, but if we can actively reduce the death and/or severe cases, at what point is throwing everything we have at this going to just break our country? This isn't going away, as many experts have suggested. Infact, some believe the measures we have taken have caused more death because we focused our agenda in the wrong area's for this virus.

Omicron might be more infectious, but there is still not data to suggest severity. Both sides are wrong, it should not be down played, nor should it be fear mongered.
I should have said significantly under 1. At R=.5 and 10M active cases, we'd eliminate the last case after 24 generations. Hovering right around 1 means endless covid.

You seem to think that catching covid is low risk. You have no way of knowing that the virus won't have long term effects like early dementia or cancer. Where vaccines are just an isolated protein that can't really do anything long term, the virus itself can infect cells and just sit there for years. Think of stuff like shingles and herpes lying dormant for years and then coming back. HPV giving you cancer years after that fact. You have no idea if covid will or will not be like that.
m121c wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:19 pm No no no, answer the question. What does "I'm trying to protect myself and others" look like to you. If you want to make this argument of liability to show the damage one takes spreading the disease, you should identify what the line is between liability and just accident. Is it vaccination? 2nd dose or booster? 1 mask? 2 mask? Try to maintain or get to healthy body fat? Social distancing? Listening to Fauci? CDC? WHO? FDA? Biden?

How about someone who is vaccinated running around thinking they are protected, avoiding or reducing the use of other measures. Does liability now get passed to the... oh wait... immunity. :|

The C19 vaccination campaign is becoming this balancing act of a strange religion and a cult.
From what I've observed, the law generally wants you to use the best widely available technology. So if I made a car without split circuit brakes and someone lost a brake line and crashed, I'd be in trouble. But if it did have normal split circuit brakes and both lines fail they can't argue I should have used carbon fiber brake lines or something since a reasonable effort was made for redundancy.

So if you applied that to covid, vaccination and masks are easy and widely available. Not doing that is fairly similar to making a car without split brakes.

So now that I've answered that, do you think Typhoid Mary did anything wrong? Was the government wrong to institutionalize her?
Josh Vanderhoof
Sole Proprietor
jlv@mxsimulator.com
If you email, put "MX Simulator" in the subject to make sure it gets through my spam filter.
m121c
Posts: 3056
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

Boblob801 wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 1:15 am You stated if I took Ibuprofen a couple of times that I'd have medical issues a few years from now.
I did not state such a thing. You asked: "What drugs have delayed effects of more than a few years?". I answered: "Ibuprofen and Zantac". You replied: "Zantac and Ibuprofen?!? Why are we comparing something you take all the time with a 1 off?".

I never replied to this, as our conversation was already lengthy enough, however, I should have acknowledged you are right in your response that it is a poor comparison. You asked for a drug, I gave two to you (although poor examples). I did not tell you if you took ibuprofen two times you risk complications a few years from now, that is you misrepresenting what I said to make it seem as if I made some desperate illogical argument.

It was recently reported that more drugs than one would think actually have long-term complications, of-which had gone through more of the testing process than these vaccines, and have the FDA stamp of approval: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... al-n757526.

Now does that mean we should be skeptical of all drugs or all vaccines? No. I mean you should definitely do your research before you take any external drug, and it is my personal opinion depending on the situation you should exhaust (and/or couple the drug) with other potential solutions. However, it is YOUR PERSONAL decision in the end. If you don't mind popping pills and jabbing needles in your arm to obey authority, appeal to the majority, or for whatever reason then fine.
Boblob801 wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 1:15 am You also mentioned the govt would use this to overstep power despite history proving the exact opposite. You've used singular doctors in a battle against masses of scientists for a subject based on science. It's like a group of engineers against a construction supervisor for beam design, it's silly.
What history are you suggesting? In almost every case since the beginning of governments, it is almost always the case governments use events like this to gain more power. Whether that outcome is to be for better, or for worse. I still believe the power our government in the U.S. is currently trying to grab is for worse.

I guess, I don't really expect an engineer to fully grasp the scientific/academic community but you must realize this is a poor argument to be made. Scientific outcomes are not an embodiment of truth because masses of scientist have a consensus. That's not what science is, or should be. Truth an discovery is done by trying to disprove. What you are arguing for is scientism, not science.

It's just an undergrad, but I did complete a physics degree along side my mechanical engineering degree. This did expose me, only partially, to the academic community for a short time. You would be surprised on the vulnerabilities there are. You should listen to some of Lex Fridman's (AI engineer/scientist) interviews sometime, he discusses just how corrupt/vulnerable the scientific community can become. After all, to continue their work they have to win over grants from politicians. Some really smart scientists ended up getting roped into the Epstein stuff for this very reason.

So yes, I reference a singular scientist, one who is actually treating COVID patients, unlike many of the other high profile masses. If you are referring to Dr. Mcullough anyways. (BTW did you listen to that interview?). Did you every stop to ask if maybe there is more than one singular scientist, just maybe they have never made it into your radar? Maybe, just maybe, their disapproving opinion has been censored. Or maybe they have been silenced out of fear?
Boblob801 wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 1:15 am That was my forecast, so based on that forecast, it's the only freedom taken. There could also be a "Future Man" situation in there. You were supposed to state your forecast also.
Let's run through the scenario, so we have no misconceptions here. You are saying in the future, you have this vaccine passport (presumabley for COVID but who knows maybe they might throw on the flu shot or polio, or all). Now this passport would ideally be a form of identification correct? One that would most likely need to be provided by government? Scanning such a passport requires some form infrastructure. Data, verification, etc.

So now your government has this scanning vaccine passport infrastructure integrated into your everyday life. It tells you if you can go into the grocery store, if you can get on a plane, if you are allowed into the DMV, etc. Every time you use that card there is a data request into a central database that tells the government where you go. You believe, that the only freedom you have given up in this situation is the time it takes you to swipe the passport?

Are you okay if you worst political nightmare now is in power? Does this atleast make you think a little deeper about it?
m121c
Posts: 3056
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

jlv wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 2:33 am I picked them out because they did a good job and as a result their people enjoyed complete virus free freedom while we were wearing masks and watching a half million of our countrymen die.
Fair enough. I wouldn't say virus-free freedom (and that wasn't the freedom I was referring to), but ya they have taken great lengths to reduce the spread of the virus. Some countries have taken the same, if not stricter measures, and they did not work out. My point was not that we have virus-free freedom, it's that our freedoms are what make certain measures difficult to implement.

I don't see where you were going with this so I don't know what to evaluate.
jlv wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:18 am Yes it's still a worthwhile policy. It's insane that you could catch covid, have it mutate into a new strain inside you, and then fly around the world infecting every country you visit and only be stopped in Australia, NZ, South Korea and maybe a few other Asian countries.
You are not wrong, it is insane. But do the ends justify the means? I don't really have a bone to pick with the border stuff, I think had we been more strict from the beginning we could have mitigated some of this. I don't believe it is the policy to implement at this time, it's really too late. Especially if we can't control our border, then why does locking it down make any sense? We just delay this further. It will get in, it will spread, and it's not like having the borders closed doesn't have real world consequences. If we just slow the process down, and it amplifies those consequences.

We have vaccines people can protect themselves with. We have made strides in treating people who get the virus pre-hospitilazation, and we have other social mitigation policies (distancing, working from home, etc). We have at-home tests people can prioritize. We know how the virus spreads, we know what to avoid, and we know the demographics of those at the most risk. Locking down, shutting out, and suppressing people and businesses are terrible policies. Even worse, government mandates.
jlv wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:18 am You seem to think that catching covid is low risk. You have no way of knowing that the virus won't have long term effects like early dementia or cancer. Where vaccines are just an isolated protein that can't really do anything long term, the virus itself can infect cells and just sit there for years. Think of stuff like shingles and herpes lying dormant for years and then coming back. HPV giving you cancer years after that fact. You have no idea if covid will or will not be like that.
Even though I really never spoke on it this explicitly, I get why you might infer this. I don't disagree with you on this in terms of the virus. I'm not so sure the COVID mRNA vaccines don't infect cells. I've heard arguments on both sides, and haven't had the chance to evaluate any of those studies. My intuition says there must be some sort correlation as to why the severe adverse events typically mirror the actual virus. If it's the spike proteins in which does the damage (to my limited knowledge), it would lead me to believe this is the damage causer for the vaccines.

Again, I am not set that the vaccines do harm I only have a bias to think they do, rather I do not know, and I believe the FDA, CDC, and pharma do not know either. I associate risk to that, and given I am not really in a risk category I am okay with waiting for more studies and data. That is NOT to say I am okay infecting others. I will test, I will distance, and most importantly, I won't go out if I don't feel well.

My main argument here is we should not mandate it. It should be encouraged. It should be debated. We should have honest, open, and clearly communicated data. That is the single biggest problem with all of this. The CDC is guilty of this, the skeptics are guilty of this, and the government is guilty of this.
jlv wrote: Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:18 am From what I've observed, the law generally wants you to use the best widely available technology. So if I made a car without split circuit brakes and someone lost a brake line and crashed, I'd be in trouble. But if it did have normal split circuit brakes and both lines fail they can't argue I should have used carbon fiber brake lines or something since a reasonable effort was made for redundancy.

So if you applied that to covid, vaccination and masks are easy and widely available. Not doing that is fairly similar to making a car without split brakes.

So now that I've answered that, do you think Typhoid Mary did anything wrong? Was the government wrong to institutionalize her?
This is a false equivalence, I'm not going to try and try to apply my argument to it. You are are relating manufactured product liability to consumer liability. Just say you think if you are not vaccinated (I'm assuming up to the booster) and not wearing a mask, then you believe that person can be held liable for the spread of COVID 19.

Just to be clear, Im okay with the liability thing if all can be proven. I get your argument, but I think you are too centered on the line being drawn at being vaccinated. Let's say a vaccinated person goes out an infects 15 people, should the liability for that just disappear or does it get passed to the drug company? I mean technically that should be severely mitigated per CDC? Now that we are finding out the true efficacy, and timeline of that efficacy is not what was originally thought, does liability fall on the manufacturer? The one who established the guidelines? Or the consumer?

Okay, maybe let's apply this to a real world example that just happened at my job. An employee who is fully vaccinated thinks they were potentially exposed to Covid 19. Thinking that they were protected from the virus, and protected from spreading it, they came into work on Monday. After all, our quarantine policy only extends to the non-vaccinated. That person who had some symptoms such as a headache and general feeling of fatigue, infected 50% of their small team (6 people). Per our company guidelines they wore a mask as well. Liable?

I don't know much about Typhoid Mary but from a quick google search I will reply to your question. If I understand this correctly, Typhoid Mary was a cook who possessed the culprit for typhoid fever asymptomatically in her gallbladder. She continually spread it around through her food, and even after being notified she was hurting people, she refused to undergo a test and/or reportedly did not wash her hands.

If that is correct then yes. Typhoid Mary knew she was causing people to get sick, refused to test to find out, and did not change her cooking/preparation practices (and continued to get people sick).

I feel it would be misguided and biased to link Typhoid Mary to C19 non-vaccinated.
m121c
Posts: 3056
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

Boblob801 wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 1:15 am I had asked for you to sum it up yes.
One more post, and then I am done with this. It can be picked apart and that's fine, we are not going to agree.

First before I start, I want to state I did a little more research into Dr. McCullough this morning, although I think he had some good points, I do want to state I was overly trusting to his expertise. There are parts of his interview, where I have changed my mind on his conclusion, and I see his bias.

Alright summary:

The vaccines are one component to fighting this, and a strong one at that, but are not the only one. We need more transparency, less censor, and more open debate on these. We need better safety evaluations on them, and it is okay for people to be hesitant to take them due to deferred studies. I also think the vaccines have been lackluster in performance, and the current environment surrounding them is potentially dangerous. (as you in you can't speak negatively towards them). There are risks associated to them, and we really don't know much about the long term. For all of these reasons, they need to remain a personal choice and not be mandated (not that federal government has the right to do anyway). As long as they protect the individual who decided to take them, then a person not getting vaccinated should not be considered evil or a risk factor to a vaccinated person. You can think I am silly, or being childish for not listening to authority, or whatever you would like. Freedom baby. However, this fallacy that if "we just obey" it will all end is none sense and is not based in any logic other than the politicians...

I feel the U.S. government is focusing on policy's which increase government and societal control. Many of our policies are illogical from a federal to local level, and many have failed us. Masking is really a bogus thing. We should focus our efforts on more testing, reducing individuals risks, pre-hospitalization treatment, and vaccination combined. Not just masking, vaccination, and out of control spending. I don't speculate on the motivations, nor do I believe in any big conspiracy, but I do think some things stink like shit here. Usually if you smell shit, there is shit. Unfortunately, politics has infected our response to this, and I believe that will be holding us back for a long while. The rhetoric that is coming from the corporate media and administration is shameful and border line tyrannical. The very people imposing these restrictions on us, do not drink the very cool-aid they serve. Both sides of this thing have unethically used, manipulated, and misrepresented data on a level that is unfathomable.

We need to balance peoples freedoms, our economic prosperity, and keeping people safe. It's time to let go of this fear porn. Let's be logical about it, put in measures for people to protect themselves and others, and get on with it. Obviously let's be cautious, but implementing the same measures we did 2 years ago when this was a novel unknown virus vs. now with a more transmissible (but against all measures seemingly much more mild at this time) variant is insanity.

Oh and let's unravel the web as to the true origins of all this. This started in one place, and there has been some sketchy shit there between China and WHO; let's not forget that.
hvpmvp
Posts: 318
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 12:43 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by hvpmvp »

m121c wrote: Scientific outcomes are not an embodiment of truth because masses of scientist have a consensus. That's not what science is, or should be.
What is a more accurate way to accept or reject discoveries rather than peer review?
m121c
Posts: 3056
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

hvpmvp wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 9:04 pm
m121c wrote: Scientific outcomes are not an embodiment of truth because masses of scientist have a consensus. That's not what science is, or should be.
What is a more accurate way to accept or reject discoveries rather than peer review?
I should state, by consensus I do not mean consensus of results, rather consensus of opinion.

Opinion consensus is certainly a metric to be used, but it is only that. People seem to have a weird fantasy that a scientist (and the community) is one of free thinking, integrity, and honesty.

Many scientific discoveries we enjoy today were on the far edge of scientific consensus in their time.

Im not using this as an example that we should be overly skeptical of the scientific discoveries in regards to covid medicine, but in the same breathe we shouldn’t be overtly confident in them either. All because a bunch of scientists opinions agree. And we should not be so dismissive (or censor) those who do not agree all because they are the minority.
Boblob801
Posts: 3998
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:59 am
Team: <3 Andy
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by Boblob801 »

m121c wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:23 pm I did not state such a thing. You asked: "What drugs have delayed effects of more than a few years?". I answered: "Ibuprofen and Zantac". You replied: "Zantac and Ibuprofen?!? Why are we comparing something you take all the time with a 1 off?".
m121c wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:23 pmthat is you misrepresenting what I said to make it seem as if I made some desperate illogical argument.
Were we or were we not talking about a drug you take twice? Obviously, I'm going to assume you're comparing a twice use with a twice use. It was your illogical comparison, take some ownership.
m121c wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:23 pm What history are you suggesting?
The history where they used vaccine mandates and didn't overstep anything.......................................... The obvious comparison. I've said this before, you're starting to come across as if you throw away anything that isn't confirmation bias.
m121c wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:23 pmI guess, I don't really expect an engineer to fully grasp the scientific/academic community
Jezz bud you didn't have to pull out the stereotypical American arrogance on me. I assume a doctorate and thesis to be academic but we obviously have severally different logics.

I'm saying if one person says something and thousands disagree, its logical that the thousands are correct and the singular is an arrogant outcast (history has shown this 10s of thousands of times). Especially if they're all using similar methods and research (actually research not google like everyone seems to think is research). The fact you dispel pair reviewing so easily just proves this is a waste of an argument on the science side.
m121c wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:23 pmLet's run through the scenario
This isn't a scenario. It's like you going and taking a shit and then me talking about it and saying it's a scenario. You're detached. The govt has full access to all your data at a request. The same request they would need to make to get the vaccine passport data. They've already got the power. Go commit an act of terrorism and you'll figure it out pretty quick. The fact you didn't already know this blows my mind tbh.
m121c wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:23 pmOh and let's unravel the web as to the true origins of all this. This started in one place, and there has been some sketchy shit there between China and WHO; let's not forget that.
This is irrelevant. It's highly probable someone fucked up and it got leaked from a facility. Knowing this fixes nothing. The institute itself would be aware and would put in place something to stop it. Has zero effect on us now.
m121c wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:23 pmYour summary
Long wounded way of saying. I have no idea but think it should be a personal choice.
Masking is as bogus as seat belts. Medical professionals don't use them for nothing. (Don't be a retard and think I'm saying masks stop 100% of transmission, no ones ever said that, but to say they do 0% is idiotic, bogus and nothing loosely translate to 0%).


Long story short chief you won't win. You're a minority among society even if you think this is just a govt thing. The govt does what the people want hence why govt is flawed (people are shit, hence slavery, child exploitation, 21st century genocide etc). They'll never make the hard decision because it'll mean losing their place. Hence why NZ has a housing problem, why go against the 65% of home owners knowing they'll vote you out next election. The govt aren't going to risk losing their position just because a small group of vaccine sceptics tells them to. At some stage you'll need to open your eyes to that reality. Regardless of if its right or wrong.
The vaccine is less likely to ruin your life than the virus and going against the vaccine/society is just doubling down at this point.
Hi
jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 14912
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by jlv »

m121c wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 5:52 pm You are not wrong, it is insane. But do the ends justify the means? I don't really have a bone to pick with the border stuff, I think had we been more strict from the beginning we could have mitigated some of this. I don't believe it is the policy to implement at this time, it's really too late. Especially if we can't control our border, then why does locking it down make any sense? We just delay this further. It will get in, it will spread, and it's not like having the borders closed doesn't have real world consequences. If we just slow the process down, and it amplifies those consequences.
When the means are "you don't get to vacation in europe" I think the end justifies the means. You've really got to wonder about people who decide to visit a foreign country now of all times. If they have to endure a quarantine for a couple weeks when they return it doesn't bother me.

I've always been for securing the border. Now doubly so. Even if it only delays things it buys us time to assess the danger of and develop vaccines for new variants before they get here.
m121c wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 5:52 pm I'm not so sure the COVID mRNA vaccines don't infect cells.
It doesn't infect cells. The spike protein isn't capable of replicating itself. Probably does end up stuck to the receptors on the outside of the cell. After that it can't enter because it's missing the rest of the virus.

There are probably people arguing that it does but there are also people arguing against the earth being round. They're kooks that you should ignore.
m121c wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 5:52 pm Okay, maybe let's apply this to a real world example that just happened at my job. An employee who is fully vaccinated thinks they were potentially exposed to Covid 19. Thinking that they were protected from the virus, and protected from spreading it, they came into work on Monday. After all, our quarantine policy only extends to the non-vaccinated. That person who had some symptoms such as a headache and general feeling of fatigue, infected 50% of their small team (6 people). Per our company guidelines they wore a mask as well. Liable?
I agree that vaccinated people are overconfident right now. Omicron is pretty obviously immune evasive. This is a complaint I have about the CDC. They should be giving us the R numbers for the vaccines against the different variants. I think they're afraid to do that because R0 is probably over 1 for vaccinated vs delta and omicron and they're afraid it will fuel more vaccine hesitancy. They should tell the truth regardless. For someone who's still anti-vax withholding that information won't make any difference, but a vaccinated person would be better informed as to whether or not they need to mask again.
Josh Vanderhoof
Sole Proprietor
jlv@mxsimulator.com
If you email, put "MX Simulator" in the subject to make sure it gets through my spam filter.
m121c
Posts: 3056
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

Boblob801 wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 1:10 am Were we or were we not talking about a drug you take twice? Obviously, I'm going to assume you're comparing a twice use with a twice use. It was your illogical comparison, take some ownership.
I owned that my response was poor. In context to our discussion you are right, we were talking about a 2-dose drug (well it started off at 2...), but I didn't take the question to be framed around a 2 dose drug. Most drugs purpose outside of a vaccination is not 2 doses. The only vaccine to my knowledge, outside of having some sort of error, would be 1976 swine flu vaccine.
Boblob801 wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 1:10 am The history where they used vaccine mandates and didn't overstep anything.......................................... The obvious comparison. I've said this before, you're starting to come across as if you throw away anything that isn't confirmation bias.
So a vaccine mandate implemented by the states (I believe the first "mandate" was in early 1800's), not the federal government, that is now leading for the president to think he can mandate the vaccine isn't an overstep?

Look, I have no idea on what the history is with mandates in your country, and I'm not aware of your countries government. All I can speak on is the U.S., and yes, right now is a time in history where our government is trying to overstep (in my opinion).
Boblob801 wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 1:10 am Jezz bud you didn't have to pull out the stereotypical American arrogance on me. I assume a doctorate and thesis to be academic but we obviously have severally different logics.
You are right, that was shitty thing for me to say, I'm sorry. I should not of projected my engineering experience to yours, as I have no idea what yours was like. I am aware of how arrogant that was, I can't say that my academic experience was extensive as an undergrad, just that I was much more exposed to it during my physics education than my engineering one is all. No idea if your engineering school was different.
Boblob801 wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 1:10 am I'm saying if one person says something and thousands disagree, its logical that the thousands are correct and the singular is an arrogant outcast (history has shown this 10s of thousands of times). Especially if they're all using similar methods and research (actually research not google like everyone seems to think is research). T
I don't disagree with your statement if you include the latter, but that is not how you made it come across. You have an appeal to majority, we should not automatically discredit outliers because they on the outcast of establishment. I don't believe Einstein was really that well accepted with his theory of special relativity. The birth of modern physics was not like one big revolutionary press conference and everyone was on board, it took years for the scientific process to play out. Now you have a super computer that can fit in your pocket and can argue with me from NZ while I am in the U.S. almost instantaneously.
Boblob801 wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 1:10 am The fact you dispel pair reviewing so easily just proves this is a waste of an argument on the science side.
I dispelled peer reviewing where? Peer review certainly has it's place as I stated to hvmvp. However, it's a metric, not consensus on truth. I know you are not naive enough to believe there is no existence of a scientific establishment. There always has been. Many discoveries throughout history have had to go against it. Even some of the most intelligent people have bias. It's why so many have been caught in the past altering results or misinterpreting their experiments to fit their preconceived hypothesis true. Some of that has been caught by peer review but some of that was caught by outliers calling bullshit.
Boblob801 wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 1:10 am Response summary of my summary
Fair enough. I respect there is no common ground between us on these subjects. Let's be friends again.. we just won't discuss government or Covid 19 vaccines. :P
Post Reply