All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (18 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[RobF]

I just saw a statement from a guy on Twitter and it crystallizes conspiracy people.

“When you don’t understand anything, everything seems like a conspiracy.“

Boy does that ring true or what?

Yeah; I think it basically comes down to every conspiracy theory, at its heart, being someone going, "I can imagine dubious things happened... so that means they did happen!". And it's obviously much easier to imagine things when you're unhindered by things like a comprehension and understanding of reality.

It's easy to tell when someone's fallen for that as well, because as soon as they meet any kind of reality, every response boils down to just regurgitating the stuff they fell for, and when the glaring flaws are inevitably pointed out in it, doing it again, denial and a really remarkable inability to comprehend anything.

 

[RobF]

Do you wear your mask when you are online?

Do you resort to increasingly inane non sequiturs when you can't think of a cogent response?

This is from the guy that Dragon posted and you referenced:

Yes?

I mean, you do understand that's the same thing I just said, because 'posted publicly' there is referring to the draft pre-print, and he's referring to the updates and corrections made to the published version in line with the data, that I literally just described, in the post you just quoted?

Wait... are you trying to suggest that because some random person referred to the draft as being 'posted publicly' that means it's the published version, even though it isn't, the published version is in Nature Medicine in March 2020 and is different, and in particular is the version that states that, "However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible," which is based on the data discussed in late February and is an example of the development of views we're talking about?

Because that would be yet another very daft thing to do.

That's nice and all that they labeled it correspondence, but Collins and Fauci said it was a research study. For years the Proximal Origins paper was the final word on COVID, but now that their private messages have been exposed they say it's opinion.

It being published as correspondence is fact. It is also a fact that the correspondence is about the authors' study of the research available at the time. As can easily be seen by, you know, reading it. Hence, it contains the views of the authors, based on their study of the research. This isn't complicated.

There's a pattern here. Every time you don't like the reality, you seem to resort to trying to quote someone saying something - often wildly out of context - and then try to suggest that, somehow, changes what reality is. Like, we have a paper, we can see when it was published, what it was published as, and we can see what it is. That's basic fact. But you seem to think if someone referred to a draft being 'posted publicly' that means the draft is now the published version. And if someone said "study" at some point, and someone else said the word "opinion", somewhere else, that somehow changes reality and indicates shenanigans. That's not how any of that works. Reality remains the same, it was published as correspondence, in Nature Magazine in March 2020, and it has always been what it is.

Speaking of out of context, your reference to "they say it's opinion" is to the editor of Nature Medicine - not the authors of the paper - stating why Nature Medicine would not be bending to idiotic demands for a retraction. What he said was, as quoted in the Telegraph:

Dr Joao Monteiro, chief editor of Nature Medicine, said: "Concerns raised about any type of article in our journal are always considered carefully.​

​

"However, when it comes to expressing opinions, it is our position that it is the authors’ prerogative to balance their views in a way that reflects the body of robust scientific knowledge available at the time of publication, as well as the impact of their findings.​

​

"Neither previous out-of-context remarks by the authors nor disagreements with the authors’ stated views, are, on their own, grounds for retraction. We have therefore concluded that retraction is not warranted at this time."​

​

What you've done is latched on to the phrase 'expressing opinions', and have completely ignored the parts I bolded.

Had he said, "It's just opinion, and contains no research or studies thereof," you would have a point. Not the point you're trying to make - the point would be that the editor of Nature Medicine had lost his mind if that had happened - but a point anyway.

But, of course, he didn't, and you don't.

 

[SaintForLife]

Do you resort to increasingly inane non sequiturs when you can't think of a cogent response?

Do you usually insult people when you think they are beneath you? Does that make you feel better when you do that?

Yes?

I mean, you do understand that's the same thing I just said, because 'posted publicly' there is referring to the draft pre-print, and he's referring to the updates and corrections made to the published version in line with the data, that I literally just described, in the post you just quoted?

Wait... are you trying to suggest that because some random person referred to the draft as being 'posted publicly' that means it's the published version, even though it isn't, the published version is in Nature Medicine in March 2020 and is different, and in particular is the version that states that, "However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible," which is based on the data discussed in late February and is an example of the development of views we're talking about?

That random person was who you and Dragon posted to show there was new evidence. It's not my fault yall didn't scroll down and read the rest of the thread.

You can use all the word salad you want, but as the guy confirmed the paper was already posted publicly at that point.

Because that would be yet another very daft thing to do.


It being published as correspondence is fact. It is also a fact that the correspondence is about the authors' study of the research available at the time. As can easily be seen by, you know, reading it. Hence, it contains the views of the authors, based on their study of the research. This isn't complicated.

There's a pattern here. Every time you don't like the reality, you seem to resort to trying to quote someone saying something - often wildly out of context - and then try to suggest that, somehow, changes what reality is. Like, we have a paper, we can see when it was published, what it was published as, and we can see what it is. That's basic fact. But you seem to think if someone referred to a draft being 'posted publicly' that means the draft is now the published version. And if someone said "study" at some point, and someone else said the word "opinion", somewhere else, that somehow changes reality and indicates shenanigans. That's not how any of that works. Reality remains the same, it was published as correspondence, in Nature Magazine in March 2020, and it has always been what it is.

Speaking of out of context, your reference to "they say it's opinion" is to the editor of Nature Medicine - not the authors of the paper - stating why Nature Medicine would not be bending to idiotic demands for a retraction. What he said was, as quoted in the Telegraph:

Dr Joao Monteiro, chief editor of Nature Medicine, said: "Concerns raised about any type of article in our journal are always considered carefully.​

​

"However, when it comes to expressing opinions, it is our position that it is the authors’ prerogative to balance their views in a way that reflects the body of robust scientific knowledge available at the time of publication, as well as the impact of their findings.​

​

"Neither previous out-of-context remarks by the authors nor disagreements with the authors’ stated views, are, on their own, grounds for retraction. We have therefore concluded that retraction is not warranted at this time."​

​

What you've done is latched on to the phrase 'expressing opinions', and have completely ignored the parts I bolded.

Had he said, "It's just opinion, and contains no research or studies thereof," you would have a point. Not the point you're trying to make - the point would be that the editor of Nature Medicine had lost his mind if that had happened - but a point anyway.

But, of course, he didn't, and you don't.

Here is all the context for the entire covid timeline, but I'm sure you'll have some complaints about how it's cherry picked.

Timeline: The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2

This timeline compiles numerous sources to covey the backstory of the enormously influential article, "The proximal origin of SARS-Cov-2".

usrtk.org

Once again, everyone has pointed to that Proximal Origins paper as the final word on Covid, but now that it's been exposed as being fraudulent they want to claim otherwise.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[RobF]

Do you usually insult people when you think they are beneath you? Does that make you feel better when you do that?

I don't think people are 'beneath me'. People are people.

When particular people are repeatedly failing to comprehend the posts they're replying to, I will point that out though, and if they keep doing it, I might point it out in quite strong terms. If you find that insulting, you could easily avoid it by, you know, actually taking the time to comprehend the posts you're replying to. Or just not replying to them.

That random person was who you and Dragon posted to show there was new evidence. It's not my fault yall didn't scroll down and read the rest of the thread. You can use all the word salad you want, but as the guy confirmed the paper was already posted publicly at that point.

All you're telling us is that you're not reading the posts you're replying to, you don't understand the difference between a preprint and a final published version, or, apparently, the nature of time, given that the discussion is about how and why their views developed.

I mean, this is what you're not getting here:

Reality: Their views strengthened from A to B, because of data like X

You, repeatedly and bafflingly: But A was before they discussed X.

Everyone: Do you not understand how time works.

Here is all the context for the entire covid timeline, but I'm sure you'll have some complaints about how it's cherry picked.

Timeline: The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2

This timeline compiles numerous sources to covey the backstory of the enormously influential article, "The proximal origin of SARS-Cov-2".

usrtk.org

I mean. Even the briefest glance shows that it's not 'all the context', because it literally skips from February 21st to March 6th, omitting all the discussion of the data we've been talking about, that resulted in the decision to 're-nuance [the paper] to explicitly lower our bet on the lab passaging scenario in the basis that both cleavage site insertions and the full RBD exist in nature".

You do understand that ignoring the existence of something doesn't stop it existing, right? Like, if we can clearly see that a group of people went from A to B because of X, you just pretending X doesn't exist doesn't stop it existing and make it a mystery. We can all still see their discussion of the data and the reasoning that went with it. And linking to other people ignoring it also does nothing to stop it existing.

You genuinely seem to believe that if you just blather on enough and link to other people blathering enough it'll change reality. That's very MAGA of you, but it's not how reality works.

Also, if you'd actually read that link instead of just assuming "there's a lot of words here, it surely must support everything I'm saying," you'd notice that it also refers to the earlier version of the paper as a preprint as well.

Once again, everyone has pointed to that Proximal Origins paper as the final word on Covid, but now that it's been exposed as being fraudulent they want to claim otherwise.

None of those things are happening.

 

[where yat brah]

 

[MT15]

This should also be in the RWNJ thread. He’s as crazy as they come, similar to the other doctor who is in the process of losing her medical license and whose name escapes me at the moment.

 

[Optimus Prime]

This should also be in the RWNJ thread. He’s as crazy as they come, similar to the other doctor who is in the process of losing her medical license and whose name escapes me at the moment.

Demon sperm doctor or someone else?

 

[MT15]

Demon sperm doctor or someone else?

No, the one who predicted there would be mass deaths from the vaccine by now. More than died from Covid. She has the word Penny in her name. But yeah, I forgot about the demon sperm doctor she’s just as crazy as the other two.

 

[faceman]

No, the one who predicted there would be mass deaths from the vaccine by now. More than died from Covid. She has the word Penny in her name. But yeah, I forgot about the demon sperm doctor she’s just as crazy as the other two.

Doc Who Said COVID Vax Magnetized People Has License Suspended

Sherri Tenpenny, DO, 'refused' to cooperate with investigation by Ohio's medical board

www.medpagetoday.com

 

[MT15]

Doc Who Said COVID Vax Magnetized People Has License Suspended

Sherri Tenpenny, DO, 'refused' to cooperate with investigation by Ohio's medical board

www.medpagetoday.com

Yep, that’s the one.

 

[MT15]

 

[Optimus Prime]

Joseph Ladapo, the top public health official in Florida, will not be persuaded that the vaccines created to combat coronavirus are safe.

When he hyped the idea that the vaccines were dangerous in October 2022, independent experts — at times gently but often not — pointed out that his arguments were baseless or misinformed. But Ladapo was unabashed; he appeared a few weeks later on a podcast that had elevated the QAnon conspiracy theory to argue his position and attack covid-19 responses more broadly, including saying a mask mandate was a “manipulative, destructive, divisive policy that was implemented for the purpose of control and maintaining control.” This wasn’t new. In March 2022, six months into his tenure, he blasted officials in charge of the response, demanding that Floridians “not let these people get away with it.”

On Wednesday, Ladapo went further in his efforts to kneecap vaccine adoption. His office released a statement announcing that he was calling for vaccines using mRNA technology (like those from Pfizer and Moderna) to be curtailed, citing a debunked concern about effects on recipients’ DNA.

Again, a large body of research indicates that these vaccines are safe and have been important in reducing the covid-19 death toll. An analysis completed by KFF in early 2022 estimated that 234,000 of the deaths from covid-19 to that point might have been prevented had the deceased been vaccinated. Thousands of people are still dying from covid-19 each month, but the ratio between infections and deaths has plummeted since vaccines became widely available, in part because of changes to the dominant strains that are circulating. By contrast, there is no evidence the vaccines pose a significant, widespread danger.

In another state, having a top health official offer recommendations at odds with the broader medical community — and framing those recommendations in the context of a dispute rooted in politics — might trigger reconsideration of the official’s position. But this is Florida, domain of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who appointed Ladapo and who has made a concerted effort to be the face of rejecting expert consensus on covid-19 responses.

Why? In part, clearly, because he wanted to be the Republican nominee for president.

Polling from KFF published in November reinforces the extent to which uptake of coronavirus vaccines is linked to partisanship. That has been the case for a long time: KFF data in November 2021 showed that the main divide in getting vaccinated was rooted in partisanship. While half of Americans said late last year they would get or had gotten the newest iteration of vaccines, only a quarter of Republicans indicated their intent to do so. (Among Democrats, three-quarters said they would or had.)..............

MSN

www.msn.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/04/desantis-surgeon-general-vaccine-misinformation/

 

[faceman]

Joseph Ladapo, the top public health official in Florida, will not be persuaded that the vaccines created to combat coronavirus are safe.

When he hyped the idea that the vaccines were dangerous in October 2022, independent experts — at times gently but often not — pointed out that his arguments were baseless or misinformed. But Ladapo was unabashed; he appeared a few weeks later on a podcast that had elevated the QAnon conspiracy theory to argue his position and attack covid-19 responses more broadly, including saying a mask mandate was a “manipulative, destructive, divisive policy that was implemented for the purpose of control and maintaining control.” This wasn’t new. In March 2022, six months into his tenure, he blasted officials in charge of the response, demanding that Floridians “not let these people get away with it.”

MSN

www.msn.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/04/desantis-surgeon-general-vaccine-misinformation/

Herman Cain raises hand.

 

[Taurus]

Herman Cain raises hand.

His cold, dead hand.

 

[SaintForLife]

I'm not sure about the subject they are discussing, but I know Hotez isn't someone who should be trusted.

 

[MT15]

SFL. It is just beyond ridiculous how you are hoodwinked by these grifters. Hotez is an accomplished scientist, who is the subject of abject character assassination which you are taking part in.

Just stop with the total crap you are pushing. It should be embarrassing to you.

 

[MT15]

This is why the RWNJ media are pushing so hard for a lab leak.