China virus

[Mech]

Lol.. So I should add sexist to the list..

"Yes they are".. You should think a little deeper on that one.

[JustRandy]

52 minutes ago, Mech said:

Lol.. So I should add sexist to the list..

What list?  If sexist includes low-T men then sure.

52 minutes ago, Mech said:

"Yes they are".. You should think a little deeper on that one.

Why?  The work has been done already.

[Mech]

More lapses in reasoning there Randy.. 

We don't have to choose one or the other, and none of those quotes say we do. We can have both.

If, as you have been contending, security depends on the right to bear arms, then freedom and security, are compatible, and even complementary. If however we can not have freedom and security together(as you are now claiming), then your right to bear arms would preclude security, and vice versa.

So which(since you think we have to choose), is it..  Mutually exclusive or not ?

Edited February 9, 2022 by Mech

[Mech]

Things can be exclusive or mutually exclusive or mutually dependent or complementary. But not everything has to be any of those.

Not all choices are dilemmas.

Opinions are a freedom we all have. They don't have to be based on facts. They don't have to comply with logic.

These things are true of our choice to get a vaccination or not, or to bear arms. Being too righteous about either, is a folly. 

Very little in life is clear cut.

You should think carefully if you are going to commit to whether freedom and security are mutually exclusive or not...

We should all think carefully about our choice to get vaccinated or not. 

 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Mech

[JustRandy]

34 minutes ago, Mech said:

We don't have to choose one or the other, and none of those quotes say we do. We can have both.

Freedom is absence of security and security is absence of freedom.  It's definitional.

You cannot walk about freely without undertaking risk; it's impossible.  You can either walk or be secure, but not both.  You can strap on protective gear and achieve a degree of security, but by donning the gear you also lose a degree of freedom.

37 minutes ago, Mech said:

security depends on the right to bear arms, then freedom and security, are compatible, and even complementary.

Conflation of context. 

Freedom to bear arms comes with risks associated with bearing arms, as Dave pointed out: such as kids shooting themselves or taking arms to school.

The security from kids harming themselves or mass shootings comes at the limitation of freedom to bear arms.

 

Security from breakins comes with the expense and burden of bearing arms.

Freedom from the drudgery of maintaining an armory comes with the risk of breakins.

 

A robust police force comes at the imposition of high taxes, which is less economic freedom.

More economic freedom comes with the loss of security of police.

 

Security and liberty are always antipodal like positive and negative.

25 minutes ago, Mech said:

But not everything has to be any of those.

The universe is polar.  Everything is a duality.  If it weren't then nothing would have meaning because everything is defined by what it is not.  Black letters on a screen couldn't be seen without the contrast of a white background.  Up only has meaning in relation to down.  North has meaning only in relation to south.

[Mech]

Ha... Well which are you Randy, free or secure ?

 

[Mech]

I hope you aren't off looking for the answer to the question on the internet Randy.. That would be too sad.

I did tell you we don't have to conform to conventions..(paraphrasing).

We're as free and as secure as we think we are..

Freedom and security are both states of mind. Fear is the thing that constrains us.

Tell me what you think.. What your really know through experience.

 

 

[JustRandy]

4 hours ago, Mech said:

Ha... Well which are you Randy, free or secure ?

I'd like to think my freedom were secured.

3 hours ago, Mech said:

We're as free and as secure as we think we are..

Perception is reality again?

[davefrombc]

Your perception definitely isn't reality  JR. Being armed or  perceived to be armed  has been demonstrated many times to  make you less secure for a start. The rest of your arguments are all sound and mirrors with no substance in reality.

The  excuse "I thought he was going to  shoot me , so I shot him back first " comes to  mind as an example.

Edited February 9, 2022 by davefrombc

[JustRandy]

8 hours ago, davefrombc said:

Being armed or  perceived to be armed  has been demonstrated many times to  make you less secure for a start.

Yeah I'm sure I'd been less secure had I been armed on the mountain with the bears when my battery died.

8 hours ago, davefrombc said:

The  excuse "I thought he was going to  shoot me , so I shot him back first " comes to  mind as an example.

Cops kill by mistake all the time.  Why?  Because it increases their safety.

The question is do we want the cops to be safe or society to be safe?

[Mech]

 "sound and mirrors"..  You got that right.. Too much echo,  and it all reflects badly.

[JustRandy]

9 minutes ago, Mech said:

 "sound and mirrors"..  You got that right.. Too much echo,  and it all reflects badly.

Yep, slander is the tool of the loser.

Ridicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities.

I'm flattered.

[Mech]

 "Cops kill by mistake all the time.  Why?  Because it increases their safety. ".

Killing by mistake makes no one safer. Whether it's a drone attack on an innocent family, or a "black"(great categorisation that), out for a jog, it's an assault on freedom and security.

None of your "reasoning", is justifiable Randy.. it's just defending the indefensible.

Slander ?

And sarcasm is the lowest form of wit they say.. 

[Mech]

All my suspicions about the people vehemently opposed to the vaccine, that I mentioned when I first came into this thread, have been confirmed and demonstrated.

It's just what I've observed over here too.

[JustRandy]

6 minutes ago, Mech said:

Killing by mistake makes no one safer.

Why do you think Saddam said "A dead friend is better than a live enemy"?

Because Saddam is safer if Saddam mistakenly kills a friend rather than risk the supposed friend actually being an enemy.  He erred on the side of caution.

Cops are safer if they shoot first and ask questions later.

It isn't rocket science.

8 minutes ago, Mech said:

Slander ?

Slander is all you and, most particularly Dave, have at your disposal.

You attack the person rather than the argument.  You say I'm weak minded, my ego is the problem, delusions of grandeur, smoke and mirrors because cutting me down is easier than refuting my arguments.

That is the lowest form of wit and most sincere form of flattery.

To wit:

1 minute ago, Mech said:

All my suspicions about the people vehemently opposed to the vaccine, that I mentioned when I first came into this thread, have been confirmed and demonstrated.

Another irrelevant ad hom.

[Mech]

Lol Randy. Very few of your "arguments", warrant a reply. Arguments are just arguments. Ridiculous, out of context, invalid, factually wrong "arguments" are not even worth correcting. So I don't.

[JustRandy]

2 minutes ago, Mech said:

Lol Randy. Very few of your "arguments", warrant a reply.

Yet you reply anyway.  And not to refute the argument, but to attack the person.

2 minutes ago, Mech said:

Arguments are just arguments. Ridiculous, out of context, invalid, factually wrong "arguments" are not even worth correcting. So I don't.

Because you can't.

All you have is slander.

[Mech]

I like to reason Randy, not argue.

I'd love to engage with you on your level, but I'd need so many bourbons, and so many joints to do that, that it wouldn't be good for me.

Nearly eight thousand views of this thread now, and I'd have to suspect a lot of them are Americans looking in, and none of them have agreed with you or backed yo up about a single thing you've said. I'd have to suspect that most of them are squirming in their seats reading your parochial money is God and might is right bollocks.

I'll leave you to it to save them any further embarrassment.

[JustRandy]

7 minutes ago, Mech said:

I like to reason Randy, not argue.

If you like it then you should try doing it.

8 minutes ago, Mech said:

Nearly eight thousand views of this thread now, and I'd have to suspect a lot of them are Americans looking in, and none of them have agreed with you or backed yo up about a single thing you've said.

Another logical fallacy:

Argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument which is based on affirming that something is real or better because the majority thinks so.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

You've tried appealing to numbers and attacking the messenger but you haven't tried refuting the argument yet.

Which logical fallacy will you appeal to next in lieu of reason?

[HondaPhile]

Everyone had it, all better now. Just a bad cold. 

[davefrombc]

3 hours ago, HondaPhile said:

Everyone had it, all better now. Just a bad cold. 

Tell that to the 914K American families and their friends that have lost love ones to the virus. Whether any of the deniers believe it or not, far too many of them  died needlessly because some as***** refused to mask up, social distance or get the shot,  got a mild or asymptomatic case of it and passed it on to a vulnerable person.

[JustRandy]

41 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

Tell that to the 914K American families and their friends that have lost love ones to the virus.

I don't believe that number.  They were calling everything covid.

1918 was a real pandemic that didn't need pre-existing conditions to kill a person, but even then shockingly few died of the virus.  Fauci himself co-authored a study finding that the vast majority of deaths were caused by bacteria.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599911/

Furthermore, the hospital is a great place to acquire novel bacteria that can't be killed with normal antibiotics:

"Hospital-acquired bacterial or fungal infections were frequently complicating the course among ICU patients." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33461613/

"Although uncommon upon admission, bacterial infections frequently occurred in patients with prolonged hospitalization" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33934980/

Of 19 covid ICU patients, 18 died.  Of the 18 who died, 17 died of bacteria found only in hospitals.  The other one who died had MRSA, which is antibiotic resistant bacteria commonly associated with hospitals. https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-020-05374-z

While other species of the genus Acinetobacter are often found in soil samples (leading to the common misconception that A. baumannii is a soil organism, too), it is almost exclusively isolated from hospital environments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acinetobacter_baumannii

Moreover, they denied effective treatments to preserve the emergency authorization of the vaccine.  If treatments exist then big pharma doesn't get a liability shield.

So, the establishment protocol killed the majority.  Tell that to their families.

[davefrombc]

They had no antibiotics or vaccines for the flu in1918.  All they really had was masking up and quarantines back then. Yeah , the big Pharma  withholding early treatment bullshit.  You  fool conspiracy  theorists  have  been compounding the misery of the families by  pushing it. 

That's some strange universe you live in.  I  hear  Big  Pharma made a deal  with the  funeral industry to  keep  the  Fountain of Youth  hidden  all  these years too.   Obviously you  haven't bought your ant-EMF clothes to  keep  all that rf energy from 5G from affecting your  brain. They must be doing a booming business  selling it  judging by the  number of ads for it on social media.  Better get yours before it's too late  and they're  out of stock.

[JustRandy]

56 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

They had no antibiotics or vaccines for the flu in1918. 

Where do you think pneumonia vaccines came from?  That's the only vaccine no one is pushing, yet you're most likely to die from pneumonia.

56 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

All they really had was masking up and quarantines back then.

Yeah and masks didn't work then either.

"Notwithstanding the fact that the very complete records at the disposal of the California State Board of Health indicate conclusively that the compulsory wearing of masks does not affect the progress of the epidemic, it was advised that individuals wear them when in close association with their friends, as it is upon just those occasions that, under a compulsory law, the mask is most liable to be laid aside.  The use of the face mask was advised particularly in the presence of anyone who was suffering from a cold or who had recently recovered from influenza.

Early in the progress of the epidemic the California State Board of Health issued a regulation requiring the wearing of masks by those in actual contact with known cases, and by persons suffering from a cold while in association with the general public.  Under this regulation any health officer could arrest any person with a cold who was found going about unmasked.  The reason for the above statement regarding the faults of the mask as an effective protection when applied forcibly to whole communities is to be found by a comparison of the mortality charts of those cities that did not use the mask with those cities that did.

The frontispiece shows the cities of Boston, Buffalo, San Francisco and Washington, each with almost identically the same curve and the same death rate per hundred thousand, and in only one of them, San Francisco, was the mask used. New York City, before referred to, as one of those cities that did not prohibit public gatherings, did not use masks either, and its record of deaths is lower than that of any of the other larger cities.  Stockton is one town in California that has worn the mask consistently. In Figure 18 is shown Stockton’s record as compared with Boston, which did not require the mask. The conclusion is definitely established that the mask is ineffective."

Dr. Wilfred Kellogg, MD, Secretary and Executive Officer, CA State Board of Health: Influenza: A Study of Measures Adopted for the Control of the Epidemic (California State Board of Health Special Bulletin, Number 31, 1919, page 12.) https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008030317&view=1up&seq=15

56 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

Yeah , the big Pharma  withholding early treatment bullshit. 

How can they have EUA without blocking effective treatments?  Without EUA pharma would be sued into oblivion.

56 minutes ago, davefrombc said:

You  fool conspiracy  theorists  have  been compounding the misery of the families by  pushing it. 

That's some strange universe you live in.  I  hear  Big  Pharma made a deal  with the  funeral industry to  keep  the  Fountain of Youth  hidden  all  these years too.   Obviously you  haven't bought your ant-EMF clothes to  keep  all that rf energy from 5G from affecting your  brain. They must be doing a booming business  selling it  judging by the  number of ads for it on social media.  Better get yours before it's too late  and they're  out of stock.

GOP should put you on the payroll.

[davefrombc]

4 hours ago, JustRandy said:

Where do you think pneumonia vaccines came from?  That's the only vaccine no one is pushing, yet you're most likely to die from pneumonia.

Yeah and masks didn't work then either.

"Notwithstanding the fact that the very complete records at the disposal of the California State Board of Health indicate conclusively that the compulsory wearing of masks does not affect the progress of the epidemic, it was advised that individuals wear them when in close association with their friends, as it is upon just those occasions that, under a compulsory law, the mask is most liable to be laid aside.  The use of the face mask was advised particularly in the presence of anyone who was suffering from a cold or who had recently recovered from influenza.

Early in the progress of the epidemic the California State Board of Health issued a regulation requiring the wearing of masks by those in actual contact with known cases, and by persons suffering from a cold while in association with the general public.  Under this regulation any health officer could arrest any person with a cold who was found going about unmasked.  The reason for the above statement regarding the faults of the mask as an effective protection when applied forcibly to whole communities is to be found by a comparison of the mortality charts of those cities that did not use the mask with those cities that did.

The frontispiece shows the cities of Boston, Buffalo, San Francisco and Washington, each with almost identically the same curve and the same death rate per hundred thousand, and in only one of them, San Francisco, was the mask used. New York City, before referred to, as one of those cities that did not prohibit public gatherings, did not use masks either, and its record of deaths is lower than that of any of the other larger cities.  Stockton is one town in California that has worn the mask consistently. In Figure 18 is shown Stockton’s record as compared with Boston, which did not require the mask. The conclusion is definitely established that the mask is ineffective."

Dr. Wilfred Kellogg, MD, Secretary and Executive Officer, CA State Board of Health: Influenza: A Study of Measures Adopted for the Control of the Epidemic (California State Board of Health Special Bulletin, Number 31, 1919, page 12.) https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008030317&view=1up&seq=15

How can they have EUA without blocking effective treatments?  Without EUA pharma would be sued into oblivion.

GOP should put you on the payroll.

COVID -19  is not an influenza strain, and masks do  help  reduce the spread of it no matter what you claim of studies denying it.  The reason  masking up  has been  largely less effective than  it  could be is simply  because so  many simpletons refuse to do so.. They SLOW the transmission , not prevent it. If  an  infected person is wearing one and an uninfected person  is 6" away ,chance of transmission is greatly reduced between them. I feel sorry for you if you can't understand that simple concept.  There  are  multiple studies that  illustrate the  rate of transmission  related to  one masked and  both and with distancing,  but then  those are  factual  studies ,  but  they  must be fake in your  alternate universe.

[Mech]

Mask wearing served Taiwan very well.

"Approaches to preventing or mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have varied markedly between nations. We examined the approach up to August 2020 taken by two jurisdictions which had successfully eliminated COVID-19 by this time: Taiwan and New Zealand. Taiwan reported a lower COVID-19 incidence rate (20.7 cases per million) compared with NZ (278.0 per million). Extensive public health infrastructure established in Taiwan pre-COVID-19 enabled a fast coordinated response, particularly in the domains of early screening, effective methods for isolation/quarantine, digital technologies for identifying potential cases and mass mask use. This timely and vigorous response allowed Taiwan to avoid the national lockdown used by New Zealand. Many of Taiwan's pandemic control components could potentially be adopted by other jurisdictions.".

[Mech]

"mass mask use"..

[JustRandy]

9 hours ago, davefrombc said:

COVID -19  is not an influenza strain, and masks do  help  reduce the spread of it

Viruses are the same size and all studies in the last 100 years show masks make no difference.  We've been over this a dozen times.

From 1919:

"Notwithstanding the fact that the very complete records at the disposal of the California State Board of Health indicate conclusively that the compulsory wearing of masks does not affect the progress of the epidemic,  https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31378008030317&view=1up&seq=15

From 1946 to 2018:

In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I² = 30%, p = 0.25).  Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.  https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

WHO says:

A large randomized community-based trial in which 4862 healthy participants were divided into a group wearing medical/surgical masks and a control group found no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2 (76).

A recent systematic review found nine trials (of which eight were cluster-randomized controlled trials in which clusters of people, versus individuals, were randomized) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. Two trials were with healthcare workers and seven in the community. The review concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.18) or laboratory confirmed illness (LCI) (RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.66-1.26) (44)  https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks

March 2020 Fauci said:

"There's no reason to be walking around wearing a mask.  When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little better, and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think.  And often there are unintended consequences: people keep fiddling with the masks and touching their face."  Watch him say it: https://www.bitchute.com/video/prujdWuCxa8/

 

All the evidence gathered in 100 years indicates that wearing masks makes no difference.

Masks may seem like common sense, but science is not based on common sense.  Science is based on demonstrable evidence and the evidence refutes the common sense.

9 hours ago, davefrombc said:

no matter what you claim of studies denying it. 

Another one claiming evidence doesn't matter.  Faith in spite of evidence is religion.

 

[JustRandy]

56 minutes ago, Mech said:

Extensive public health infrastructure established in Taiwan pre-COVID-19 enabled a fast coordinated response, particularly in the domains of early screening, effective methods for isolation/quarantine, digital technologies for identifying potential cases and mass mask use.

Fast coordinated response, early screening, effective methods for isolation/quarantine, digital technologies for identifying potential cases evidently worked but the last one, masks, didn't do anything.

It's not even possible for masks to work.  If masks won't stop smoke then they won't stop viruses.

[JustRandy]

No amount of evidence can change the mind of a Branch Covidian.

 

Theistic religion is faith in absence of evidence but the Covidians have faith in spite of evidence to the contrary.