Coronovirus IV

[foszoe]

Not even showing bodies would convince people, whether its 1000 or 100000. Then the argument would just shift to falsified causes of death. At this point I don't think anyone can be convinced to think anything else than what they have concluded.

Thats why I don't reach conclusions very often.

 

[churchmouse]

Not even showing bodies would convince people, whether its 1000 or 100000. Then the argument would just shift to falsified causes of death. At this point I don't think anyone can be convinced to think anything else than what they have concluded.

Thats why I don't reach conclusions very often.

I am drawing my conclusions from actually having it. And no one around me caught it. I am 1over the avg age and medical conditions for it to kick my tail......nope, here I set typing away.

From knowing people who were diagnosed and rode it out no worries. Some were back on their game in just over a week. Just like a flu.

From my Dr agreeing this is all ....if you are old/weak/obese/sickly then stay your butt at home. He and other medical people I know all say the beds are not full. The rush is over. If it ever really was on around here.

Looking at this through some very clear lenses.

 

[NKBJ]

foszoe,
Having voiced some of my opinion of this event in various venues over the last few months (even did it here "on line") and a little of the background, and witnessing the effects on individuals, I agree with you wholeheartedly when you say at this point few can be convinced to think anything else than what they have concluded. I will add though that in a majority of cases it appears to be a matter of what they've been front loaded more so than conclusions.

That's the efficacy of this "age of universal deceit" in that you can hide anything in plain sight simply by pumping out various data sets presented by prepositioned voices. Evolution, zionism, UFO's and 911 are some great examples of Operation Mockingbird style mind management that illustrate much of how the bank bug event is being negotiated. After a while such things get to be like collecting butterflies or rare stamps in that one may take delight in what is found but should not expect others to express appreciation nor to be offended by their resultant bodily processes.

 

[foszoe]

In the age of (mis)information being so readily available, sides seem to be more easily chosen and supported.

Something my experience has led me to believe. In general, if I want to know something about psychology, I ask a psychologist. If I want to know something about engineering, I ask an engineer, when I want to know about my water well, I ask someone who has years of experience in dealing with pressure tanks, pressure switches, pipe losses etc. You get where I am coming from.

Nowadays, an expert is "made" by watching youtube videos mostly supporting what one already believes then posting them. It would be more compelling if someone started posting ONLY opposition work that was credible and then deconstructed it. That's not how it works though. The chest can be thrust out much further if what is said and believed is "proven" or supported by the article or blog posted.

That's why I don't draw conclusions very often instead choosing to continually question them.

A simple example.

A mask.

I don't know that a mask does anything. I don't know that a mask does nothing. Those two statements cover just about anything I can think of a mask can do in regards to Covid.

I believe the answer is somewhere inside those boundaries. So, I refuse to hold the position that a mask does anything. I also refuse to hold the position that a mask does nothing. Why? because I choose to believe that I actually know very little. Been that way since I was old enough to question things according to my mother. I never stopped asking why. I don't think I ever will. To some it makes me a good "devil's" advocate because I seldom agree "wholeheartedly" with anything or anyone including myself on any subject. I definitely don't agree with someone until I know we are speaking the same language. That frustrates a lot of people.

Now one may wonder, why I believe so....well, been told for years that getting sick involves spreading bodily fluids so I believe that a mask does provide some impediment to spreading bodily fluids. I don't know that getting sick involves spreading bodily fluids but I do believe it.

Then again I am perfectly comfortable acting on what I believe without knowing anything because I am comfortable believing without knowing. My experience has taught me that through believing without knowing my sphere of knowing begins to encompass by sphere of believing without ever overtaking it.

I know that there is truth and I also live apophatically when it comes to knowing that truth. I further know that all truths are not really truths but parts of the truth. I will not presume to know truth but darkly.

foszoe,
Having voiced some of my opinion of this event in various venues over the last few months (even did it here "on line") and a little of the background, and witnessing the effects on individuals, I agree with you wholeheartedly when you say at this point few can be convinced to think anything else than what they have concluded. I will add though that in a majority of cases it appears to be a matter of what they've been front loaded more so than conclusions.

That's the efficacy of this "age of universal deceit" in that you can hide anything in plain sight simply by pumping out various data sets presented by prepositioned voices. Evolution, zionism, UFO's and 911 are some great examples of Operation Mockingbird style mind management that illustrate much of how the bank bug event is being negotiated. After a while such things get to be like collecting butterflies or rare stamps in that one may take delight in what is found but should not expect others to express appreciation nor to be offended by their resultant bodily processes.

 

[JettaKnight]

Too long for QFT, but I'll just rep you Foszoe. (publicly, because of rep nazis).


It's a bold move these days to say, "I don't know."

 

[JettaKnight]

Not even showing bodies would convince people, whether its 1000 or 100000. Then the argument would just shift to falsified causes of death. At this point I don't think anyone can be convinced to think anything else than what they have concluded.

Thats why I don't reach conclusions very often.

Those "bodies" are just the same actors that they used in Newtown.

 

[Ingomike]

In the age of (mis)information being so readily available, sides seem to be more easily chosen and supported.

Something my experience has led me to believe. In general, if I want to know something about psychology, I ask a psychologist. If I want to know something about engineering, I ask an engineer, when I want to know about my water well, I ask someone who has years of experience in dealing with pressure tanks, pressure switches, pipe losses etc. You get where I am coming from.

Nowadays, an expert is "made" by watching youtube videos mostly supporting what one already believes then posting them. It would be more compelling if someone started posting ONLY opposition work that was credible and then deconstructed it. That's not how it works though. The chest can be thrust out much further if what is said and believed is "proven" or supported by the article or blog posted.

That's why I don't draw conclusions very often instead choosing to continually question them.

A simple example.

A mask.

I don't know that a mask does anything. I don't know that a mask does nothing. Those two statements cover just about anything I can think of a mask can do in regards to Covid.

I believe the answer is somewhere inside those boundaries. So, I refuse to hold the position that a mask does anything. I also refuse to hold the position that a mask does nothing. Why? because I choose to believe that I actually know very little. Been that way since I was old enough to question things according to my mother. I never stopped asking why. I don't think I ever will. To some it makes me a good "devil's" advocate because I seldom agree "wholeheartedly" with anything or anyone including myself on any subject. I definitely don't agree with someone until I know we are speaking the same language. That frustrates a lot of people.

Now one may wonder, why I believe so....well, been told for years that getting sick involves spreading bodily fluids so I believe that a mask does provide some impediment to spreading bodily fluids. I don't know that getting sick involves spreading bodily fluids but I do believe it.

Then again I am perfectly comfortable acting on what I believe without knowing anything because I am comfortable believing without knowing. My experience has taught me that through believing without knowing my sphere of knowing begins to encompass by sphere of believing without ever overtaking it.

I know that there is truth and I also live apophatically when it comes to knowing that truth. I further know that all truths are not really truths but parts of the truth. I will not presume to know truth but darkly.

I perceive most here to be fairly similar to you in questioning things. BUT! We have a massive problem for truth when the physiologists, engineers, and in this case doctors, epidemiologists, and other scientists have been politicized. This was clearly evidenced by the many that flipped 180 after the mob went after them. Most here would love an accurate truth untainted by politics, but alas the one truth to come from this virus is, everything is politicized...

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Looking at the graphs of cases vs deaths, either we got extremely good at treating covid, which I think treatment has improved a lot. But we have WAY higher numbers through the summer than we had in the Spring. I think a lot of that is due to WAY more testing.

IMO, some truth to all of the above, but the biggest factor is not just the way more testing, but much broader testing now as well. Back in March/April/May, only those with pretty severe symptoms (or those in close contact with them) were even able to get tests, and not nearly all of them were. This skewed the statistics towards the most sick... we were only seeing the tip of the iceberg, but it was the "worst" tip.

IMO, the widespread testing is revealing that the vast majority of the previously submerged "iceberg" is proving to be people with mild or no symptoms. The previous estimate that 80% of the infections were mild/asymptotic (and 20% severe/critical) is being challenged by the widespread, sensitive testing, and IMO, we are finding that the mild/asymptotic percentage is MUCH higher than originally thought.

THIS challenges the MSM narrative that the infection is broadly, highly dangerous, hence their article(s) calling for LESS testing and less SENSITIVE testing.

Hoosierdoc had said that the tests had a pretty dismal accuracy. So I think what should have happened, if you tested positive with no symptoms, they should test you again to confirm before adding it to the numbers.

The PCR test is highly selective to unique genetic consequences SARS-CoV-2. I've only found one instance of false positive testing issues, and that was early July for ONE TEST MANUFACTURER, BD Labs, that was generating a 3% false positive rate in early July due to an issue with one of their reagents ('member the original CDC test debacle) which has long since been addressed.

If a test is positive, there was virus on the swab.

False negatives, on the other hand, are way too common.

The antigen blood test on the other hand... it's sensitivity (positive test = real positive) appears to be crap. Don't rely upon it to infer immunity.

 

[bwframe]

Marion County easing some, not all, pandemic restrictions

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Fauci handed it to Rand Paul.

Sen. Paul is off base on US v Sweden, IMO. NY/NYC did not lock down in anything near a timely manner. IMO, they essentially did a Sweden, maybe worse, encouraging residents to attend Broadway plays right up until they locked down too late.

The US has THREE TIMES the obesity/diabetes rates of Sweden. NY had THREE TIMES the death rate of Sweden. That is not a coincidence.

US v Sweden is apples and oranges.

 

[foszoe]

When it comes to Covid, do masks do anything? To be specific, limit the answer to the N-95 or the surgical looking masks.

That question has nothing to do with politics.

I perceive most here to be fairly similar to you in questioning things. BUT! We have a massive problem for truth when the physiologists, engineers, and in this case doctors, epidemiologists, and other scientists have been politicized. This was clearly evidenced by the many that flipped 180 after the mob went after them. Most here would love an accurate truth untainted by politics, but alas the one truth to come from this virus is, everything is politicized...

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Fouci's point about Sweden isn't really a valid argument. It's not a valid counterpoint to say that the reason you can't compare Sweden to the US is because Sweden did worse than other Scandinavian countries. Okay, fine. You've proven an irrelevant conclusion. If the point is that Sweden didn't do mass lock-downs, and they fared better than the US, so therefore lock-downs aren't necessary to have an outcome better than ours. So it doesn't matter how well Sweden did compared to other countries. It matters that Sweden did better than the US and without the same measures we took here. That's not to say the "Sweden" logic is completely sound though. A similar and relevant counter-point involving the other Scandinavian countries would be that they did better than both the US and Sweden with lock-downs.

So the average Swede is identical to the average American healthwise? (hint: not even close re:obesity/diabetes which matters hugely with Covid)

But vastly different from the average Dane, Fin or Norwegian?

Sweden had, and last I looked a few weeks ago, still has 5-10 times the death rate of those neighboring countries.

Fouchi's point on NY was a bazinga though.

 

[foszoe]

Comparing Sweden to its neighbor's seems to me more appro pro.

Then again I get into discussions about how comparing New York to Iowa isn't apples to apples either because NYC skews the statistics for NY.

And much of the opposition to that thought comes from people who easily embrace that it's the liberal cities that swing the states from red to blue.

So the average Swede is identical to the average American healthwise? (hint: not even close re:obesity/diabetes which matters hugely with Covid)

But vastly different from the average Dane, Fin or Norwegian?

Sweden had, and last I looked a few weeks ago, still has 5-10 times the death rate of those neighboring countries.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Comparing Sweden to its neighbor's seems to me more appro pro.

Then again I get into discussions about how comparing New York to Iowa isn't apples to apples either because NYC skews the statistics for NY.

And much of the opposition to that thought comes from people who easily embrace that it's the liberal cities that swing the states from red to blue.

True... my googlefoo shows that New York state has somewhat lower adult clinical obesity rates (27.6% - 2018) than the US average (39.6% - 2019) though another source lists 30.6%, so the US generally, is 30-40% obese.

Sweden has a 9.7% clinically obese statistic.

No stats on clinical MORBID obesity, but my guess is we win bigly.

Nor do I see anything indicating NY state is far more elderly than the average as say Florida is. (DeSantis is doing an excellent job, IMO)

 

[OakRiver]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/veterans-home-holyoke-covid.html

 

[Ingomike]

When it comes to Covid, do masks do anything? To be specific, limit the answer to the N-95 or the surgical looking masks.

That question has nothing to do with politics.

Physically or mentally?

In a sterile environment or real world?

Trained users or John Q. Public?

Is Covid primarily spread via droplets or aerosols?

No previous research found mask use effective for respiratory disease prevention. Is covid different from the diseases researched...

 

[jamil]

In the age of (mis)information being so readily available, sides seem to be more easily chosen and supported.

Something my experience has led me to believe. In general, if I want to know something about psychology, I ask a psychologist. If I want to know something about engineering, I ask an engineer, when I want to know about my water well, I ask someone who has years of experience in dealing with pressure tanks, pressure switches, pipe losses etc. You get where I am coming from.

Nowadays, an expert is "made" by watching youtube videos mostly supporting what one already believes then posting them. It would be more compelling if someone started posting ONLY opposition work that was credible and then deconstructed it. That's not how it works though. The chest can be thrust out much further if what is said and believed is "proven" or supported by the article or blog posted.

That's why I don't draw conclusions very often instead choosing to continually question them.

A simple example.

A mask.

I don't know that a mask does anything. I don't know that a mask does nothing. Those two statements cover just about anything I can think of a mask can do in regards to Covid.

I believe the answer is somewhere inside those boundaries. So, I refuse to hold the position that a mask does anything. I also refuse to hold the position that a mask does nothing. Why? because I choose to believe that I actually know very little. Been that way since I was old enough to question things according to my mother. I never stopped asking why. I don't think I ever will. To some it makes me a good "devil's" advocate because I seldom agree "wholeheartedly" with anything or anyone including myself on any subject. I definitely don't agree with someone until I know we are speaking the same language. That frustrates a lot of people.

Now one may wonder, why I believe so....well, been told for years that getting sick involves spreading bodily fluids so I believe that a mask does provide some impediment to spreading bodily fluids. I don't know that getting sick involves spreading bodily fluids but I do believe it.

Then again I am perfectly comfortable acting on what I believe without knowing anything because I am comfortable believing without knowing. My experience has taught me that through believing without knowing my sphere of knowing begins to encompass by sphere of believing without ever overtaking it.

I know that there is truth and I also live apophatically when it comes to knowing that truth. I further know that all truths are not really truths but parts of the truth. I will not presume to know truth but darkly.

I agree with a lot of that. Especially the part about deconstructing, and about how one might believe the answer is somewhere inside those boundaries. Some things are never certain, but if you know enough to know where the boundaries are, you can direct your belief to focus more on that the answer is somewhere within the boundaries and leave the uncertain things to uncertainty. So you don't have to know everything. Knowing enough is sometimes enough.

You kind of lost me with being comfortable acting without knowing and believing without knowing. I think it's fine to acknowledge that there are boundaries within which is the truth, and figuring out where those boundaries are, and being satisfied with just knowing enough to make some reasonable decisions. If that's what you're saying, I'd agree.

But that last part sounds a bit too much like postmodernism. I wouldn't go so far as to say that all truths are not really truths, but parts of the truth. That's kinda nonsensical. But if what you mean is something like truths are not fully knowable, I'd agree with that. So what I mean by that, not all truths are true universally true. They're conditionally true. Because we can't know all the conditions under which a thing is true, we can't know truths fully. But we can know them well enough for practical use.

 

[jamil]

IMO, some truth to all of the above, but the biggest factor is not just the way more testing, but much broader testing now as well. Back in March/April/May, only those with pretty severe symptoms (or those in close contact with them) were even able to get tests, and not nearly all of them were. This skewed the statistics towards the most sick... we were only seeing the tip of the iceberg, but it was the "worst" tip.

IMO, the widespread testing is revealing that the vast majority of the previously submerged "iceberg" is proving to be people with mild or no symptoms. The previous estimate that 80% of the infections were mild/asymptotic (and 20% severe/critical) is being challenged by the widespread, sensitive testing, and IMO, we are finding that the mild/asymptotic percentage is MUCH higher than originally thought.

THIS challenges the MSM narrative that the infection is broadly, highly dangerous, hence their article(s) calling for LESS testing and less SENSITIVE testing.



The PCR test is highly selective to unique genetic consequences SARS-CoV-2. I've only found one instance of false positive testing issues, and that was early July for ONE TEST MANUFACTURER, BD Labs, that was generating a 3% false positive rate in early July due to an issue with one of their reagents ('member the original CDC test debacle) which has long since been addressed.

If a test is positive, there was virus on the swab.

False negatives, on the other hand, are way too common.

The antigen blood test on the other hand... it's sensitivity (positive test = real positive) appears to be crap. Don't rely upon it to infer immunity.

Well yes. We're testing broader classifications of people, and it sounds like the testing might be of higher accuracy. Possibly the only class of people we're not testing is

 

[foszoe]

See we don't even agree on what "nothing" and "anything" mean.

Physically or mentally?

In a sterile environment or real world?

Trained users or John Q. Public?

Is Covid primarily spread via droplets or aerosols?

No previous research found mask use effective for respiratory disease prevention. Is covid different from the diseases researched...

 

[foszoe]

Truth is contained within the boundaries, but only the boundaries and what lies outside them can be known. Experience teaches us approximations to the truth (what you seem to label practical enough for use) and what is not true thus changing the boundaries which contain the truth without ever really isolating truth itself for errors are also contained within the boundaries which will only be brought to light through experience.

I agree with a lot of that. Especially the part about deconstructing, and about how one might believe the answer is somewhere inside those boundaries. Some things are never certain, but if you know enough to know where the boundaries are, you can direct your belief to focus more on that the answer is somewhere within the boundaries and leave the uncertain things to uncertainty. So you don't have to know everything. Knowing enough is sometimes enough.

You kind of lost me with being comfortable acting without knowing and believing without knowing. I think it's fine to acknowledge that there are boundaries within which is the truth, and figuring out where those boundaries are, and being satisfied with just knowing enough to make some reasonable decisions. If that's what you're saying, I'd agree.

But that last part sounds a bit too much like postmodernism. I wouldn't go so far as to say that all truths are not really truths, but parts of the truth. That's kinda nonsensical. But if what you mean is something like truths are not fully knowable, I'd agree with that. So what I mean by that, not all truths are true universally true. They're conditionally true. Because we can't know all the conditions under which a thing is true, we can't know truths fully. But we can know them well enough for practical use.