Our Covid Response

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,106
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Funny how misinformation and conspiracy theories become the most likely scenario when you just give it time to actually work out the science...

---

Here's a bunch of all the awful and just completely unscientific policies implemented during the covid pandemic. You can tell keeping schools closed was horrible decision as Fauci and others are now saying they never said to close schools (even though that's a lie because they fucking did).


 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,260
5,898
118
Country
United Kingdom
OMG, there's a study for literally everything covid related saying anything you can possibly think of. I didn't think I have to say to give me good fucking studies to prove shit. Give me actual good studies that actually mean something, how is that not assumed?
You will automatically assert its a "bad" study if it doesn't fit what you want it to say. That's the only criteria you actually use.

You were given perfectly fine studies. They were smaller in terms of participant numbers-- but their selection criteria were actually a lot stronger than the criteria your own study used. And ~150 is a perfectly accepted and reasonable number for a study of this nature.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,106
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
You will automatically assert its a "bad" study if it doesn't fit what you want it to say. That's the only criteria you actually use.

You were given perfectly fine studies. They were smaller in terms of participant numbers-- but their selection criteria were actually a lot stronger than the criteria your own study used. And ~150 is a perfectly accepted and reasonable number for a study of this nature.
I was given one study that literally proved nothing to what we are talking about. I was given one study on old people (and small), you do realize different groups of people are different and you can't base what happens to one group to another group, right? Hasn't like everything else covid taught you that, younger women get clots with J&J vaccine, younger men get myocardistis with MRA vaccines, kids shouldn't get vaccines because the risk-benefit analysis is more risky on the vaccine side than getting covid, boosters only show benefit in the vulnerable. And, the last study was super fucking small.

What about the 26,000+ study that showed long covid was not really related to covid at all? You just ignoring that massive study?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,370
6,886
118
Country
United States
Funny how misinformation and conspiracy theories become the most likely scenario when you just give it time to actually work out the science...
Gasp, a GOP report pushes the GOP theory without any new evidence whatsoever?

You really do just believe anything that says what you thin' it should, huh? Did you even bother to read that article?
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,211
1,717
118
Country
4
What about the 26,000+ study that showed long covid was not really related to covid at all? You just ignoring that massive study?
It doesn't "show" that. Quote the part that does.
People who think they had covid but weren't tested associated their various aches and pains with covid. Some were shown not to have had it, therefore it was something else. That's as far as it goes.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,260
5,898
118
Country
United Kingdom
I was given one study that literally proved nothing to what we are talking about. I was given one study on old people (and small), you do realize different groups of people are different and you can't base what happens to one group to another group, right? Hasn't like everything else covid taught you that, younger women get clots with J&J vaccine, younger men get myocardistis with MRA vaccines, kids shouldn't get vaccines because the risk-benefit analysis is more risky on the vaccine side than getting covid, boosters only show benefit in the vulnerable. And, the last study was super fucking small.
You're just writing them off, yet again, because of individual limitations. "Too small", "Not a representative sample", etc.

Thats. Not. How. Science. Works. Your own fucking study had a greater limitation than any other-- self-selection-- but you're happy to overlook that.

A limitation does not make a study "bad". Please get that into your head. Because if a limitation is what it takes to write a study off, then every study on the planet would be written off.

What about the 26,000+ study that showed long covid was not really related to covid at all? You just ignoring that massive study?
It didn't show that, though. You've dramatically misrepresented it because that's the MO.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,461
816
118
Country
United States
I give it a 50% chance the Xi virus was made in a lab. I am just glad China is still suffering the consequences of it with the lockdowns that have cratered their economy and left millions of workers without jobs, and multiple Chinese cities without much tax revenue.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,106
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Gasp, a GOP report pushes the GOP theory without any new evidence whatsoever?

You really do just believe anything that says what you thin' it should, huh? Did you even bother to read that article?
What evidence has ever been found that actually points to the virus originating from nature and animals (I think they literally singled out every single species from the wet market a long time ago even)? Even freaking Jon Stewart had to come out and point out the obviousness of the massive coincidence and that made Colbert hilariously uncomfortable. Fauci's own people early on looked at the sequencing and said the virus didn't look natural either. What does it even matter much if it came from nature or from the lab (outside of people getting in trouble obviously)? How does the GOP own the DNC if it's proven it was a lab leak? All the funding that went to the lab was done under the Trump administration. I really don't see how one side wins and loses in this. The main point for me has nothing to do with claiming some "winner", I care that speech was suppressed and we were lied to. The lab leak theory always was valid and shouldn't have been labeled a conspiracy theory or treated like one either.

It doesn't "show" that. Quote the part that does.
People who think they had covid but weren't tested associated their various aches and pains with covid. Some were shown not to have had it, therefore it was something else. That's as far as it goes.
The findings of this cross-sectional analysis of a large, population-based French cohort suggest that persistent physical symptoms after COVID-19 infection may be associated more with the belief in having been infected with SARS-CoV-2 than with having laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection.

Long covid is not some new thing that only has to do with covid. All it is is probably the immune system continuing to be overactive after the covid infection is gone, which happens in other infections as well. That's even backed by the fact people with allergies (immune system attacking harmless things basically) have higher occurrence of long covid as well. Long covid is not some new special thing to be concerned about because it's been happening forever before covid as well. The plus side is we might actually do research and finally figure out the actual triggers and treatments because covid has shed more light on it then normal. The narrative that you should avoid infection of covid because of long covid was complete bullshit and only peddled for the agenda of keeping up covid restrictions and nothing else. Chronic fatigue syndrome is probably just long flu, long covid, long [insert viral infection]. It's not some new thing nor is there any data showing covid is causing any more of it.

You're just writing them off, yet again, because of individual limitations. "Too small", "Not a representative sample", etc.

Thats. Not. How. Science. Works. Your own fucking study had a greater limitation than any other-- self-selection-- but you're happy to overlook that.

A limitation does not make a study "bad". Please get that into your head. Because if a limitation is what it takes to write a study off, then every study on the planet would be written off.



It didn't show that, though. You've dramatically misrepresented it because that's the MO.
I'm writing them off the same way anyone should. What about the one study, which even if 100% accurate and perfect, tells us nothing with regards to this debate? It's a pointless study for what we are talking about. But I guess that's just writing it off in your world. I'm not overlooking anything, my studies are still better studies (methodology-wise) than the other ones, especially the 26,000+ person one. If I gave you a 40 person ivermectin study, would you accept it as the truth? You have to say yes to this if you want me to say yes to this 40-person study, you realize that right?

I'm not saying a study is "bad" because of a limitation. I'm saying based on what the study is; the methodology, the size, the limitations, it's doesn't lead to proving much of anything. Something like long covid is going to have a lot of confounding factors that need bigger pools of people. It's like how it's super hard to do a mask study that says much of anything. If you wanna have like "study off" with masks we'll be here till we're dead because you can find studies saying masks work and masks don't work forever. You have to come up with a certain criteria for what you deem eliminating as much confounding factors as possible, then only look at the mask studies that fit that criteria to find an actual trend. You think 40 person mask study is gonna tell you anything even if it was as perfect as you can make a mask study? Hell no because it has 40 fucking people in it. We've never figured out long covid (when covid wasn't in the name) before and you think a 40 person study is the final piece of the puzzle we needed to sort it out? Come the fuck on...

My 26,000 person study was not trying to "solve for X" and give you convenient answer, it was just a study showing that, shocker, we don't know something. That's far more believable than a 40-person study saying we solved for X and magically know everything now that we couldn't figure out for decades.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,260
5,898
118
Country
United Kingdom
I'm writing them off the same way anyone should. What about the one study, which even if 100% accurate and perfect, tells us nothing with regards to this debate? It's a pointless study for what we are talking about. But I guess that's just writing it off in your world. I'm not overlooking anything, my studies are still better studies (methodology-wise) than the other ones, especially the 26,000+ person one. If I gave you a 40 person ivermectin study, would you accept it as the truth? You have to say yes to this if you want me to say yes to this 40-person study, you realize that right?

I'm not saying a study is "bad" because of a limitation. I'm saying based on what the study is; the methodology, the size, the limitations, it's doesn't lead to proving much of anything. Something like long covid is going to have a lot of confounding factors that need bigger pools of people. It's like how it's super hard to do a mask study that says much of anything. If you wanna have like "study off" with masks we'll be here till we're dead because you can find studies saying masks work and masks don't work forever. You have to come up with a certain criteria for what you deem eliminating as much confounding factors as possible, then only look at the mask studies that fit that criteria to find an actual trend. You think 40 person mask study is gonna tell you anything even if it was as perfect as you can make a mask study? Hell no because it has 40 fucking people in it. We've never figured out long covid (when covid wasn't in the name) before and you think a 40 person study is the final piece of the puzzle we needed to sort it out? Come the fuck on...
For the hundredth time: I'm not trying to have a "study-off", and I never claimed these studies are the "final piece of the puzzle"; you're the one who started insisting that X study is better than Y study, and therefore we can disregard the findings of Y. Originally I was merely trying to get you to admit that when you said "No studies have found anything", that was bullshit. You then insisted on comparing those studies to others as grounds for disregarding them.

And yes, you're saying they're "bad" because of limitations. You've disregarded one because of size and another because of a sample that's unrepresentative of the wider population. Both of those are smaller issues than self-selection, which was the major limitation of yours. The methodology & scope of your own study are also limited, and do not reach the conclusion that you've reached, but that hasn't stopped you. Because this isn't about the quality of the study at all.

My 26,000 person study was not trying to "solve for X" and give you convenient answer, it was just a study showing that, shocker, we don't know something. That's far more believable than a 40-person study saying we solved for X and magically know everything now that we couldn't figure out for decades.
Except you've not taken that message from the 26,000-person study. Because you're not using it to emphasise unknowns and uncertainties. You're using it to assert that long covid isn't linked to covid. You're using it to make assertions the authors never did, which aren't in the scope of the study.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,370
6,886
118
Country
United States
What evidence has ever been found that actually points to the virus originating from nature and animals (I think they literally singled out every single species from the wet market a long time ago even)? Even freaking Jon Stewart had to come out and point out the obviousness of the massive coincidence and that made Colbert hilariously uncomfortable. Fauci's own people early on looked at the sequencing and said the virus didn't look natural either. What does it even matter much if it came from nature or from the lab (outside of people getting in trouble obviously)? How does the GOP own the DNC if it's proven it was a lab leak? All the funding that went to the lab was done under the Trump administration. I really don't see how one side wins and loses in this. The main point for me has nothing to do with claiming some "winner", I care that speech was suppressed and we were lied to. The lab leak theory always was valid and shouldn't have been labeled a conspiracy theory or treated like one either.
Maybe you should lead with that instead of batshit insane statements like "Funny how misinformation and conspiracy theories become the most likely scenario when you just give it time to actually work out the science..." especially when the report has zero new science and does not confirm the lab leak theory in the slightest
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,106
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
For the hundredth time: I'm not trying to have a "study-off", and I never claimed these studies are the "final piece of the puzzle"; you're the one who started insisting that X study is better than Y study, and therefore we can disregard the findings of Y. Originally I was merely trying to get you to admit that when you said "No studies have found anything", that was bullshit. You then insisted on comparing those studies to others as grounds for disregarding them.

And yes, you're saying they're "bad" because of limitations. You've disregarded one because of size and another because of a sample that's unrepresentative of the wider population. Both of those are smaller issues than self-selection, which was the major limitation of yours. The methodology & scope of your own study are also limited, and do not reach the conclusion that you've reached, but that hasn't stopped you. Because this isn't about the quality of the study at all.



Except you've not taken that message from the 26,000-person study. Because you're not using it to emphasise unknowns and uncertainties. You're using it to assert that long covid isn't linked to covid. You're using it to make assertions the authors never did, which aren't in the scope of the study.
Again, I didn't think I need to put "valid" in my statement for it to be assumed (No [valid] studies have found anything). Aren't we adults here and can have like an actual discussion? Anything covid related, you can find some study saying anything, we all know that. A 40 person study is not a legit response to asking for an actual valid study about long covid, just the same for masks or ivermectin or whatever. The point of those small studies is trying to find a possible trend that can be tested cheaply and quickly and then if it looks like it's something, it can be expanded on with a bigger study that costs more money to do. If you think these type of studies I've been given as "proof" are legit in any way in proving anything, then where's your posts from like a year ago backing ivermectin? The 26,000 study is well more than good enough to tell you long covid is not some covid specific phenomenon, we literally know that is true. And the fact that is true, what you need to show me is data that shows covid triggers long covid any more (or any worse) than any other similar endemic viral infection for a reason that I or anyone else should care about it.

This is literally my original sentence about it and how have any of you showed me anything otherwise?
Long covid seems like a bunch of bullshit, not a single study has found anything of importance with regards to long covid.
---

Maybe you should lead with that instead of batshit insane statements like "Funny how misinformation and conspiracy theories become the most likely scenario when you just give it time to actually work out the science..." especially when the report has zero new science and does not confirm the lab leak theory in the slightest
We're probably never going to be able to confirm the origin. From the actual science done (before this report was even published), the lab leak theory was the most likely scenario already. The former CDC director even said lab leak was most likely long ago. Every attempt to figure out how it originated from nature has come up with nothing but goose eggs. The point for me always was the massive information control that happened. Because for 99.99999999% of the population, it didn't matter the origin once it was out and in the wild because wherever it came from, you not going to change any policies or advice based on its origin anyway. To this very day, I still see misinformation coming from official sources like the other day I saw from an official channel on Facebook saying the new boosters are the best defense against covid when there's no data saying that and even a study saying the old boosters are better. That gets to go on Facebook just fine but talk about lab leak was censored. Do you not see how this is a massive problem?
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,461
816
118
Country
United States
For the hundredth time: I'm not trying to have a "study-off", and I never claimed these studies are the "final piece of the puzzle"; you're the one who started insisting that X study is better than Y study, and therefore we can disregard the findings of Y. Originally I was merely trying to get you to admit that when you said "No studies have found anything", that was bullshit. You then insisted on comparing those studies to others as grounds for disregarding them.

And yes, you're saying they're "bad" because of limitations. You've disregarded one because of size and another because of a sample that's unrepresentative of the wider population. Both of those are smaller issues than self-selection, which was the major limitation of yours. The methodology & scope of your own study are also limited, and do not reach the conclusion that you've reached, but that hasn't stopped you. Because this isn't about the quality of the study at all.



Except you've not taken that message from the 26,000-person study. Because you're not using it to emphasise unknowns and uncertainties. You're using it to assert that long covid isn't linked to covid. You're using it to make assertions the authors never did, which aren't in the scope of the study.
Ah yes Covid experts are true, but simple random sample anonymous polling by Gallup, Pew Research is false in Russia, Iran, and China. You only believe in experts when they fit your narrative.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,106
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male

This caused quite a stir with Conservatives.

Example

I've been really hating the excuse of "We didn’t know" because we knew a ton of this shit very early on. China did the outdoors study that showed one infection (that wasn't even confirmed) traced to outdoors before covid even got here, I think that study even showed covid doesn't spread via surfaces either (and one infection got traced to an elevator button). California had beaches closed for how long again and the media got mad at Florida for keeping beaches open, it was all very ridiculous and not based in any kind of science. We knew basic masks don't do anything from like the flu already. We knew schools were safe as Europe did the studies and they all sent kids back to school because we did fucking know. This one guy from Europe who's part of some children organization (I can find it if I have to) literally said when asked about why they aren't masking kids was that we're not idiots (because it's plainly idiotic to mask kids). Iceland did the study on temperature checking and found it did nothing yet I just went to the one hospital in our system that's in Illinois and they have returned to doing temperature checks.

Hell, there are still people quarantining their kids that get infected to this day and not hugging them and all that. You're a parent that's part of the job is getting sick from taking care of sick kids. And that teaches kids for when they grow up that you don't treat people as bags of germs to avoid and people shouldn't be separated from others because they are sick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,260
5,898
118
Country
United Kingdom
Again, I didn't think I need to put "valid" in my statement for it to be assumed (No [valid] studies have found anything). Aren't we adults here and can have like an actual discussion?
They're perfectly valid. Peer-reviewed studies showing exactly what you claimed nothing showed. You've just whined that they're invalid and pointed to limitations to claim otherwise.

Limitations that remain lesser than those in your own study: self-selecting participation.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,127
1,885
118
Country
USA
snip in hope my post doesn't error out on me!
Early on I felt a lot was wrong here. Numbering to help anyone that wants to address anything below. Not in any particular order:

1) Trump sent a hospital ship to NY to serve as extra beds and it ended up not being needed.
2) The median age of death in Italy at the time was reported to be 80. It think in the US it still is around there. In my region, median age of deaths is men, 75, women, 82. 75+82/2= 78.5. There really an existential threat to us all?
3) I read early on that it was unlikely in the extreme that this could have come from a lab. (Atlantic had an article on it). This seemed, as joked by John Stewart, as if chocolate from Hershey Penn. does not come from the factory there, but perhaps a tractor ran into a cocoa bean.
4) I am a military vet that wore chem warfare gear that included a gas mask. Thick tight rubber fit flush to my face with air going through special heavy duty filters and even this was not meant to save my life: just keep me alive long enough to help launch two sorties before croaking. The surgical masks as an anti-viral tool struck me like using chicken wire to ward of flies.
5) Faucci told us we don't need these masks, then said we did but he didn't want us knowing that initially in order to ensure medical staff had access to them. But I've seen a 2018 video of a woman reporting the results (from the CDC? I don't recall but it looked like an official review) stating an epidemiology study from Japan? (Hong Kong?) showed the masks do nothing physical. They can cause alarm in others making them think you have an issue and social distance from you. But do we know social distancing works? And will that happen if both people are wearing masks and know why each is doing so?
6) We have old footage of Faucci saying it is silly to take a vaccine if you already had the disease and now have natural immunity. Yet our governments appear to have colluded with private interests, including hospitals, to get people FIRED if they didn't take the jab, regardless of whether or not they already had the illness.
7) Official action seemed extreme and nonsensical. We were letting millions of illegals into the country unmasked and untested, un-vetted. No lock down for hobos but no reports of a particular problem for them either. Yet my buddy went to go surfing by himself and the cops threw him off the beach for violating lock down.
8) I assume people like Gavin Newsome and Nancy Pelosi know more about this then we do and they are NOT afraid, violating their own rules.
9) The jab has been put on the schedule of recommended shots for kids to attend public school yet it will have virtually no beneficial impact and could make kids sick and even die. Why is this happening?
10) Bill Maher states that if you get Covid, there is a 0.8% chance you will require hospitalization. Democrats thought the number 50%. He blames media that did their level best to scare the heck out of everyone.
11) My own experience. In my greater circle, where a number of friends and family repeatedly got jabbed, they also caught Covid. My frail 85 year old mom just passed. She was hospitalized for some time. She died of Aspiration caused by inactivity and a common cold that caused pneumonia. At one point, she had Covid but survived it. Even so, my sister insists it was Covid that killed her, despite the hospital's diagnosis. I know one person in my greater circle, which includes people of all sorts of levels of fitness, who died reportedly from Covid: a buddies 86 year old, morbidly obese mother with advanced COPD.

I know of others in this forum that lost loved ones during the pandemic. I cannot square their experience with mine and the observations I made above.

This horrible thing still resulted in winners and losers. When you follow those, a new narrative appears to be the truth.
 
Last edited:

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,370
6,886
118
Country
United States
We're probably never going to be able to confirm the origin. ... The point for me always was the massive information control that happened. Because for 99.99999999% of the population, it didn't matter the origin once it was out and in the wild because wherever it came from, you not going to change any policies or advice based on its origin anyway.
So why does it matter? Serious question: if it doesn't matter, why does it matter?
To this very day, I still see misinformation coming from official sources like the other day I saw from an official channel on Facebook saying the new boosters are the best defense against covid when there's no data saying that and even a study saying the old boosters are better. That gets to go on Facebook just fine but talk about lab leak was censored. Do you not see how this is a massive problem?
Nope. They're trying to convince people who don't have boosters to get boosters ahead of the "family holiday where everybody gets together for extended periods indoors" season. It's propaganda.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,080
1,213
118
Country
United States
What makes it propaganda as opposed to public health messaging meant to bring about a positive result for society?
One could say that those two concepts are not mutually contradictory. Propaganda doesn't have to be false (it's more effective when it isn't) or advocating for something bad to be propaganda. However, the generally understood connotations of the word do play against that technical point.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,260
5,898
118
Country
United Kingdom
4) I am a military vet that wore chem warfare gear that included a gas mask. Thick tight rubber fit flush to my face with air going through special heavy duty filters and even this was not meant to save my life: just keep me alive long enough to help launch two sorties before croaking. The surgical masks as an anti-viral tool struck me like using chicken wire to ward of flies.
The two pieces of kit-- a regular facemask and a gas mask-- are designed to perform completely different functions.

Gas envelopes objects. Meaning that a one-sided barrier is useless, because the gas will envelope it and reach the rear side. Gas masks are designed to create a tight seal to prevent ingress from any direction.

Covid-19 is not a gas. Its main vector of transmission is in minuscule liquid droplets, mostly in breath exhalation. A one-sided barrier can intercept liquid droplets because they're travelling in a single direction and can't envelop the barrier.

Of course, a fully sealed mask would be even better even for droplets, because it then blocks any possible direction. But people would be really unlikely to wear those, and the masks were never intended to be 100% proof, just to lower the chances.