If you Believe in Science and Mathermatics

[GolfingChef]

Give me an aerobiologist who does NOT say that COVID is airborne and goes right through masks....just one.

one more time, you lack the IQ to understand the point of mask. I cannot help you with that. Blame god for making you this way

 

[JasperL]

That was a good way to start the break. I'm glad I not drinking anything or there would be a mess.

They do not have such a right, which is the whole point of the discussion. It's because they are claiming protections offered to platforms that will accept anything legal. The legal figleaf is that they only censure things that are illegal or potentially dangerous. Zuckerberg used the example of terrorist plots. Even a casual glance at the facts shows this to be disingenuous and dangerously close to lying under oath.

You're wrong. You can't find me any website since Sec. 230 of the CDA was enacted more than 24 years ago that has ever been sued by a user for being 'censored.' FB and Twitter delete/ban users, videos, posts, etc. likely 1,000s of times every day and you cannot find ANY user who has sued and won a lawsuit against FB. It's because FB can do whatever the hell they want - they can ban you for having a dumb moniker - "Jay59" - and your recourse is NOTHING. This place, DP, is protected by the SAME LAW and can ban be because they don't like Willie Nelson, and I can do NOTHING. They can delete this post or any post for any reason or no reason, and the 1A and 230 provide them near blanket protection from lawsuits.

 

[devildavid]

Predictions are just that. Is there some point here? That my errant prediction means aerobiologists are wrong?

Why didn't you keep your promise? You have zero credibility.

 

[Jay59]

I still have not seen any probable cause for an investigation based on the OP statistics. I am still waiting for the explanation regarding the sample issue we are discussing. Also, again, who is the person who wrote this thing? Finding on internet "studies" with dubious claims (and they remain dubious until I hear a reasonable explanation) which are written by anonymous authors do not establish a case for any probable cause. And also, I do not think that there is a requirement to have "probable cause" for opening an investigation and doing thing like recounts.

In your opinion. Do you have anything to back your opinion up?

Have you read her affidavit? How does it compare to what she said yesterday?

I was contesting your statement that it was not under oath. You just verified that it was under oath.

There isn't any evidence sufficient for the courts. I don't have the inside scoop. Neither do you. There was no probable cause for an investigation and there was no investigation. There were only accusations, based on nothing.

Another personal opinion. Neither one of you has taken any portion of the data presented to task. the only thing we have had so far is that a samples are not random, which fails because the samples are comprehensive.

You're wrong. You can't find me any website since Sec. 230 of the CDA was enacted more than 24 years ago that has ever been sued by a user for being 'censored.' FB and Twitter delete/ban users, videos, posts, etc. likely 1,000s of times every day and you cannot find ANY user who has sued and won a lawsuit against FB. It's because FB can do whatever the hell they want - they can ban you for having a dumb moniker - "Jay59" - and your recourse is NOTHING. This place, DP, is protected by the SAME LAW and can ban be because they don't like Willie Nelson, and I can do NOTHING. They can delete this post or any post for any reason or no reason, and the 1A and 230 provide them near blanket protection from lawsuits.

This is a remarkably obtuse statement. The point of the hearings was, in part, to help determine if lawsuits would be allowed.

 

[Lursa]

How does our republic work, authoritarian?

Your definition of 'authoritarian' is anyone that proves you wrong, on any topic apparently.

Once we do it over and over and you fail to advance your theories...over and over...you claim that our proof and insistence that you are wrong...or our demands for you to actually prove your 'theories'...means we are 'authoritarians.'

If you cant handle people on a discussion forum demanding that you indicate you can comprehend and address arguments and then support with valid proof your own arguments...then you should find a nice safe place to blog your "opinions" where you wont have to confront the dissection of those opinions.

My statement that, for 8 months, you have been unable to understand (not even write it out) how flattening the curve and spreading out of hospital resources saves lives...when 5th graders do so all the time on TV news interviews...does not make me an 'authoritarian.' It makes me observant and accurate.

 

[cabse5]

Your definition of 'authoritarian' is anyone that proves you wrong, on any topic apparently.

Once we do it over and over and you fail to advance your theories...over and over...you claim that our proof and insistence that you are wrong...or our demands for you to actually prove your 'theories'...means we are 'authoritarians.'

If you cant handle people on a discussion forum demanding that you indicate you can comprehend and address arguments and then support with valid proof your own arguments...then you should find a nice safe place to blog your "opinions" where you wont have to confront the dissection of those opinions.

My statement that, for 8 months, you have been unable to understand (not even write it out) how flattening the curve and spreading out of hospital resources saves lives...when 5th graders do so all the time on TV news interviews...does not make me an 'authoritarian.' It makes me observant and accurate.

An authoritarian who doesn't agree with me will always consider me wrong and will also consider the need to squelch my 'unacceptable' speech or thought.

 

[cabse5]

one more time, you lack the IQ to understand the point of mask. I cannot help you with that. Blame god for making you this way

A mask is worn to prevent a run on hospital resources. Wearing a mask has nothing to do with saving lives from Covid exposure or preventing the spread of Covid.

The CDC/WHO has deemed that if a decision must be made between saving lives and saving hospital resources, they will save hospital resources...one of a panoply of mistakes the CDC/WHO has made to combat this pandemic, IMO.

 

[GolfingChef]

A mask is worn to prevent a run on hospital resources. Wearing a mask has nothing to do with saving lives from Covid exposure or preventing the spread of Covid.

how the **** does wearing a mask prevent a run on hospital resources? This might be the dumbest thing I have seen posted yet.

 

[cabse5]

how the **** does wearing a mask prevent a run on hospital resources? This might be the dumbest thing I have seen posted yet.

Wearing the mask lowers the odds (but doesn't eliminate the odds) of getting Covid. Wearing the mask prevents the Covid-sick from giving Covid to the non-Covid sick and that is all the wearing of the mask does.

The Covid virus, I think, lasts for 10 days if the area where the Covid virus resides isn't sanitized. That means one can get Covid from an, at most I think, 10-day-old Covid virus.
Wearing the mask doesn't protect the eyes. Wearing the mask doesn't protect the hands. Wearing the mask doesn't protect the ears. Wearing the mask doesn't protect the head. Wearing the mask doesn't force anyone to socially distance.

Sidenote: I can also prove that the CDC/WHO is more concerned with saving hospital resources than saving lives, if you're interested.
That's one reason why determining if the CDC/WHO's Covid strategy works by examining number of Covid deaths is an apples to oranges comparison since the CDC/WHO is only concerned with saving hospital resources.
That's another reason why the Covid epidemic persists and why lockdowns persist: because the CDC/WHO is more concerned with saving hospital resources than saving lives. I guess, the CDC/WHO isn't aware that governments can manufacture hospital resources out of thin air!

 

[GolfingChef]

Wearing the mask prevents the Covid-sick from giving Covid to the non-Covid sick and that is all the wearing of the mask does.

That's all?

So, what you are saying is that the mask decreases the spread of the pandemic. Which is a good thing for far more reasons than just saving resources.

Sidenote: I can also prove that the CDC/WHO is more concerned with saving hospital resources than saving lives, if you're interested.
That's one reason why determining if the CDC/WHO's Covid strategy works by examining number of Covid deaths is an apples to oranges comparison since the CDC/WHO is only concerned with saving hospital resources.

It is not about saving hospital resources, it is about there being a limited amount of hospital resources. My wife is a Critical Care Nurse that works in the COVID unit. They wear the full headgear with neck guard and a fan providing fresh air. The neck guard is in short supply and the companies making them cannot make them fast enough. When they run out then they have to do the N95 and face shield. Tryin wearing an N95 for 12 hours and see how it feels.

The other hospital resources that is in short supply are nurses and techs and the like. These people are being worked to the bone, they are worn out and burnt out and morns like you think it is about saving money. At one point my wife's hospital had more ICU nurses out with COVID than they did those that could still work.

Next time before you post such stupidity, talk to those on the front lines and see what they have to say.

 

[cabse5]

That's all?

So, what you are saying is that the mask decreases the spread of the pandemic. Which is a good thing for far more reasons than just saving resources.



It is not about saving hospital resources, it is about there being a limited amount of hospital resources. My wife is a Critical Care Nurse that works in the COVID unit. They wear the full headgear with neck guard and a fan providing fresh air. The neck guard is in short supply and the companies making them cannot make them fast enough. When they run out then they have to do the N95 and face shield. Tryin wearing an N95 for 12 hours and see how it feels.

The other hospital resources that is in short supply are nurses and techs and the like. These people are being worked to the bone, they are worn out and burnt out and morns like you think it is about saving money. At one point my wife's hospital had more ICU nurses out with COVID than they did those that could still work.

Next time before you post such stupidity, talk to those on the front lines and see what they have to say.

I added many more points to my post #434. Mebe you should peruse those changes?

 

[vegas giants]

Wearing the mask lowers the odds (but doesn't eliminate the odds) of getting Covid. Wearing the mask prevents the Covid-sick from giving Covid to the non-Covid sick and that is all the wearing of the mask does.

The Covid virus, I think, lasts for 10 days if the area where the Covid virus resides isn't sanitized. That means one can get Covid from an, at most I think, 10-day-old Covid virus.
Wearing the mask doesn't protect the eyes. Wearing the mask doesn't protect the hands. Wearing the mask doesn't protect the ears. Wearing the mask doesn't protect the head. Wearing the mask doesn't force anyone to socially distance.

Sidenote: I can also prove that the CDC/WHO is more concerned with saving hospital resources than saving lives, if you're interested.
That's one reason why determining if the CDC/WHO's Covid strategy works by examining number of Covid deaths is an apples to oranges comparison since the CDC/WHO is only concerned with saving hospital resources.
That's another reason why the Covid epidemic persists and why lockdowns persist: because the CDC/WHO is more concerned with saving hospital resources than saving lives. I guess, the CDC/WHO isn't aware that governments can manufacture hospital resources out of thin air!

Does the CDC or WHO somehow make money if the save hospital resources????

 

[cabse5]

That's all?

So, what you are saying is that the mask decreases the spread of the pandemic. Which is a good thing for far more reasons than just saving resources.



It is not about saving hospital resources, it is about there being a limited amount of hospital resources. My wife is a Critical Care Nurse that works in the COVID unit. They wear the full headgear with neck guard and a fan providing fresh air. The neck guard is in short supply and the companies making them cannot make them fast enough. When they run out then they have to do the N95 and face shield. Tryin wearing an N95 for 12 hours and see how it feels.

The other hospital resources that is in short supply are nurses and techs and the like. These people are being worked to the bone, they are worn out and burnt out and morns like you think it is about saving money. At one point my wife's hospital had more ICU nurses out with COVID than they did those that could still work.

Next time before you post such stupidity, talk to those on the front lines and see what they have to say.

The ordeals anyone on the front lines endure would be greatly eased if there were a reverse quarantine of those most at risk from Covid, for example. That means that the CDC/WHO must change its tack to protect those most susceptible to Covid instead of the arsine general quarantining of everyone to protect those most at risk from Covid. Oh, yeah, and those who aren't susceptible to Covid could live out their normal lives normally if they weren't generally quarantined.

 

[vegas giants]

The ordeals anyone on the front lines endure would be greatly eased if there were a reverse quarantine of those most at risk from Covid, for example. That means that the CDC/WHO must change its tack to protect those most susceptible to Covid instead of the arsine general quarantining of everyone to protect those most at risk from Covid. Oh, yeah, at those who aren't susceptible to Covid could could live out their normal lives normally.

No country on earth does this

 

[GolfingChef]

The ordeals anyone on the front lines endure would be greatly eased if there were a reverse quarantine of those most at risk from Covid, for example. That means that the CDC/WHO must change its tack to protect those most susceptible to Covid instead of the arsine general quarantining of everyone to protect those most at risk from Covid. Oh, yeah, and those who aren't susceptible to Covid could live out their normal lives normally if they weren't generally quarantined.

you really should not post about things you are totally clueless about.

 

[cabse5]

No country on earth does this

Sweden used herd immunity.

I know big mistakes were made by the CDC/WHO from the beginning. The epidemiologists at the CDC/WHO weren't proficient when it came to using statistics to determine the best course to take. Epidemiologists weren't real good at gathering representative data of early world Covid cases. Epidemiologists decided that hospital resources were the most important resource to protect from their incorrect usage of data and incorrect statistical methods...the CDC/WHO made deficient findings and based the entirely of their actions to fight Covid from those deficient findings.

It's apparent epidemiologists didn't demand other scientists from other scientific disciplines participate to determine which course of action to take to fight this pandemic. It seems, they didn't consult statisticians. It seems, they didn't consult psychologists. It seems they didn't consult sociologists.

The CDC/WHO doesn't protect those most at risk from Covid and intends to lockdown everyone to protect those most at risk to Covid 'cause that's the only way they can preserve hospital resources.

 

[cabse5]

you really should not post about things you are totally clueless about.

I don't doubt there are ordeals on the front line to fight Covid. I'm saying those ordeals are unnecessary, and, frankly, those CDC/WHO guidelines are/were harmful to the general population at large.

 

[vegas giants]

Sweden used herd immunity.

I know big mistakes were made by the CDC/WHO from the beginning. The epidemiologists at the CDC/WHO weren't proficient when it came to using statistics to determine the best course to take. Epidemiologists weren't real good at gathering representative data of early world Covid cases. Epidemiologists decided that hospital resources were the most important resource to protect from their incorrect usage of data and incorrect statistical methods...the CDC/WHO made a deficient finding because of further inadequacies of the CDC/WHO.

It's apparent epidemiologists didn't demand other scientists from other scientific disciplines participate to determine which course of action to take to fight this pandemic. It seems, they didn't consult statisticians. It seems, they didn't consult psychologists. It seems they didn't consult sociologists.

The CDC/WHO doens't protect those most at risk from Covid and intends to lockdown everyone to protect those most at risk to Covid 'cause that's the only way they can preserve hospital resources.

Sweden admits the made a huge mistake and killed too.many people. They screwed up according to them and they moved to a lockdown

Face it....no.one believes you

 

[vegas giants]

I don't doubt there are ordeals on the front line to fight Covid. I'm saying those ordeals are unnecessary, and, frankly, those CDC/WHO guidelines are/were harmful to the general population at large.

In your opinion. The medical community disagrees

 

[cabse5]

Sweden admits the made a huge mistake and killed too.many people. They screwed up according to them and they moved to a lockdown

Face it....no.one believes you

There you go projecting again. What you should honestly post is you don't believe me.

 

[vegas giants]

There you go projecting again. What you should honestly post is you don't believe me.

Deny that sweden admitted they made a huge mistake.


Deny it

 

[cabse5]

In your opinion. The medical community disagrees

The epidemiological community disagrees.

The statistical community has many problems with the approach of the CDC/WHO. The psychological community has many problems with the approach of the CDC/WHO. The sociological community has many problems with the approach of the CDC/WHO. I have many problems with the approach of the CDC/WHO because, quite frankly, they don't make any sense.

 

[cabse5]

Deny that sweden admitted they made a huge mistake.


Deny it

Deny that Fauci, for example, admitted he made a big mistake...numerous times.

 

[vegas giants]

The epidemiological community disagrees.

The statistical community has many problems with the approach of the CDC/WHO. The psychological community has many problems with the approach of the CDC/WHO. The sociological community has many problems with the approach of the CDC/WHO. I have many problems with the approach of the CDC/WHO because, quite frankly, they don't make any sense.

Yes the medical experts disagree with you. Even those well versed in statistical science.

No one cares what makes sense to you personally

 

[GolfingChef]

The epidemiological community disagrees.

No they do not. Where they hell do you get this shit from? Let me guess, you are a flat earther also...right?

The statistical community has many problems with the approach of the CDC/WHO.

We do? Damn, that is the first I have heard of it.