Sandbox (4)

Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.

I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.

5,868 thoughts on “Sandbox (4)

  1. J-Mac: I personally feel that the majority of active readers and contributors here are quiet

    I suspect most are quiet because there is no point in chatting with someone who denies that viruses cause disease.

  2. petrushka: I suspect most are quiet because there is no point in chatting with someone who denies that viruses cause disease.

    The chasm between believing something must be false, and understanding why it’s true, can’t be bridged. When false, knowledge can be corrected but faith cannot. For people like J-Mac, Richard Dawkins had it nailed:

    there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence…no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.”

  3. J-Mac: I’m really glad because there have been spikes of cancer reported all over the world since 2021 which are clearly not related to Pfizer vaccines.

    Yes! There have been spikes. Time to demonstrate your understanding of medical stats: what is the mind-bogglingly obvious explanation for those post-2020 spikes in incidence?
    [Hint: check out the latest SEER release…]

    petrushka: I suspect most are quiet because there is no point in chatting with someone who denies that viruses cause disease.

    You are right that there’s no point, but it can be hilarious.

  4. DNA_Jock: Yes! There have been spikes. Time to demonstrate your understanding of medical stats: what is the mind-bogglingly obvious explanation for those post-2020 spikes in incidence?
    [Hint: check out the latest SEER release…]

    You are right thatthere’s no point, but it can be hilarious.

    Are you willing to take the responsibility for the spikes????

  5. DNA_Jock: Yes! There have been spikes. Time to demonstrate your understanding of medical stats: what is the mind-bogglingly obvious explanation for those post-2020 spikes in incidence?
    [Hint: check out the latest SEER release…]

    You are right thatthere’s no point, but it can be hilarious.

    You took the shots, right?

  6. Flint: The chasm between believing something must be false, and understanding why it’s true, can’t be bridged. When false, knowledge can be corrected but faith cannot. For people like J-Mac, Richard Dawkins had it nailed:

    I don’t like to be placed in the same line with liars capable or verifying their lies.

  7. DNA_Jock: Yes! There have been spikes. Time to demonstrate your understanding of medical stats: what is the mind-bogglingly obvious explanation for those post-2020 spikes in incidence?
    [Hint: check out the latest SEER release…]

    You are right thatthere’s no point, but it can be hilarious.

    Just before anyone reads the medical literature stats, as DNA_joke recommends, let’s look at the facts, shall we?
    When a vaccinated patient is admitted to ER, who can’t speak or remember their vaccination status, how are they classified as? Can DNA_Joke answer this? No, because he has never been to ER as a frontline worker.
    Yes, if the vaccinated patients, or their families. who can’t provide the vaccination status, the patients are entered into the system as unvaccinated. There is no other option.
    This is just the tip the iceberg of this scam…

  8. Simple sanity test: look at deaths from all causes in a country that was 95 percent vaccinated.

  9. petrushka:
    Simple sanity test: look at deaths from all causes in a country that was 95 percent vaccinated.

    What is the difference between the date you got the jab and the status of you officially becoming vaccinated? Do you know what I mean?

  10. petrushka:
    Simple sanity test: look at deaths from all causes in a country that was 95 percent vaccinated.

    “But immunity to the coronavirus doesn’t just magically manifest the day someone gets a shot. The CDC does not grant membership to the “fully vaccinated” club until at least two weeks after the final dose in a vaccine regimen—a time that roughly corresponds to when most people are thought to acquire enough immunity to defend against a symptomatic case of COVID-19. Only then, the agency announced last week, can vaccinees start to carefully change their behavior, mingling maskless in small groups indoors, visiting the unvaccinated on a limited basis, and skipping postexposure quarantines.”

    When do you think most of the deaths happen after the fake vaccine against the already dead viruses?

  11. J-Mac: I don’t like to be placed in the same line with liars capable or verifying their lies.

    This raises the old question of whether someone is lying if they make a claim, however idiotically false, that they sincerely believe to be true. Does “evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, make any difference”? I wouldn’t classify someone as a liar even with that weight of evidence against him. A fool, of course, but not a liar.

  12. Flint: This raises the old question of whether someone is lying if they make a claim, however idiotically false, that they sincerely believe to be true. Does “evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, make any difference”? I wouldn’t classify someone as a liar even with that weight of evidence against him. A fool, of course, but not a liar.

    You are clearly confused. If I were you, and If you are willing to face the truth, I’d find out how stats can be manipulated to make them look “good” or “bad”.

  13. J-Mac: What is the difference between the date you got the jab and the status of you officially becoming vaccinated? Do you know what I mean?

    This is in no way responsive to my post. It’s not even in the same universe.

  14. J-Mac: “But immunity to the coronavirus doesn’t just magically manifest the day someone gets a shot. The CDC does not grant membership to the “fully vaccinated” club until at least two weeks after the final dose in a vaccine regimen—a time that roughly corresponds to when most people are thought to acquire enough immunity to defend against a symptomatic case of COVID-19. Only then, the agency announced last week, can vaccinees start to carefully change their behavior, mingling maskless in small groups indoors, visiting the unvaccinated on a limited basis, and skipping postexposure quarantines.”

    When do you think most of the deaths happen after the fake vaccine against the already dead viruses?

    It’s been two years, and New Zealand has no excess deaths from all causes.

  15. J-Mac: You are clearly confused. If I were you, and If you are willing to face the truth, I’d find out how stats can be manipulated to make them look “good” or “bad”.

    In fact, this can be done in two ways: by spinning data already collected (for example, by cherry picking or framing), and by constructing the means by which misleading data are collected in the first place. But if I were you (and since I have already not only studied statistics, but actually done polling and data collection), I would attempt to learn how to UNspin stats, in order to extract what they actually say rather what you (or whoever fed them to you) wanted them to say. You give every indication of running an agenda so strong that you have no use for stats anyway – they either ratify your needs or they are manipulated against you. So why bother with them at all?

  16. J-Mac: “But immunity to the coronavirus doesn’t just magically manifest the day someone gets a shot. The CDC does not grant membership to the “fully vaccinated” club until at least two weeks after the final dose in a vaccine regimen—a time that roughly corresponds to when most people are thought to acquire enough immunity to defend against a symptomatic case of COVID-19.

    Yes, vaccines do not produce instant antibodies. The immune system produces them after exposure to the vaccine. which takes a couple of weeks to be fully prepared.

    Only then, the agency announced last week, can vaccinees start to carefully change their behavior, mingling maskless in small groups indoors, visiting the unvaccinated on a limited basis, and skipping postexposure quarantines.”

    Uh, no, the vaccines don’t change their behavior, the immune system does that. The vaccines “train” the immune system’s response. But primarily to the strain the vaccine was developed to fight. New variants call for new vaccines.

    When do you think most of the deaths happen after the fake vaccine against the already dead viruses?

    The large majority of those hospitalized for the virus were not vaccinated. This continues to be the case.
    (And note that measles outbreaks are becoming more frequent in anti-vax communities. Before the polio vaccine, about 40,000 people a year in the US died of polio. When the vaccine became widely used, that number was reduced to TEN! But I note with interest that of those ten, six were vaccinated, leading the anti-vax nitwits to claim that “most of the polio victims were vaccinated, PROOF that the vaccine causes polio!” Yep, statistical proof, still cited (without providing the actual counts) by the anti-vax nutballs. Who art curiously silent when confronted with the fact that smallpox vaccine eliminated the disease entirely.)

  17. Flint,

    Well, lovers of aluminium-based headwear like to find a factoid that they can glom onto and misunderstand. Hence the same weird rubbish appearing again and again – remember the “CoVid deaths had, on average three co-morbidities” hilarity, or the strange distribution of SAEs in the VAERS database.
    This one is (I suspect) heading for the interesting factoid that (during early vaccine roll-out) the mortality rate amongst recently vaccinated 20 – 40 year-olds was significantly higher than the mortality rate amongst unvaccinated 20 – 40 year olds.
    But please, don’t inquire as to what they were dying of…
    Or [big hint] why they got vaccinated…
    It’s epic.

  18. Flint,

    This stats professor lost his job because of what he is taking about.
    I don’t care what you choose to believe…

    Peace and love

  19. This stats professor lost his job because of what he is taking about.
    I don’t care what you choose to believe…

    Peace and love

    Without listening to the video, I’m guessing that you searched around until you found someone opining WAY outside his field, while totally ignoring those who have spent their lives dealing with viruses directly.

    I think it’s kind of interesting that it seems possible to find an engineer willing to claim almost anything he knows nothing about. I’m not surprised that such people find a willing audience.

  20. Debates over covid vaccine efficiency are completely pointless. Efficiency of covid vaccines is about the same as flu vaccines in general. There have been very flawed flu vaccines, notably GSK’s Pandemrix widely caused narcolepsy in 2009, but there have also been better vaccines with less side effects.

    Under-vaccination is okay if you have good immunity. Over-vaccination is bad. If you don’t have good immunity, vaccination is necessary. Nothing to debate about.

  21. Erik:
    Debates over covid vaccine efficiency are completely pointless.

    Yet, as you point out, some vaccines work better than others. Improvements are possible in many ways, and that’s worth paying attention to. In general, the debate hasn’t been over how well the vaccines work, but about how well the public uptake has been working. The medical aspect has been pretty well nailed down. The public policy aspect, not so much.

  22. Flint: Yet, as you point out, some vaccines work better than others. Improvements are possible in many ways, and that’s worth paying attention to. In general, the debate hasn’t been over how well the vaccines work, but about how well the public uptake has been working. The medical aspect has been pretty well nailed down. The public policy aspect, not so much.

    Wastewater monitoring suggests something like 97 percent of all people have has the virus or have been vaccinated. Or both.

    I would conclude that vaccine uptake is more a matter of history than of current concern. If some future virus presents a similar need and opportunity to vaccinate, I suspect it will fail, because authorities are impervious to learning about persuasion.

  23. Flint: Without listening to the video, I’m guessing that you searched around until you found someone opining WAY outside his field, while totally ignoring those who have spent their lives dealing with viruses directly.

    I think it’s kind of interesting that it seems possible to find an engineer willing to claim almost anything he knows nothing about. I’m not surprised that such people find a willing audience.

    Are you searching for truth? Or, are you driven by confirmation bias?
    I don’t care either way.

  24. Flint: Yet, as you point out, some vaccines work better than others.

    Yes. You want to debate that?

    I was pointing out very plain facts. None of them are debatable.

  25. Erik:

    I was pointing out very plain facts. None of them are debatable.

    Are current vaccines good enough or should more money be put into improvements? Or should the money be spent developing other vaccines? How often should boosters be administered? Can vaccines be developed that do not require boosters? Should insurance companies cover the cost of vaccines? Boosters? For a given vaccine, what percentage of people should get it for herd immunity? Is herd immunity even possible? Are there alternatives to vaccines that work as well, or that are healthier? What is the optimum trade-off between effectiveness and side effects? Can an oral (rather than injection) vaccine be developed? At what cost? Would more people take it orally?

    Nothing to debate here, no siree. Just plain facts is all we need, right?

  26. I’m not interested in a debate, but I would like to have a civil chat about how public health education was carried out.

  27. petrushka:
    I’m not interested in a debate, but I would like to have a civil chat about how public health education was carried out.

    Here’s a comment about that:

  28. Flint,

    That’s the usual level of debate. Dehumanize anyone who has an alternate point Ipoh view. I thought this site was created to avoid that.

  29. “It’s a dangerous world out there!
    It appears that almost everything and anything can kill you these days BUT the mRNA vaccines…”. What a relief!!!
    The omega oils have been in the news lately… People who take omega oils may get toxic and even die if they take tooooo much of this stuff…

    I’ve been in this biz for a while but I have never heard of another health product with anything but ONLY the positive results. I had lived under the communist regime for a long time but I don’t think they would have ever come up with an idea that is reflected in the slogan above.
    I have mercy for 99.9% of people who fell for this mRNA stuff. I do not and will not forgive those who should have known better…

  30. petrushka:
    Flint,

    That’s the usual level of debate. Dehumanize anyone who has an alternate point Ipoh view. I thought this site was created to avoid that.

    Pretty clearly that was aspirational, but certainly not expected.

  31. Flint,

    I find it ironic that we can have polite discussions of theology, but mathematics and medicine incite rage.

    Just an observation.

  32. petrushka:
    Flint,

    I find it ironic that we can have polite discussions of theology, but mathematics and medicine incite rage.

    Just an observation.

    I think it’s partly a matter of evidence and partly a matter of individual idiosyncrasies. Religious faith and doctrine are supported by no evidence, so I think everyone realizes they cannot be altered with evidence. You can believe or not. Math is sometimes based on somewhat arbitrary definitions, so there’s sometimes a debate over whether the definitions are there because they are Absolute Truth or because they are useful.

    I would put disputes about medicine (as I think you intended it) into the category of wackaloon conspiracy theory. The disputes are only superficially about evidence, and more about the need to believe nonsense they sometimes invoke. I think if we had some hard-core MAGA Trumpies here, we’d get more energetic debates.

  33. “GB News presenter Neil Oliver cleared by Ofcom over ‘turbo cancer’ conspiracy claims
    GB News presenter Neil Oliver suggested coronavirus vaccinations were causing tens of thousands of excess deaths…

    The broadcasting watchdog received 70 complaints after anti-vaxxer Oliver, in an episode aired on GB News on 13 January, implied a link between pharmaceutical company Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccinations and an excess 100,000 deaths in the UK since January 2022.”

    This claim can’t be true because of my previous post that appeared to suggest the the so-called covid-19 vaccines against the novel dead virus actually extended life expectancy of those jabbed… I mean, if anything and everything can kill you these days but the covid19 vaccines, there is no reason to be worried, right joke_DNA?

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gb-news-coronavirus-conspiracy-b2492164.html

  34. Flint: Religious faith and doctrine are supported by no evidence, so I think everyone realizes they cannot be altered with evidence.

    What’s another kind of faith other than religious?

  35. J-Mac,

    Extremely high vaccination rate here, by the way, virtually no adverse affects at all. The virus then spread throughout the whole country in practially one month, everyone got, all billion plus people and was over with in two months.

    Sorry to report.

  36. phoodoo:
    J-Mac,

    Extremely high vaccination rate here, by the way, virtually no adverse affects at all. The virus then spread throughout the whole country in practially one month, everyone got, all billion plus people and was over with in two months.

    Sorry to report.

    What are you sorry about?

    That nearly all Chinese were vaccinated? That the country was locked down until everyone was vaccinated? That vaccinated people are less likely to die?

    Or, that we have no actual statistics from your country?

  37. petrushka,

    Sorry that J-Mac can’t use the data to promote his anti-vax rhetoric.

    And the funny thing is, before Covid, I probably would have had sympathy with the anti-vax naturalists. But the bottom line is there was a disease that was spreading fast and we couldn’t possibly know how bad it might get, so it made plenty of sense to be as cautious as possible. Anyone who looks back in hindsight and complains about lockdowns and vaccines is really forgetting what we were in the middle of.

  38. J-Mac: This claim can’t be true because of my previous post that appeared to suggest the the so-called covid-19 vaccines against the novel dead virus actually extended life expectancy of those jabbed…

    There is no way of parsing this sentence that is not hilarious. I’m going with the “awesome power of J-Mac posts” interpretation, wherein the Master’s keystrokes can alter reality, even when they are merely “appearing to suggest” stuff, as they so often do [ellipsis].

    I mean, if anything and everything can kill you these days but the covid19 vaccines, there is no reason to be worried, right joke_DNA?

    Naah, anything and everything can still kill you these days; it’s just that the rates differ. From J-Mac’s source:

    ONS data also shows all-cause deaths in England and Wales were higher among the unvaccinated than those who had received at least one dose, for every month in its April 2021 to May 2023 dataset.

    which is really, really weird if the vaccines are as dangerous as J-Mac thinks they are [ellipsis]

  39. phoodoo:
    J-Mac,

    Extremely high vaccination rate here, by the way, virtually no adverse affects at all. The virus then spread throughout the whole country in practially one month, everyone got, all billion plus people and was over with in two months.

    Sorry to report.

    Great news! Do you know how it was determined that everyone got the “shot” and within one month?
    I know that China is extremely advanced in technology but don’t forget I had spent almost 20 years living and breathing the communist propaganda.
    I don’t think you know what it means to have the army search you at the CITY borders? Do you know what it means that if you carry food supplies not rationed by the government, you may face jail-time?
    Have you ever pondered about the West vs the Communist propaganda? The communist are alway better than the West even if it is a lie…
    Would you like to see proof from the history?

  40. phoodoo,

    petrushka: What are you sorry about?

    That nearly all Chinese were vaccinated? That the country was locked down until everyone was vaccinated? That vaccinated people are less likely to die?

    Or, that we have no actual statistics from your country?

    This is a reality-check for phoodoo. He probably used to believe the government in his own country. Naturally, he believes the bs his new county tells him. I have lived the communist propaganda for 20 years.
    phoodoo is naive. If he doesn’t wake up, why would we care?
    BTW: I ordered Chinese food today. What is coincidence! lol

  41. phoodoo:
    petrushka,

    Sorry that J-Mac can’t use the data to promote his anti-vax rhetoric.

    And the funny thing is, before Covid, I probably would have had sympathy with the anti-vax naturalists.But the bottom line is there was a disease that was spreading fast and we couldn’t possibly know how bad it might get, so it made plenty of sense to be as cautious as possible.Anyone who looks back in hindsight and complains about lockdowns and vaccines is really forgetting what we were in the middle of.

    Don’t forget phoodoo!
    You believe you are being attacked and killed by the the dead organisms you must have evolved from.
    A story like that has gotta be true… 😉

  42. DNA_Jock: There is no way of parsing this sentence that is not hilarious. I’m going with the “awesome power of J-Mac posts” interpretation, wherein the Master’s keystrokes can alter reality, even when they are merely “appearing to suggest” stuff, as they so often do [ellipsis].

    Naah, anything and everything can still kill you these days; it’s just that the rates differ. From J-Mac’s source:

    which is really, really weird if the vaccines are as dangerous as J-Mac thinks they are [ellipsis]

    You claimed here have been vaxxed, right?
    I’m glad you think it is hilarious that Pfizer hid the fact their vaccines contain components that could be concerning to some people who have the experimental experience and knowledge you once claim to have…
    Are you aware of this? Or, do you need the details?

  43. Wow, “components that could be concerning”. Yes, I would like the details, especially presented in context.

  44. Flint:
    Wow, “components that could be concerning”. Yes, I would like the details, especially presented in context.

    I’m going to go easy on you because I realize you are not really comprehending what this issue is about. Simply put Pfizer, the maker of the so-called mRNA vaccine didn’t disclose the full contents of their vaccine. Some experts feel they deliberately hid some components that could be concerning; meaning that they could be harmful.
    There are different opinions as to the legality and the risks. DNA-Jock seems to think the issue is overblown or misinterpreted. I actually agree but probably for different reasons.

  45. I’m really not part of this, but I don’t understand, J-Mac, why you can’t/won’t be specific, and offer some sources for your information. What are some of the contents that Pfizer didn’t reveal? What experts feel they deliberatively hid some components that might be concerning?

    This is a serious question: why won’y you offer more details?

  46. aleta: This is a serious question: why won’y you offer more details?

    The source is obviously Q. So, seriously, do you want to know more details about it?

    As the proponents of Q imagine themselves fighting against the big pharma, government and mainstream media propaganda, this is not about evidentiary details, but about world view. This is not an empirical issue, but a socio-political or philosophical issue. How is this unclear to pretty much all the people here?

    Since the Q world view is not about evidence, debunking Q is also not achieved by better evidence or such, but by examining the premises. For example, proponents of Q think that the government is hiding the evidence about the outbreak of covid, about vaccines etc. At the same time they (most of them) have no issue at all with any of the pre-covid vaccines, even though covid vaccines are just a slight modification of those.

    Another example, they do not see how the pandemic policies in USA were far more liberal than in e.g. Japan, Singapore and South Korea (who all have a more solid prior history of handling such pandemics, by the way). Yet nobody suggests that Japan, Singapore, and South Korea are some Commie authoritarian Nazi dictatorships. At the same time, they say USA’s pandemic policies are similar to or worse than China, and therefore “the government” is the problem, hiding information, brainwashing and whatever.

    My point is, find the discrepancies in their premises and attack those, if you want to debate. The problem is not in too few evidentiary details that they provide, but in their broad premises, which are full of false assumptions, projection and screaming hypocrisy. It’s like f’n Trump supporters calling Biden the dictator when their own idol instigated an insurrection, attempted a coup and straightforwardly declares his own dictatorial ambitions. And the pandemic policies, including Fauci, started under Trump, so whatever issue they have with “the government” they should actually direct at Trump. Trump was the government when the pandemic started, and Fauci served under Trump first!

    You don’t need more details about this. You need to look at the wide gaping holes in the premises, holes so big that it is an intellectual sin on your part to not notice them.

  47. Good response, Erik. You write, “This is not about evidentiary details, but about world view. This is not an empirical issue, but a socio-political or philosophical issue.”

    I understand that. J-Mac’s answer to my question of “why won’y you offer more details?” is because his beliefs aren’t really backed by evidence he can point to but rather by a general distrust of what evidence is actually out there.

    But he must have some details he thinks are true, and I’d be interested in knowing what they are. So I’m asking him to share his view, and the specifics of his beliefs.

  48. aleta:
    But he must have some details he thinks are true, and I’d be interested in knowing what they are. So I’m asking him to share his view, and the specifics of his beliefs.

    I think I’m with Erik on this one. If hypothetically J-Mac suspects something which happens not to be the case, correcting this suspicion entails proving a negative. In principle, nobody can ever know what Pfizer is hiding IF in fact they aren’t hiding anything but we are convinced they must be (as required by our worldview). The general principle holds that convictions not based on evidence cannot be altered by evidence.

  49. Good point. I assumed he would offer specific items, but if the general idea is that they must be hiding something but he doesn’t know what it is because it’s hidden, then expecting any detail is fruitless.

Leave a Reply