|
Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Beauty |
|
2 | 1.06% |
| A Talking Pony!?! |
|
4 | 2.13% |
| Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor |
|
117 | 62.23% |
| War Horse |
|
11 | 5.85% |
| Mr. Hands |
|
54 | 28.72% |
| Total: | 188 votes | ||
|
nexous posted:Getting the vaccines on a personal level isn’t the heroic part. Getting everyone to that level is the heroic feat. Shouting “Get vaccinated” in tweets isn’t working workshopping 'Get Vaccinated and Vote!' as the new dem 2022 slogan
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
I personally don’t murder anyone, so I’m not sure why it’s so hard to eliminate murder, says the liberal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 05:07
|
|
|
yo where's that button goon, can we get some 'Vaccinated and Voting!' buttons?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 05:13
|
|
|
Wang Commander posted:An every two months booster of a barely-working vaccine for everyone in the world seems pretty out there as a sole plan for dealing with the virus. No leftists are antivaxx
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 05:17
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Does anyone have a good link or source to combat an idiot family member who thinks we don't know about the long term mortality rate of vaccines There is no long-term mortality rate of vaccines. It's not a thing in the first place. It's not like vaccines are causing cancer a decade down the line or something. The vast majority of scientific literature has found no statistically significant long-term impact of vaccines... ... ...but if a conspiracy theorist is determined enough, they can certainly ignore that huge majority and cherrypick a few papers over the decades that suggest that maybe there's an effect after all (only to be debunked by rebuttals in the following years). And if someone's convinced themselves that governments are intentionally poisoning the world's entire population for REASONS, then they've already come up with excuses to ignore any paper that doesn't fit with that conclusion. So dueling them with facts and logic is largely pointless. Owlofcreamcheese posted:No leftists are antivaxx can our Christmas present this year be an end to stupid petty sniping like this if this thread is getting under your skin this much, just fuckin log off for a while if you're listening, Santa, i would also accept an end to the pandemic
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 05:44
|
|
|
The vaccines are great but we need nasal vaccines, multi-spike vaccines, NPIs to slow covid down enough that we can target boosters, etc. Throwing the wild type vaccine at it over and over during rapid uncontrolled spread and mutation won't work forever and really it's a stretch to say it "works" now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 05:46
|
|
|
Wang Commander posted:really it's a stretch to say it "works" now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 05:58
|
|
|
As an xmas present to the thread I'll be writing up and summarizing two books from the antivaxx bookshelf mentioned in the first post: Stuck: How Vaccine Rumors Start -- and Why They Don't Go Away by Heidi J. Larson Anti-vaxxers: How to challenge a Misinformed Movement by Jonathan M. Berman The immediate takeaway is to avoid the Larson book and immediately go get the Berman book, which is the single best coverage of the subject I've read from anyone (and I'm a bit of a connoisseur).
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 05:59
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Give me a loving break man So you think the US policy of "optional first-generation vaccines" is a viable standalone method for ending the pandemic and reducing cases to something like measles numbers? I'm not even sure how my position is remotely controversial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 06:02
|
|
|
Wang Commander posted:Throwing the wild type vaccine at it over and over during rapid uncontrolled spread and mutation won't work forever and really it's a stretch to say it "works" now. By what metric?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 06:02
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:By what metric? Deaths  We were able to keep deaths in the first wave through NPIs alone to roughly the same levels we hit only this past September. The vaccines work at an individual level (as Wang Commander continues to say) But as the sole slice of swiss cheese in the face of Delta and now Omicron and whatever comes next? We clearly could have saved many, many lives if we pushed for more than the individual choice to get a vaccine at the federal level. And looking forward, 500 million N95s would go much further in reducing collective suffering and loss of life than 500 million rapid antigen tests. This is not about the efficacy of vaccines, again, but the efficacy of past and current federal policy that pushes above all else for people to get vaccinated, to the extent of eroding sensible NPIs for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 06:23
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:If you actually read the posts in context starting from Judakel's post about excess death, you can clearly see he's not doing that and rather responding to Judakel's alarmist take on a trend that was immediately called out as being on par with comparable excess death statistics. Perhaps you should try reading the loving thread instead of every third word or whatever is causing this disconnect. That was not an alarmist take. What I presented isn't comparable to anything except the US's own excess deaths statistics back when we did not have much testing capacity - not in number but in the form of argument. You weren't paying attention to what OOCC did present: a conspiracy theory that China was hiding deaths based on the amount of urns being driven out of a crematorium in Wuhan, China and how many phone farms went silent when everything shut down. What I linked to was analysis of recorded excess deaths. Not only is that not against the rules, but you weren't paying attention to the exchange that took place here and why I was dismissive of his nonsense. OOCC takes issue with the fact that his insistence on the mildness of covid is being challenged with data on excess deaths. That poster lays out how the timing of the excess deaths makes it almost certain that these are covid related deaths that couldn't be picked up through tests. Most likely due to capacity limits, in my opinion. Owlofcreamcheese posted:The statistics are fine. You're posting in bad faith and lying about what is being presented to you. The post I quoted did not say that it was a cover-up, but merely that it went unreported as covid deaths as they were not tested - they were thus grouped into excess deaths. It doesn't 'read like' it is saying anything conspiratorial, you're just upset because it mocked your stance that omicron is simply mild. It is time everyone understood that the narrative of a mild omicron is wrong. And you also need to get over the fact I linked to a CSPAM thread. If they have good analysis or point out something interesting, I am going to do it. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like that twitter post about "child found with spongiform brain after covid infection" is just the equal and opposite version of " Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System reports 10,483 have died after getting a vaccine. " and would trick the same person, depending on which flavor of doom scrolling they do. Or, for example, still believing that omicron is mild when there a pretty big asterisk after that claim, as explained here: https://twitter.com/yaneerbaryam/status/1474091037861761026 Read that entire thread any time you think of using mild in the context of omicron.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 07:19
|
|
|
Judakel posted:That was not an alarmist take. What I presented isn't comparable to anything except the US's own excess deaths statistics back when we did not have much testing capacity - not in number but in the form of argument. You weren't paying attention to what OOCC did present: a conspiracy theory that China was hiding deaths based on the amount of urns being driven out of a crematorium in Wuhan, China and how many phone farms went silent when everything shut down. What I linked to was analysis of recorded excess deaths. Not only is that not against the rules, but you weren't paying attention to the exchange that took place here and why I was dismissive of his nonsense. OOCC takes issue with the fact that his insistence on the mildness of covid is being challenged with data on excess deaths. That poster lays out how the timing of the excess deaths makes it almost certain that these are covid related deaths that couldn't be picked up through tests. Most likely due to capacity limits, in my opinion. Considering how much more virulent Omicron is, even 50% severity is going to gently caress everyone. https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1473762997273337866?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 09:13
|
|
|
Stop posting Feigl-Ding
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 09:29
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Stop posting Feigl-Ding Like really for the love of god, we're so long into this how have some of you still not caught on to the fact that the guy is a grifter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 09:36
|
|
|
freebooter posted:Stop posting
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 09:36
|
|
|
It would be great if you did, yes. Unless you have any more timely insights to share about how Western Australia's COVID-zero status can be maintained forever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 09:47
|
|
|
lol sorry mr mask mandates dont work
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 09:49
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Or, for example, still believing that omicron is mild when there a pretty big asterisk after that claim, as explained here: Complex Systems Physicist ?? edit: whoops I'm sorry, they put this in their Twitter profile: quote:Studying pandemics since 2005 this isn't even hard, here's since 2020: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2020&q=%22bar-yam%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,44 pay close attention to how many publications are by the New England Complex Sciences Institute (a group Bar-Yam is President of) and pre-prints their COVID articles are mostly self-published, which does not lend well to their credibility Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Dec 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 10:23
|
|
|
Judakel posted:That was not an alarmist take. What I presented isn't comparable to anything except the US's own excess deaths statistics back when we did not have much testing capacity - not in number but in the form of argument. You weren't paying attention to what OOCC did present: a conspiracy theory that China was hiding deaths based on the amount of urns being driven out of a crematorium in Wuhan, China and how many phone farms went silent when everything shut down. What I linked to was analysis of recorded excess deaths. Not only is that not against the rules, but you weren't paying attention to the exchange that took place here and why I was dismissive of his nonsense. OOCC takes issue with the fact that his insistence on the mildness of covid is being challenged with data on excess deaths. That poster lays out how the timing of the excess deaths makes it almost certain that these are covid related deaths that couldn't be picked up through tests. Most likely due to capacity limits, in my opinion. I absolutly dont want to defend OOOC but c'mon, OOOC was literally mocking that conspiracy and was not supporting it. quote:Or, for example, still believing that omicron is mild when there a pretty big asterisk after that claim, as explained here: Or ignore the twitter hot take and just read the stats from the UK for actual evidence.  Both South Africa and the UK are pointing to for some reason a decoupling of severe outcomes with infections. CAT INTERCEPTOR fucked around with this message at 10:27 on Dec 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 10:24
|
|
|
There is a truly massive wave of unqualified academics looking to cash in as COVID experts, either for government funding and/or for social media clout. Feigl-Ding is a great example of the latter. It is to everyone's advantage to have a look at the qualifications of people you're retweeting or sourcing. There is a lot of money to be made right now talking about COVID stuff, and a lot of social media engagement to generate. That doesn't mean whatever source is wrong! Just that you should be cautious about taking tweets from someone who isn't a virologist/epidemiologist/immunologist/public health expert etc at face value (you should also of course consider any biases of experts). Case in point: I have degrees in the biological sciences but that does not remotely qualify me as an expert on any of this poo poo. Don't take medical or scientific advice from an internet forum or much worse, Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 11:00
|
|
|
Most people ITT are screaming at each other about stuff you at best half-understand. It is quite funny but you must be exhausted. Anyway Derek Lowe did make a thread on Paxlovid CMC (or rather scaling manufacture in general) https://twitter.com/Dereklowe/status/1474052991791636492?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 12:02
|
|
|
This is a really good long-read on pandemics, guns, and Freud: https://late-light.com/issues/issue-1/death-drive-nation
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 12:44
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:Both South Africa and the UK are pointing to for some reason a decoupling of severe outcomes with infections. Decoupling gives a misleading impression here. They’re still related, just more weakly. And that’s putting aside that hospitalisations have started to rise dramatically in London, but not other regions yet, as London was hit first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 13:27
|
|
|
Speaking of Feigl-Ding! The doomer nightmare has occurred. Even he admits omicron is milder. He twists around to minimize what the study says but even he has given up trying to fight it entirely: https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1474027198763966515 I mean, his interpretation is truly bizarre. Where the red circles are exactly the lines on the table that specifically do NOT talk about severity while the purple circles he ignores are the things any sane human would recognize as the things that define if a case is severe (hospitalization) But still, even he can't escape it entirely at this point. Even twisting himself in knots to read the table weird he's can't escape it entirely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 13:41
|
|
|
While I do think, that the benefits of a milder infection will be sort of eaten up by a higher amount of cases, it's still a good thing to have milder cases. I sort of made peace with the fact that pretty much everyone will get covid at some point in time and that NPIs and lower transmisability will only delay the inevitable. Once I do get civid, it's hopefully a mild strain and besides the concern for people in my vicinity, I don't really care about transmisibility. Up to that point the important thing is to keep everyone well vaxed to prevent severe cases, and to keep events small to prevent that everyone in a city gets it the same week. And higher doubling numbers are only scarier up to a point. If the disease gets 1/1000 as deadly, but has an R of 1000, it will just speed over the world and die out. Logistically, such high R-values are not possible anyway. If a disease has an R-value of x, you'd need to infect x other people. But each of them needs to infect x other independent people. Unless you're meeting hundreds of strangers who themselves meet hundreds of strangers with no overlap, this is hardly possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 14:32
|
|
|
The debate about Omicron being less severe is so misguided, though. Even the most optimistic studies are showing reductions in the order of 50-70% overall. Okay, that's really good news... but over the past 2 weeks, in my province, cases have basically gone up tenfold, we've reached the point where PCR testing is unavailable or at least not recommended for most cases, RATs are in extremely short supply, we're at 13% test positivity, and the public health advice has shifted to "if you have any symptom, assume you have Omicron and isolate" so the real truth is that we have very little idea how many people are infected at the moment. Let's say you have a reduction in the number of severe cases: only 1/5 as many cases are severe. That would be stunning news! And it still means we're twice as hosed as we were pre-omicron if ten times as many people are getting infected. You can't fix the issue of exponential growth, particularly at this doubling rate, with lowered severity alone. It might mean any single person is better off overall, but on the societal level it's a huge, huge problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 14:35
|
|
|
Yep. Severity being lower is cold comfort when severity is linear while growth is exponential.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 14:41
|
|
|
It's true up to a point. If the severity is reduced so much that only one in 10000 cases has to go to a hospital, while most people can straight up ignore it, it doesn't really matter if it has an R-value of 100, or 1000 since it will burn through society either way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
CottonWolf posted:Yep. Severity being lower is cold comfort when severity is linear while growth is exponential. However, personal risk is how a whole lot of people - hell, most people - make their decisions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 15:05
|
|
|
CottonWolf posted:Yep. Severity being lower is cold comfort when severity is linear while growth is exponential. That seems extremely the opposite. If you told me, an individual, the disease I had was 2% less likely to kill me, then great, I guess, it's better than 0% but it barely matters. If it's a billion people that are going to get it 2% is loving massive. 12% is tremendous amounts of people. 40% is more people saved than you will ever see in your entire life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 15:06
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:That seems extremely the opposite. And the other 60%? It doesn't matter when it's that reduced when the thing propagates so drat fast. The reduction in probability of severity is offset by thing's ability to spread. StratGoatCom fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Dec 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
Happy largest human migration of the western world day eve, hope everyone has a mild one!
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 15:22
|
|
|
CottonWolf posted:Yep. Severity being lower is cold comfort when severity is linear while growth is exponential. Owlofcreamcheese posted:That seems extremely the opposite. You’re doin the thing where you only debate half an argument. You left out the part where it’s more transmissible. Absolutely, 2% less lethal adds up! You’re right it’s a miracle! But if it’s also 2% more transmissible, you end up with significantly more deaths. So, even if omicron is 1/3 as lethal as delta*, it’s also 3x more transmissible**, these do not cancel each other out. Exponential transmission, linear death rates. This would be far worse than delta. *citation needed **citation needed
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 15:35
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:And the other 60%? It doesn't matter when it's that reduced when the thing propagates so drat fast. The reduction in probability of severity is offset by thing's ability to spread. What about them? They die either way if the disease is less or the same deadly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
I mean it's a case of seperating of it being a worse outcome for society as a whole (Maybe... the maybe being that cases seems to now be levelling and dropping potentially now, and hospitalisations are still far lower than last year from a UK perspective, so it could entirely be a case that the reduction in severity after vaccinations included is a much bigger benefit than the higher case load) and a better outcome from you personally (ie. it is better for you to catch Omicron than it is for you to catch Delta).
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 15:42
|
|
|
Weasling Weasel posted:I mean it's a case of seperating of it being a worse outcome for society as a whole (Maybe... the maybe being that cases seems to now be levelling and dropping potentially now, and hospitalisations are still far lower than last year from a UK perspective, so it could entirely be a case that the reduction in severity after vaccinations included is a much bigger benefit than the higher case load) and a better outcome from you personally (ie. it is better for you to catch Omicron than it is for you to catch Delta). It’s better for society if less people die. If it spreads faster it’s even more of a relief if it’s less deadly, It’s not like anyone in this thread got to pick that it spreads faster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What about them? They die either way if the disease is less or the same deadly. What part of 'greater spread' do you not get? This is high school level mathematical concepts - a lower percent of a higher number means a higher outright real world number.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
Obviously it's a good thing if it's less severe, I don't think anyone is arguing that it would be better if it were more severe. What we're saying is that using "it's less severe" to justify fewer PHIs is stupid and deadly in the long-term when it's spreading this fast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:What part of 'greater spread' do you not get? Yeah, it’s good that if it has greater spread it’s less fatal. What’s so hard to understand? Do you think someone is really excited that there is greater spread?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2021 15:54
|
|