|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Sept 18, 2020 23:36:26 GMT
He *has* listened to "experts" who've flip-flopped multiple times over the past 6 months. All of the "experts" have been completely wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Sept 19, 2020 0:08:15 GMT
No, he really hasn't listened to experts, otherwise there would be a nation wide mask mandate and he'd actually have a stinking plan. How many people have died because this baboon has downplayed the severity of Covid-19? A fucking lot of people. So excuse me for not believing that.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Sept 19, 2020 0:21:17 GMT
No, he really hasn't listened to experts, otherwise there would be a nation wide mask mandate and he'd actually have a stinking plan. How many people have died because this baboon has downplayed the severity of Covid-19? A fucking lot of people. So excuse me for not believing that. Ye of little science background or common sense. Sweden has disproven that masks or lockdowns are any more effective than just living your life and taking care of those with conditions The PCR CT has proven that anything above 24 cycles = not contagious. Antibody test kits built from surplus SARS1 kits prove this isn't all that novel. Nashville government surpressing info that bars and restaurants don't lead to massive rates of infection. "Experts" changing their advice and contradicting each other. What more do you need to realize this was never as serious as it was made it to be and is entirely political at this point? |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Sept 19, 2020 1:21:28 GMT
You're fucking insane and unbelievable. Here is information that's a little bit more nuanced. www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-what-happened-in-sweden-and-you-cant-compare-it-to-u-s#Can-Swedens-approach-work-in-the-U.S.?Where do you get your information? A cracker jack box? I did a quick google search and that's just plain wrong
This was at the top of my google search
It's in the same family of diseases. But it's a new variety. Which is why it's novel.
Not exactly true. Also, you have to remember, that one infected person spread this virus across the world in relatively short order. So even a few cases can lead to bigger problems. Especially since it takes time for symptoms to show and in some cases, they don't show at all or are mild enough they can be mistaken for other things. During that time the people are still contagious and can spread the disease.
That's an easy one. For one, the information on Covid-19 is evolving because it's a new disease. As they find out more, they will change their advice. Science isn't religion. It's not static. New discoveries mean new information. Also, not all experts are created equal. A brain surgeon isn't going to know much about diseases for example. And even when you do have two experts from the same fields, they aren't always going to agree with each other. That's just a fact of life.
When a fuck-ton of people are getting sick from it, dying and or having serious complications from it, then yes, it is as serious as it was made out to be. Trump was the one downplaying it because it made him look bad. Everyone else was ringing alarm bells. So yeah. When you have a buffoon saying everyone stay calm and in place while the building is burning down around them, there's a problem. When you have said buffoon pressure committees to provide false information, there's a problem. When the buffoon's political appointees try to manipulate data so their boss looks good, you gotta problem.
Fuck that 3cat. Every single one of your assertions are either false or misleading. You have learned from Dear Leader well.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Sept 19, 2020 10:31:34 GMT
You're fucking insane and unbelievable. Here is information that's a little bit more nuanced. www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-what-happened-in-sweden-and-you-cant-compare-it-to-u-s#Can-Swedens-approach-work-in-the-U.S.?Where do you get your information? A cracker jack box? I did a quick google search and that's just plain wrong
This was at the top of my google search
It's in the same family of diseases. But it's a new variety. Which is why it's novel.
Not exactly true. Also, you have to remember, that one infected person spread this virus across the world in relatively short order. So even a few cases can lead to bigger problems. Especially since it takes time for symptoms to show and in some cases, they don't show at all or are mild enough they can be mistaken for other things. During that time the people are still contagious and can spread the disease.
That's an easy one. For one, the information on Covid-19 is evolving because it's a new disease. As they find out more, they will change their advice. Science isn't religion. It's not static. New discoveries mean new information. Also, not all experts are created equal. A brain surgeon isn't going to know much about diseases for example. And even when you do have two experts from the same fields, they aren't always going to agree with each other. That's just a fact of life.
When a fuck-ton of people are getting sick from it, dying and or having serious complications from it, then yes, it is as serious as it was made out to be. Trump was the one downplaying it because it made him look bad. Everyone else was ringing alarm bells. So yeah. When you have a buffoon saying everyone stay calm and in place while the building is burning down around them, there's a problem. When you have said buffoon pressure committees to provide false information, there's a problem. When the buffoon's political appointees try to manipulate data so their boss looks good, you gotta problem.
Fuck that 3cat. Every single one of your assertions are either false or misleading. You have learned from Dear Leader well.
I'm not going to bother showing links to information because you'll only ignore, discount, or flat out be intellectually unequipped to comprehend the information. 1. RT-PCR Ct vs. viral load and infectiousness is described in a research paper put out by Canadian govt scientists. It also appears in a separate French study. It also appears in an NIH study. No viral growth when Ct > 24 and STT > 8. 2. Don't believe me about COVID not being all that novel? Fine. I suppose you also won't believe the former director of the institute of immunology at the University of Bern, who is the one who made the observation regarding antibody test kits. 3. How is it not true that the city government in Nashville withheld exculpatory info? We *have* the actual leaked emails. 4. Your claim about the experts would be true if we didn't actually have Fauci saying that they changed their stance on masks because of a shortage, not because "the science." We wouldn't have proof that HCQ protocols reduced symptoms severity and number of infected in countries that implemented them. We wouldn't have proof that studies claiming HCQ isn't effective have been debunked many times over. We wouldn't have Fauci's own research recommending HCQ as treatment or prophylaxis for SARS in 2005. 5. The number of people who are dying *from* covid is the only number that matters - and we have statistical proof that number is sub 1% of the number who get infected. Why didn't we lock down and mask up in 2009 H1N1 when between 700 million and 1.4 billion people got infected and 284,000 estimated to have died - or anywhere from 250,000 to 500,000 dying from "normal" seasonal flu? 🤔 Oh that's right, because just like now, there was no need to panic over something that is overwhelmingly non-fatal... In fact, a 2010 study on H1N1 indicated a small number would end up with ARDS or pneumonia around 6 days after flu onset - even in previously healthy peoole. Just like COVID. The treatment they recommended? Antivirals and antibacterials. Hmm 🤔. Sound familiar? Let me refresh your memory - HCQ (antiviral) + Azithromycin (antibacterial). In fact - symptoms and risk factors for COVUD-19 are identical to those for influenza. That 1918 Spanish Flu that killed millions? Not the flu that killed them, but secondary bacterial pneumonia that they didn't have antibiotics for at that time. Even the common cold kills people. You wanna hide in your house? Your choice. Now get the hell out of the way of the rest of us living our lives without fear. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Sept 19, 2020 14:59:20 GMT
In other words, you either don't have them, they aren't legit or are from old sources. Making broad statements without cites does not make anyone believe you.
Viral load and infectiousness are two totally different things. As I noted earlier, you can't use viral load to determine infection risks at least from my sources. Yours could be well outdated or from sources that aren't properly peer-reviewed. Note: science changes all the time. If the source is from 2019 or very early in the year, it could well be inaccurate.
As noted I said not exactly true. Read the link. Also, they were being overly cautious, as the very simple fact of the matter that even one infected person can spread the disease to many others. I'd personally rather them be overly cautious than risk people dying.
Okay. Let's wade through the crazy here. We did have a shortage of masks in the beginning and it needed to go to first responders, health professionals and the most vulnerable first. That's simple logistics. I can understand that. Also, in the beginning, it wasn't very clear how the disease was transmitted. Later, when they realized the disease was transmitted through aerosolization and that it could spread very far. I mean, there are tons of videos on how far cough/sneeze particles can travel. At least from what I can gather from my own research.
HCQ has been found to not help Covid-19. It may be good for other diseases, but not for Covid-19 and was stopped because of the side effects it caused, which included death. It's been settled, get over it.
The 2005 SARS is a different disease than Covid-19. The treatments and medicines used for it are going to be different.
Okay again with the crazy and incorrect information. Let's try to break this down.
Simply put, Covid-19 spreads quicker than H1N1/other flus and is more deadly. Covid-19 is not a flu.
How many people have died due to Covid-19 in the US alone? Jesus 3cat, it is fatal for alot of people and has serious complications for those who survive it. Where do you get your information from Fox News or Breibart?
|
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Sept 21, 2020 21:05:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Sept 21, 2020 21:32:40 GMT
And the reporting organization retracted their story when it was found that their info was in error. Unlike left-wing rags. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Sept 21, 2020 21:51:50 GMT
Left wing rags retract their stories as well cupcake. Just admit it. You were wrong. On so many different levels it isn't even funny.
When you start spouting, make sure and do your homework. Otherwise you'll wind up eating crow. You didn't and wound up curb-stomped.
I know from experience. Crow pie sucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Sept 21, 2020 23:39:14 GMT
Left wing rags retract their stories as well cupcake. Just admit it. You were wrong. On so many different levels it isn't even funny.
When you start spouting, make sure and do your homework. Otherwise you'll wind up eating crow. You didn't and wound up curb-stomped.
I know from experience. Crow pie sucks.
The m.o. for left-wing rags is to loudly proclaim whatever it is they are against this week. When found to have misled they public with selective reporting, their "retraction" is buried below the fold on page A23 or thereabouts. The difference is left wing rags are so untruthful, so often, they have no ability to comprehend that they are liars. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Sept 21, 2020 23:55:05 GMT
On what criteria do you base this? Because Dear Leader sez so? LOL.
Considering that much of what you have said is not factual or based on any sort of reality and has been abundantly proven to be such, you might want to rethink this.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Sept 22, 2020 10:12:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Sept 22, 2020 11:18:49 GMT
Rright leaning pro-trump supporter. Not exactly unbiased there.
They retracted it.
Yes and they corrected the erroneous information when it was pointed out.
So basically you're pointing out instances where left leaning rags have made mistakes and corrected them or retracted them. So not fake news, just mistakes that were corrected. So you haven't proved your point.
Again, research before you post dearie.
Look, Squirrel!
|
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Sept 22, 2020 11:37:14 GMT
Trump lies while people die. 60,000 people is not "virtually nobody" That's a small town!
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Sept 22, 2020 13:03:11 GMT
Rright leaning pro-trump supporter. Not exactly unbiased there.
They retracted it.
Yes and they corrected the erroneous information when it was pointed out.
So basically you're pointing out instances where left leaning rags have made mistakes and corrected them or retracted them. So not fake news, just mistakes that were corrected. So you haven't proved your point.
Again, research before you post dearie.
Look, Squirrel!
You obviously didn't read any of them. How do you explain the following: "Our repeat mistakes involve declaring that Trump's claims are "lies" when they are matters of opinion, or when the truth between conflicting sources is unknowable; taking Trump's statements and events out of context; reporting secondhand accounts against Trump without attribution as if they're established fact; relying on untruthful, conflicted sources; and presenting reporter opinions in news stories,without labeling them as opinions." "CBS’ breakfast show, “This Morning,” used the footage of a packed ward last Wednesday just after saying the pandemic’s epicenter was “found right here” in New York. The same footage had been aired earlier by Sky News — which correctly identified it as one of Europe’s “most hard-hit” hospitals located in Bergamo, Lombardy." "As I wrote earlier this year, journalism can’t afford for corrections to be the next victim of the “fake news” frenzy. In too many countries (like my own), the media corrects surreptitiously, when at all. Those outlets that do correct, dedicating time and resources to a fully-fleshed editorial process should be rewarded, not penalized." So - these all point to at the very least, lazy journalism and a refusal to admit mistakes unless called out publicly. Then there are the well-known cases of plagiarism or falsehood amongst places like the NYT. Why should journalists (allegedly professionals) not be held to the same standards as other professions? Doctors, lawyers, professional engineers, etc. all have governing bodies that are supposed to be gatekeepers against unethical behavior amongst their ranks. Unethical members have lost their licenses, as a result. Make a mistake as a journalist? Own up to it and fix it. No harm no foul. Purposely mislead in your reporting? Lose your ability to continue sowing lies. |
|
