|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 14, 2021 11:35:59 GMT
If you actually read things, you'd know they were reporting on news from a different source who reported on this - and that source stands by their sources. Stop discounting the information because you don't like the messenger. mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn-bias/Yeah, I don't consider CNN a reliable, least-biased source either. The source reported in the Townhall article was RedState[1], who isn't any better than CNN (just on the other side of the political spectrum). Only time will tell whether the Chinese defector story can be substantiated by other, more reliable sources.
1 Media Bias Fact Check: RedStateWhen you've got multiple sources that are able to provide technical details to their government debriefers that no one else could possibly know and those are and to be corroborated, I'd say that's pretty good to start with. The only concern would be if Yan is a PLA agent providing disinformation. The key is - who is the PLA defector talking to DIA? Especially since I note no political piece (e.g. "Fauci knew!!!") to the reported content from Yan and this mystery defector.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jun 14, 2021 12:01:30 GMT
It's also been established that the right is doing their best to paint Fauci as public enemy number one, because he nay-sayed Trump and you of course, parrot that belief. Never you mind that Yan is a paid Bannon shill.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 14, 2021 14:06:08 GMT
It's also been established that the right is doing their best to paint Fauci as public enemy number one, because he nay-sayed Trump and you of course, parrot that belief. Never you mind that Yan is a paid Bannon shill. No. People on all sides are pointing to the fact that he can't be trusted seeing that he perjured himself before Congress after an FOIA request resulted a release of emails proving he knew that EHA subbed out funds to WIV and alluded to the types of experiments they were doing, but he lied to Congress when they asked if NIAID funded WIV to do GoF experiments - and that he dismissed an email from US scientists documenting markers indicating covid was engineered as "too long to read." Too long to read? How about they fire your ass then you won't have to worry about getting long emails from scientists. *Everything* that's come to light points to Fauci being a disingenuous cunt who was doing his best to hide the fact that NIAID funded GoF experiments in a lab that had a shoddy safety record, and it resulted in a lab escape. We'll eventually find that he knew (or was told and chose to ignore) that the PLA co-opted the experiments to weaponize them.
|
|
|
Post by Sadras on Jun 14, 2021 16:45:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 14, 2021 18:25:41 GMT
The key is "...not statistically-significant..." What we've been saying all along - regarding masks, safe and effective drugs, and the ridiculousness of looking at cases rather than hospitalizations as a basis for lockdowns. The UK is in a panic over the Indian strain, but they only reported 3 deaths this past week. Three. The "science" unfortunately has been pushed to the masses, overshouting actual science.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jun 14, 2021 23:49:33 GMT
3cat, you cherry pick one paragraph out of an article that overwhelmingly supports mask wearing. Somehow, I seriously doubt you know what you are talking about. Also Youtube podcasts? Thanks, but I'll stick with the CDC for my information. They, at least, aren't trying to kill me with QAnon and other conspiracy theory stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Jun 15, 2021 2:16:24 GMT
Dude, I tried to click on that link from my work laptop on lunch. That's not a safe site.
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Jun 15, 2021 4:34:02 GMT
Steve made some interesting points; however, his mannerisms during the podcast (e.g. frequently talking over the other two, particularly Dr. Malone) really diminished the overall quality of the discussion. Personally, I believe I would have had a better experience if the session was just between Dr. Bret Weinstein and Dr. Robert Malone.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 15, 2021 11:35:58 GMT
Dude, I tried to click on that link from my work laptop on lunch. That's not a safe site. Dunno what to tell you. Norton says townhall, ampproject, and viglink are safe. Sounds like your work is overly strict in their filtering.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 15, 2021 11:57:14 GMT
Steve made some interesting points; however, his mannerisms during the podcast (e.g. frequently talking over the other two, particularly Dr. Malone) really diminished the overall quality of the discussion. Personally, I believe I would have had a better experience if the session was just between Dr. Bret Weinstein and Dr. Robert Malone.
In the comments, he apologized for his mannerisms if they impeded the content - doesn't change the veracity of that content. It's one thing to be skeptical, it's another thing to try and discredit sound science in the name of "science." They don't like it when uncomfortable questions asked by competent scientists calls into question a specific narrative. The mad scramble to squash even the asking of questions is what drives conspiracy theory. Responses that answer questions with information that counters the assertion behind the question aren't forthcoming. Clear admissions that there is uncertainty would help to prevent conspiracy theory. Cherry-picking of data is a problem that they won't acknowledge, but they complain about cherry-picking of the drawing of conclusions by the authors of studies. As a recent example, UK media breathlessly reports that nearly 1/3 of those who died with the Delta strain were fully vaccinated. Ok - most who read that headline get panicked. It isn't until you actually read the details that you realize it's 12 people. Out of 33,206 cases. From Feb to June. 36 thousandths of a percent. That's even before you realized that it is "died with" and not "from." And that it is within 28 days of contracting it - so you could get it, recover, and get hit but a bus and the UK reports it as a covid death. www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/nearly-one-third-covid-patients-20817848Frankly, the whole year has been ridiculous when you consider that the average age of someone dying from covid is higher than the average life expectancy...
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 15, 2021 12:43:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 15, 2021 13:35:09 GMT
The key is "...not statistically-significant..." What we've been saying all along - regarding masks, safe and effective drugs, and the ridiculousness of looking at cases rather than hospitalizations as a basis for lockdowns. The UK is in a panic over the Indian strain, but they only reported 3 deaths this past week. Three. The "science" unfortunately has been pushed to the masses, overshouting actual science. 70% reduction is pretty statistically significant.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 15, 2021 14:17:30 GMT
The key is "...not statistically-significant..." What we've been saying all along - regarding masks, safe and effective drugs, and the ridiculousness of looking at cases rather than hospitalizations as a basis for lockdowns. The UK is in a panic over the Indian strain, but they only reported 3 deaths this past week. Three. The "science" unfortunately has been pushed to the masses, overshouting actual science. 70% reduction is pretty statistically significant. Except that's not what was actually shown in the study referred to in the YouTube link... The randomized trial referred to resulted in 2.1% vs 1.8% getting covid - not statistically-significant. I'm assuming it's the Japanese study you are referring to - which was a lab experiment using mannequins - not a double-blind RCT in real-world conditions like the Denmark one.
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 15, 2021 14:24:23 GMT
Which doesn't contradict anything I said. The best part of that is the section that describes the US as the best prepared of all nations...
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 15, 2021 16:47:58 GMT
70% reduction is pretty statistically significant. Except that's not what was actually shown in the study referred to in the YouTube link... The randomized trial referred to resulted in 2.1% vs 1.8% getting covid - not statistically-significant. I'm assuming it's the Japanese study you are referring to - which was a lab experiment using mannequins - not a double-blind RCT in real-world conditions like the Denmark one. 2 American studies, 1 Chinese and 1 Thai www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.htmlData regarding the “real-world” effectiveness of community masking are limited to observational and epidemiological studies. An investigation of a high-exposure event, in which 2 symptomatically ill hair stylists interacted for an average of 15 minutes with each of 139 clients during an 8-day period, found that none of the 67 clients who subsequently consented to an interview and testing developed infection. The stylists and all clients universally wore masks in the salon as required by local ordinance and company policy at the time.36 In a study of 124 Beijing households with > 1 laboratory-confirmed case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, mask use by the index patient and family contacts before the index patient developed symptoms reduced secondary transmission within the households by 79%.37 A retrospective case-control study from Thailand documented that, among more than 1,000 persons interviewed as part of contact tracing investigations, those who reported having always worn a mask during high-risk exposures experienced a greater than 70% reduced risk of acquiring infection compared with persons who did not wear masks under these circumstances.38 A study of an outbreak aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, an environment notable for congregate living quarters and close working environments, found that use of face coverings on-board was associated with a 70% reduced risk.39 Investigations involving infected passengers aboard flights longer than 10 hours strongly suggest that masking prevented in-flight transmissions, as demonstrated by the absence of infection developing in other passengers and crew in the 14 days following exposure.40,41 At least ten studies have confirmed the benefit of universal masking in community level analyses: in a unified hospital system,42 a German city,43 two U.S. states,44, 45 a panel of 15 U.S. states and Washington, D.C.,46, 47 as well as both Canada48 and the U.S. 49-51 nationally. Each analysis demonstrated that, following directives from organizational and political leadership for universal masking, new infections fell significantly. Two of these studies46, 47 and an additional analysis of data from 200 countries that included the U.S.51 also demonstrated reductions in mortality. Another 10-site study showed reductions in hospitalization growth rates following mask mandate implementation 49. A separate series of cross-sectional surveys in the U.S. suggested that a 10% increase in self-reported mask wearing tripled the likelihood of stopping community transmission.53 An economic analysis using U.S. data found that, given these effects, increasing universal masking by 15% could prevent the need for lockdowns and reduce associated losses of up to $1 trillion or about 5% of gross domestic product.47 Two studies have been improperly characterized by some sources as showing that surgical or cloth masks offer no benefit. A community-based randomized control trial in Denmark during 2020 assessed whether the use of surgical masks reduced the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers (personal protection) by more than 50%. Findings were inconclusive,54 most likely because the actual reduction in infections was lower. The study was too small (i.e., enrolled about 0.1% of the population) to assess whether masks could decrease transmission from wearers to others (source control). A second study of 14 hospitals in Vietnam during 2015 found that cloth masks were inferior to surgical masks for protection against clinical upper respiratory illness or laboratory-confirmed viral infection.55 The study had a number of limitations including the lack of a true control (no mask) group for comparison, limited source control as hospitalized patients and staff were not masked, unblinded study arm assignments potentially biasing self-reporting of illness, and the washing and re-use of cloth masks by users introducing the risk of infection from self-washing. A follow up study in 2020 found that healthcare workers whose cloth masks were laundered by the hospital were protected equally as well as those that wore medical masks.56 files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdfwww.researchgate.net/publication/342198360_Association_of_country-wide_coronavirus_mortality_with_demographics_testing_lockdowns_and_public_wearing_of_masks_Update_June_15_2020
|
|