Jump to content

Infidel Dog

Members
  • Posts

    3,467
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by Infidel Dog

  1. Well, there's old faithful, Bill Clinton. He's in the sex scandal soup again. I'd give you that perv behind the Lincoln project but you'd deny leftist ownership of that rodent too.
  2. What? You don't at least try to read the abstracts? I generally try to. Actually there's one in that list that's better than an abstract. It's by some Professor. Ben Israel or something like that. He more just describes his study in a separate paper in easy to understand language. His conclusion is covid runs a similar pattern of peak and decline with or without lockdowns. Speaking abstracts though there's one that's not on that list. I bookmarked it. It's from a Canadian economist. " Douglas W. Allen∗ April 2021 ABSTRACT An examination of over 80 Covid-19 studies reveals that many relied on assumptions that were false, and which tended to over-estimate the benefits and underestimate the costs of lockdown. As a result, most of the early cost/benefit studies arrived at conclusions that were refuted later by data, and which rendered their cost/benefit findings incorrect. Research done over the past six months has shown that lockdowns have had, at best, a marginal effect on the number of Covid-19 deaths. Generally speaking, the ineffectiveness of lockdown stems from voluntary changes in behavior. Lockdown jurisdictions were not able to prevent noncompliance, and non-lockdown jurisdictions benefited from voluntary changes in behavior that mimicked lockdowns. The limited effectiveness of lockdowns explains why, after one year, the unconditional cumulative deaths per million, and the pattern of daily deaths per million, is not negatively correlated with the stringency of lockdown across countries. Using a cost/benefit method proposed by Professor Bryan Caplan, and using two extreme assumptions of lockdown effectiveness, the cost/benefit ratio of lockdowns in Canada, in terms of life-years saved, is between 3.6–282. That is, it is possible that lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in Canada’s history." https://www.sfu.ca/~allen/LockdownReport.pdf Another thread I see pop up here and there including that list is how adverse effects from lockdowns even out harm from the virus.
  3. "Cherry picking doesn't work with me," warns the cherry picker hoping I'll ignore what looks like some sort of selective dementia.
  4. What conclusions? There's an intro and links to the actual sources. You'd know that if you weren't afraid of being corrupted by a Libertarian website. Anybody who thinks they're more clever than the intro can click the links and see what the original non-partisan source says.
  5. BTW Moonbox, didn't Fauci order you 'consensus of the narrative' guys to take the CDC as your lord and master? Did you not hear what one of their studies more or less said? Mask Mandates are pretty much useless at slowing the spread too. CDC: 85% of COVID-19 patients report ‘always’ or ‘often’ wearing a mask Pretty sure it would be a higher percentage than that in Canada.
  6. And one more time. Lockdowns don't work because they didn't.
  7. Also Moonbox, if you want get fixated on consensus you don't actually know what science is. If you're dismissing Universities, medical journals and peer reviewed studies (and you are) because they don't confirm to what you want to believe is a consensus you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
  8. Lockdowns didn't work. To say otherwise is to say 'Don't believe your lying eyes."
  9. I've always been on the "science" bus. Just not your "science" bus. Not necessarily the politically endorsed one. Mine is the examine the evidence through scientific method one. You seem to think it's good policy to ignore one and brag about the other. I guess we have kind of the same policy just different buses. Although that's not fair to me. I will check yours out. I just won't necessarily agree with what's in it once I have though. Believe it or not you're allowed to do that in real science with fact or reason based critique. The embedded links in those three sources I gave are decent science or reason based argument. Your science denying refusal to check out evidence contrary to the Progressive Socialist narrative is meaningless.
  10. " MADISON – A Waukesha County judge ruled Thursday that absentee ballot drop boxes can't be used in Wisconsin, potentially upending aspects of the spring elections and the fall's high-profile contests for governor and U.S. Senate. After hearing three hours of arguments, Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Michael Bohren determined state law allows absentee ballots to be returned in person or by mail — but not in a ballot drop box. "It's all good and nice, but there's no authority to do it," Bohren said of the use of drop boxes." https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/13/judge-bars-use-absentee-ballot-drop-boxes-wisconsin/6512589001/
  11. " Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg and his counterpart at Google, CEO Sundar Pichai, secretly struck a deal in 2018 to carve up the digital advertising market between the two tech giants, according to newly revealed allegations from top state law-enforcement officials." https://nypost.com/2022/01/14/facebook-and-google-accused-of-secret-deal-to-carve-up-ad-empire/
  12. Is that a fact old-timer? Hate to sound nasty but you might want to check up on short-term memory loss. That case is ongoing. Filing a lawsuit is not the same thing as getting a conviction. You know that, right? It's not even settling out of court like what CNN had to do with Nick Sandman, the Covington school student when they lied about him. (Did you miss that one btw, Memory Man?) A few days ago this happened. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jan/13/fox-news-seeks-access-to-expert-report-on-georgia-/
  13. " Jeffrey Epstein paid more than a dozen visits to the Clinton White House throughout the former president's first few years in office - even bringing along with him multiple women, including four known to be his girlfriends, DailyMail.com can reveal. Unearthed visitor logs last month confirmed the late pedophile had visited the Executive Mansion at least 17 times during Bill Clinton's first term, beginning shortly after his inauguration in 1993. " https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10394863/Jeffrey-Epstein-brought-eight-women-Clinton-White-House.html
  14. You two progressives seem to be having trouble making a fact based argument. If all you have is disparaging remarks against political ideologies you don't agree with you don't actually have much. I'm starting to feel a little sympathy for you both so I'm going to help you. If you hadn't been so restricted by your inability to consider anything beyond your given narrative you would have discovered there actually is an opening for an argument within the offered science in the embedded links. Here's a quote from an abstract in the first paper: There you go, try that. See if it can help you avoid looking so lame.
  15. Really a former rep of some sort, you say. Well thanks for that cracker-jack on the spot reporting, Beave. I guess you missed this one: CNN Fires Producer John Griffin Over 'Deeply Disturbing' Federal Child Sex Charges and this one: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/05/chris-cuomo-cnn-fired-sexual-harassment-allegation Any news on when Ghislaine Maxwell will be sentenced for her part in the Clinton connected Epstein sex crimes?
  16. That's of the total of those tested. Almost all of those would be negative. 42% of the positive results were false positives.
  17. Do you remember that one where that guy attacked a Sikh temple where they wore turbans? Do you remember how the media hammered the point home that the guy was actually wanting to attack Muslims but he made a mistake? There was never a doubt about what the motive was there. Why was that?
  18. Mediabiasfactcheck expresses an opinion on whether sites skew left or right. My opinion is their opinion too often skews left. Their language doesn't just suggest right wing thought is present. It tells you there's something wrong with that. They have less of a problem with a site that skews left. In any case, so what. They have an opinion they don't like right wing sites and I have an opinion I don't care what a Prog thinks of me or mine. And when undeniable facts are cited as evidence within a piece, a prog's opinion on the site where it's found is just piss in the wind.
  19. Citing a leftist source that expresses an opinion they don't like a right wing source is nonsense. It's blatantly erroneous in this case because multiple evidences from mainstream articles, universities and medical journals were cited in embedded links. It doesn't even matter though because there's a basic fact that's undeniable by any means other than distraction. The reason we know lockdowns don't work is because they didn't.
  20. OK Moonbox, so you two want to speak in generalities and think you've won on some specific point you don't specifically identify. You haven't. Let's get into specifics. The specific debate, at it's core was Eyeball believes if he can google and find somebody from the left to discredit a general website on the grounds it's from the right then anything inside is automatically false regardless of how many mainstream, scientific or first sources it supports itself with. I showed you both a site that did that. At that point the argument should have been over and you lost. But Eyeball tells me no, every scientific paper from every university and medical journal archived in the piece is now worthless because the intro contained a metaphor about lab rats and he's not a rat. Then you tell me some gobbledygook about how what I'm really saying is "that's what they want you to think." A rat being put in a maze to find the cheese can be seen as being like getting mandated into segregation and deprivation until you get the vax in that neither operation really offers a choice. That's what I actually said and you 2 want to hyperventilate about use of the word "they." See how that conversation wanders away from the actual topic though? See who's actually initiating the evasion from the premise.
  21. Personally I think it's more just another case of Prog projection. Everywhere you try to run you get smacked down at the ears. Now you want to whine about it yet try to make yourself seem heroic. 'Mommy, Dog is chasing me.' 'Stop being such a baby." 'Er...I mean running from me.'
  22. Evading what? Go ahead hotshot. I'm your huckleberry. Tell me specifically what this is you're so smug about, thinking others fear to face.
  23. " TORONTO -- As provinces rely more heavily on rapid antigen tests as part of their strategy to curb the spread of COVID-19, there have been concerns over the possibility of false positive results. Canadian researchers have produced new data shedding light on the likelihood of such events In total, 462 rapid test results, or 0.05 per cent of the 900,000 results, resulted in false positives. This represents 42 per cent of the positive test results in the study." https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/canadian-study-reveals-rate-of-false-positives-from-rapid-antigen-tests-1.5742050
  24. Twitchy offers some clues to the clueless media on what the motive might be for a Muslim pissed at the incarceration of an anti-semitic terrorist in taking hostages at a synagogue. https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/01/16/freaking-clowns-fbi-and-mainstream-media-already-teaming-up-to-claim-synagogue-hostage-situation-not-connected-to-jewish-community/
×
×
  • Create New...