Time to Declare Endemic

[Infidel Dog]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

You need to find better sources of information. 

Well if you're relying on the leftist Mediabiasfactcheck you need to take your own advice.

Now as far as the articles, papers and studies archived by the American Institute of Economic Research (which was the link you were pretending to know something about) the sources there included, Cornel University, Oxford, EClinical Medicine, MedRXiv, the National Center for Biotechnology Information, the Social Science Research Network, the BMJ which is a weekly peer reviewed medical trade journal and so on. 

I think if your going to be trying to impress us with you superior opinion on content you might want to at least click it and see what's in there. Might help you with this looking like an ill informed Jackass problem you're having. I tell you out of love, of course and a desire to see you do better. 

Edited January 16, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

47 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Canadians exercised more patience, we're more willing to listen to the advice of experts and more trusting of our governments. This made us less prone to the all to obvious deadly effects of misinformation, fake news and conspiracy loaded thinking.  Japanese people are even more inclined that way.
 

 

I see. So you're hypothesis is it's a kind of national personality difference between countries. Interesting. Free thinking gives you the covid, does it? Now show me why the 5 most harshly affected states by covid are Democrat with the possible exception of Pennsylvania which may be more purple than blue.

Dr. John Campbell has an even more interesting hypothesis where he puts forward the possibility Japan is doing so well with the pandemic because of a biochemical anomaly in the Japanese.

There's another one that notices the Japanese excellent covid death rate began about the time they made Ivermectin accessible.

I have a hypothesis that a big part of why Canada does better than many other countries is because it's so spread out per capita.

Come to think of it the only state with a better fatality rate than Florida since the summer has been Alaska.

 

Edited January 16, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Now as far as the articles, papers and studies archived the American Institute of Economic Research (which was the link you were pretending to know something about)

  Nice try but it's patently more obvious from what I quoted that I was mocking your use of Summit News as a source.

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Overall, we rate Summit News Questionable based on Extreme Right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracies, misleading and unproven stories, and a complete lack of transparency.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=Summit+News

 

As for the American Institute for Economic Research.

Quote

the sources there included, Cornel University, Oxford, EClinical Medicine, MedRXiv, the National Center for Biotechnology Information, the Social Science Research Network, the BMJ which is a weekly peer reviewed medical trade journal and so on. I think if your going to be trying to impress us with you superior opinion on content you might want to at least click it and see what's in there.

The impression wore off when I got to the part where your article by the American Institute for Economic Research referred to the public as lab rats. But lets see if what mediafactcheck says about the American Institute for Economic Research validates my sense it was as dubious a source as my instincts were telling me. 

Quote

Overall, we rate The American Institute for Economic Research Right-Center biased based on Libertarian-leaning economic policy and Mixed for factual reporting due to the publication of misinformation related to Coronavirus.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-institute-for-economic-research/

Colour me surprised.

Quote

Well if you're relying on the leftist Mediabiasfactcheck you need to take your own advice.

You need to provide a much better explanation for why I shouldn't rely on Media Bias to check a source than you simply telling me its leftist. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

I see. So you're hypothesis is it's a kind of national personality difference between countries. Interesting. Free thinking gives you the covid, does it?

No thinking stupidly is easy for Covid to exploit.

As for it being my hypothesis its backed by the National Library of Medicine.

Quote

 

These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence-based through the use of credible scientific sourcing.  Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words.  These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles.

Overall, we rate PubMed a Pro-Science source that searches peer-reviewed science journals.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pubmed/

 

 

Quote

Now show me why the 5 most harshly affected states by covid are Democrat with the possible exception of Pennsylvania which may be more purple than blue.

Do your own freakin' research...just remember to check your sources because you know I will. 

Quote

Dr. John Campbell has an even more interesting hypothesis where he puts forward the possibility Japan is doing so well with the pandemic because of a biochemical anomaly in the Japanese.

 I tried googling that have you...I mean seriously? 

Quote

There's another one that notices the Japanese excellent covid death rate began about the time they made Ivermectin accessible.

Japan is not using ivermectin instead of vaccines to treat Covid-19.

https://fullfact.org/health/japan-not-using-ivermectin-instead-vaccines-treat-covid-19/

Quote

I have a hypothesis that a big part of why Canada does better than many other countries is because it's so spread out per capita.

So how does that explain Japan's doing better given its greater population density?

Quote

Come to think of it the only state with a better fatality rate than Florida since the summer has been Alaska.

Excuse me but why do you persist in thinking its escaped my notice that you like switching goalposts from the entire pandemic to whatever recent point in time you seem to think bolsters whatever point you're trying to make?  

[myata]

At this phase in the pandemic story it is clear that two essentially different approaches in responding have formed: 1. Spread / population management ("faucism") and 2. Risk / disease management.

Both are well known and have been described in detail and seen in practice. The challenge before rational societies, those based on reason and responsibility as well as informed and responsible citizens is to come with objective, impartial methods and criteria to measure the results delivered by each strategy. Given the experience so far it's naive to expect controlling governments to deliver honest, full and objective information for an informed reason-based choice. Who can accomplish this task then? Is there anyone, anybody? Can we have reason-based policies and responses without knowing an honest and objective answer?

Finally: only one path above offers a clear way out of the crisis back to normal normality. Actually, it is the normality, return to it, in fact and in action. And that should be obvious too. On which iteration of: look, there's a new variant!; oi-oi cases are rising; out of abundance of caution; funny games with statistics; shut down schools and economy; new old restrictions; lockdown and all over again, would a glorious victory over the nasty be declared? Can you give, or even guess with remote plausibility, the holy number of circles and cycles given that flu and common cold are still with us (and sadly, sometimes can produce severe complications) after decades and probably, centuries?

This is quite obvious, right? So how much fear, confusion and plain misinformation is needed to obscure it... again?

Edited January 16, 2022 by myata

[blackbird]

The most famous anti-vaxxer, the tennis start, Djokovic, has been kicked out of Australia.  This is good.  90% of people in Australia are vaccinated and are following the rules.  Everyone else travelling into Australia is required to be vaccinated.  Why do some think he should have had an exemption.  Some feel more privileged than others I guess.  As a prominent sports figure admired by many fans, he has done more harm in the world that is struggling to end the pandemic by his refusal to be vaccinated. It just made it even harder to convince the vaccine hesitant to get vaccinated.

Vaccines are very high technology that we should be thankful to have.  They are also being modified to tackle the new variants which are constantly mutating.  The cave dwellers should come out of the darkness and get vaccinated.

Expect more worrisome variants after omicron, scientists say (msn.com)

[myata]

There's absolutely no way one could have missed the Djokovich story, so unlike that of US Supreme Court on vaccine mandates. Information is important, and you can legally have it only with us!

In the meantime, scientists expect more scary-worrisome variants, never to relax, look around and think, just keep marching yes we know.

(Brave new dawn, fanfare!)

Edited January 16, 2022 by myata

[myata]

While anyone with a grain of objectivity, regardless of the stance on vaccination could not disagree that if anything, the affair was a dramatic fiasco of the authorities ("facepalm" as one of the players expressed it) that first granted visa, then revoked it, then cancelled again on some remote grounds. And this is a perfect, so clear and visual illustration of what it is doing to us, the society: it divides; sets us apart and against each other, raises fear and suspicion without providing any essential answers. Having mRNA boosters is good, they can help and should be recommended to some, but making of them a perfect solution and a universal panacea is very wrong. If they offered a solution we wouldn't be having yet another round of restrictions and lockdowns in some of the most vaccinated communities in the world. Only takes one honest and objective look around.

Edited January 16, 2022 by myata

[Zeitgeist]

Or government is responsible for continuing to stoke fear. We’ll never return to normal without changing our mindset about Covid.  We should promote protections and treatments, end restrictions, and stop the insane constant testing and screening that make it impossible for businesses and organizations to operate due to staff shortages.  The only way to end the pandemic is to start treating Covid like the flu.   Vulnerable people should be encouraged to take extra precautions.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[Infidel Dog]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

  Nice try but it's patently more obvious from what I quoted that I was mocking your use of Summit News as a source.

What I saw was the quote of mine you chose above your silly little leftist fact check dis of sites I sourced. That linked here:

https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/

That was an archive of sites like Universities and medical journals.

But if you tell me your lefty source (that likes to through around terms like "far right" without a definition to the term other than when it seems convenient to them) also doesn't like Paul Joseph Watson that doesn't surprise. me. They, like you, and other Progressive Socialists neglect the most important thing about PJW. He almost always uses mainstream sources.

And you do that other thing Progressive Socialists are famous for at my house. You pose a stance of superiority based on something you haven't read. If you had read PJW's fine piece you would have seen he was basing his opinion on an article from the mainstream newspaper, The Telegraph 

Lockdown 'had no effect' on coronavirus pandemic in Germany

and the peer reviewed study:

Assessing mandatory stay-at-home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID-19

Read the source before you go on a mad google search for leftist "factcheckers" to dump on it Bud. Then I'll take you serious.

 

 

 

[Infidel Dog]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

No thinking stupidly is easy for Covid to exploit.

As for it being my hypothesis its backed by the National Library of Medicine.

Wait...you like the National Library of Medicine now?

But one of the links offered in the American Institute of Economic Research sourced to the National Library of Medicine:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652751/

And you want to boast about how you check sources... Gimme a break.

[Infidel Dog]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Japan is not using ivermectin instead of vaccines to treat Covid-19.

Why are you under the impression that you use only one therapeutic? I'd tell you to check with Joe Rogan or Governor DeSantis of Florida but I doubt your leftist fact checkers would allow it.

No, multiple therapeutics are often prescribed when allowed. What you call a "vaccine" is one of them.

 

[Infidel Dog]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

So how does that explain Japan's doing better given its greater population density?

My God, this is frustrating. Oh well...I guess if you're going to refuse to do your thinking, I'll have to do it for you...again.

We were discussing different factors that may cause the stats of one nation to differ from another. Things like culture, national identity, genetic makeup common to regions, geography, political action. It's not just one thing. But comparing one nation to another like a single factor says everything about that mélange of qualities is a false equivalency.

Now in some cases one factor may be so evident that it sticks out as worth notice. I suggest in Canada's case (and possibly Alaska's) it may be the low population per geographical area.

Japan is culturally isolated. That may be a factor. Also there may be a genetic factor and the acceptance of Ivermectin about the time covid hospitalizations started to decrease may also be worth noticing.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[eyeball]

24 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Wait...you like the National Library of Medicine now?

But one of the links offered in the American Institute of Economic Research sourced to the National Library of Medicine:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652751/

Good, maybe they'll learn something one day.

Quote

And you want to boast about how you check sources... Gimme a break.

No I want to criticize the sources you use.  Give yourself a break and pick better one's.

BTW you haven't answered why I shouldn't rely on Media Bias to check a source for reasons other than you simply telling me its leftist. 

[Infidel Dog]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Good, maybe they'll learn something one day.

And maybe you'll learn to check what's in a link before thinking something you find on google that disses the source qualifies you to vilify the contents.

Now as to my opinion on whether a source is left or right. It's as good as yours, Google's or your lefty (what you call) "fact checkers."

BTW, Google is also leftist. Try Duck, Duck Go.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

My God, this is frustrating. Oh well...I guess if you're going to refuse to do your thinking, I'll have to do it for you...again.

We were discussing different factors that may cause the stats of one nation to differ from another.

By comparing one stat, deaths per population, to determine who fared better. When that didn't go your way you started in with all these yabuts, what-ifs and other speculations.  What's frustrating you is that I'm not easily distracted by that.

[Infidel Dog]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No I want to criticize the sources you use.  telling me its leftist. 

Like the National Library of Medicine, you mean?  Which was the one we were last discussing after you also - like me - quoted it.

[Infidel Dog]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

By comparing one stat, deaths per population, to determine who fared better. When that didn't go your way you started in with all these yabuts, what-ifs and other speculations.  What's frustrating you is that I'm not easily distracted by that.

Complexity and context isn't a "yeah-but." Don't whine to me about the deficiencies in your simplistic thinking.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

Like the National Library of Medicine, you mean?  Which was the one we were last discussing after you also - like me - quoted it.

No your source who quoted it. Are you trying to take credit for that or something?

[Infidel Dog]

Just now, eyeball said:

No your source who quoted it. Are you trying to take credit for that or something?

An archive gives you a list of sources. You seem to think if you diss the archive site you've dismissed the sources. You haven't. Why must I continually be pointing out these simple facts to you?

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

And maybe you'll learn to check what's in a link before thinking something you find on google that disses the source qualifies you to vilify the contents.

 I did, I told you I saw enough to draw my conclusion where your article referred to the public as the government's lab rats.

[myata]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

By comparing one stat, deaths per population, to determine who fared better.

Wow, that's simple! OK, sure better. So if we send everyone to their home, under a penalty and curfew for a month or so, it will be defeated and the casualties would be next to nothing. Just stop living for a month and the problem solved. How is this not even better solution, if judged by one stat?

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

An archive gives you a list of sources. You seem to think if you diss the archive site you've dismissed the sources. You haven't. Why must I continually be pointing out these simple facts to you?

Again I dismissed the article.  You seem to think if I provide a different article that cites a common source that means something greater than the different conclusions that were drawn from it.  

[Infidel Dog]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 I did, I told you I saw enough to draw my conclusion where your article referred to the public as the government's lab rats.

I could probably find you something that made a pretty good, fact-sourced case explaining how this - what you call a "vaccine" - is experimental but you'd rush to your leftist google to find some leftist "fact checker" who had something nasty to say about the source. Then - all dripping with smug - you'd show me the link like you'd dismissed anything that could possibly be in it - including links to sites you might link to yourself if your leftist authorities authorized it.

[Infidel Dog]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Again I dismissed the article.  You seem to think if I provide a different article that cites a common source that means something greater than the different conclusions that were drawn from it.  

There were three links. The one in your quote from me listed an archive site. The one you think you dismissed by later mentioning it contained a link to a mainstream article and a peer reviewed paper. You dismissed nothing because you were clueless about what was actually in the content. This is pretty basic. Why are you having such a problem with it?