Jump to content

Emergency Act commission


myata

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You're saying after almost 150 years as one of the most respected scientific publications on the planet they couldn't ensure an article on a well known phenomenon was correct? Okay let's see what others have to say.

https://www.google.com/search?q=base+rate+fallacy+vaccine&rlz=1CAUBRP_enCA1026&sxsrf=ALiCzsahxnEuLzQcFazXgdnN-KR7hCZARA%3A1669689325718&ei=7W-FY6vDK5DL0PEPs4O_4AQ&ved=0ahUKEwjr7ZO5rdL7AhWQJTQIHbPBD0wQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=base+rate+fallacy+vaccine&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIFCAAQgAQyBggAEBYQHjIFCAAQhgM6CggAEEcQ1gQQsAM6BQgAEKIEOgoIABCABBCxAxANOgcIABCABBANOggIABCABBCxAzoICAAQFhAeEA86BwghEKABEApKBAhBGABKBAhGGABQ2g5Yh_sBYMv-AWgJcAF4AIABhQGIAcUfkgEFMTguMjGYAQCgAQHIAQfAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Right from the get go above starts with

 

This next explanation of what this fallacy means fits WasteCanMan to a tee;

 

It goes on and on.  So while figuring out yourself what a base rate fallacy is, especially as it relates to vaccines, feel free to fInd anything in here or anywhere else that conflicts with what Scientific American said it means.

I'll say right now that if whatever you come up with is alongside links to evidence of a flat Earth or protection from chemtrails that'll be our first clue that you're probably on LSD or something.

I don't have anything against Scientific American, I'm just saying I don't get my scientific information there, or from CTV headlines.  I get it from the actual scientists doing the research and studies and prefer to read the data.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I don't have anything against Scientific American, I'm just saying I don't get my scientific information there, or from CTV headlines.  I get it from the actual scientists doing the research and studies and prefer to read the data.

WCM certainly isn't the first one to ignore the fallacy in fact it looks like a fairly common denier/refuser tactic so surely by now actual scientists doing the research and studies and who prefer to read the data have come up with several papers on why the fallacy doesn't apply here.

Do you have any?

I'm assuming you agree with WCM it doesn't mean a thing here.

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

In settings where the majority of people are vaccinated, it may be true that there is an equal number of people, or even a greater number of people, who are vaccinated and become infected. Thinking that this means vaccines are ineffective is an example of a base rate fallacy or base rate bias. 

I'm going to go with common sense here and the definition of "vaccine" that was accepted for 100 years before it was changed to accommodate the shitty covid vaccine and say that if large numbers of people get vaccinated against an illness 4-5 times in a year and half and then get infected and hospitalized and die from the illness the vaccine supposedly protected them against......THAT means the vaccine is not effective.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada not ready to approach such issues rationally, responsibly and reasonably. There's no intelligence, no will and no mechanisms. Just out of its depth, clearly. China has zero Covid policy and look. 17th century colonial system repainted as a democracy was not made and cannot solve modern issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I can't even picture you as an adult. 

I can't even picture you picturing me ... why would you do that??

You don't agree or even like anything I say yet you try so hard.

Seems you are the child having a hissy fit every time I post about your BS.  Put me on ignore and move on LOL

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

You also know what Scientific American said. You're putting them in the same league as CNN? Seriously?

I know what the stats for our entire country said. What's more relevant to us, here in Canada, than that?

Why do I care about one article from a guy whom I have no reason to trust? 

I know for an absolute fact that 85.7% of covid deaths here in Canada are among the multi-vaxed nowadays, and that covid deaths didn't drop one iota here after the 'vax' rollout. That's what the vax did for us and it's the exact opposite of what we were promised.

Furthermore, the people who try the hardest to polish the Pfizer pig are the same people who were caught lying about everything else covid-related. "There's probably no H2H transmission, it's racist to ban flights from China, it definitely came from someone eating a bat in a wetmarket, it's absolutely batshit crazy to say that it might have come from a lab, there was no gain-of-function research done on the C19 virus in the Wuhan lab - they just made it more contagious among humans, HCQ kills people and turns them blind, Trump just wants to sell HCQ to turn a profit, the vaxes will be safe and effective, you can't get infected, you can't spread covid, it's so good that you should force people to take it even if they don't want it...."

^^All of those things in the paragraph above^^ are known to be complete disinformation now. I defy you to read through that again and find me a single example of something from there that wasn't stated emphatically and/or one thing that isn't now known to be 100% false.

Also remember that while they were telling you all of those lies, they were also saying that "everything that you hear from right-wing sources is rife with lies and disinformation, block it all out or you're an idjit" and were the RW sources wrong? Was H2H happening? Was The WHO catastrophically wrong? Was giving all of our N95 masks to China at the same time as we were allowing people from Wuhan to fly here and walk around in our tightly packed public places colossally stupid? Did the virus come from a lab? Was there G-O-F research done on it? Was blocking non-Americans from flying in from China reasonable? Etc, etc. 

You can still trust CTV all you want, you can even believe that giving all of our N95 masks to China at the same time as we were allowing people from Wuhan to fly here and walk around in our tightly packed public places was brilliant, whatever. I really don't care because there's no reasoning with you.

I'll just always call you out and expose your level of credibility/intelligence when you pipe up.

For everyone else who's capable of thinking for themselves, if you had a crystal ball, and you knew back in Dec of 2020 what the stats would look today, would you 'vax'-up? Would you be ok with forcing other people to take the jab? Or would you have looked for a better/different course of action?

We're like frogs who were told that we were in hot water, but we didn't notice it was that hot, so some of us let some snake-oil salesmen pee in our ponds anyways because we were promised it would cool the water. Now we're told that the pissed-in water is way cooler, but the thermometer says that nothing has changed at all. The explanation/pretzelation they're giving you is that the water would have gotten way warmer if they didn't pee in your pool and you want to believe them. Good for you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

In settings where the majority of people are vaccinated, it may be true that there is an equal number of people, or even a greater number of people, who are vaccinated and become infected. Thinking that this means vaccines are ineffective is an example of a base rate fallacy or base rate bias. 

They'd be correct that it was a base rate fallacy if there were 85% of us vaccinated and only 60% of covid deaths came from the vaxed. 

Any fool could see that the people were doing better with the vax in that scenario, just not by a lot. 

Buuuuuuut...... it's 84.3% of eligible Canadians vaxed here and 85.7% of the covid deaths are among the vaxed. They're "punching above their weight", and Health Canada told us we all needed to vax, so this comp is on their terms. 

In short, you're correct to say that "base rate fallacy" is a real miscalculation that people make, but it does not apply here because vaxed people are dying a bit above their percentage of the population. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Goddess said:

I'm going to go with common sense here and the definition of "vaccine" that was accepted for 100 years before it was changed to accommodate the shitty covid vaccine and say that if large numbers of people get vaccinated against an illness 4-5 times in a year and half and then get infected and hospitalized and die from the illness the vaccine supposedly protected them against......THAT means the vaccine is not effective.

I suppose if you're willing to overlook that you're still 4 times likelier to die if you're unvaccinated and get sick.  Maybe someone changed the definition of dead as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

I know what the stats for our entire country said. What's more relevant to us, here in Canada, than that?

Why do I care about one article from a guy whom I have no reason to trust? 

Because it was vetted and printed by a highly respected science publication.

 

Quote

I know for an absolute fact that 85.7% of covid deaths here in Canada are among the multi-vaxed nowadays, and that covid deaths didn't drop one iota here after the 'vax' rollout.

No you really don't know that at all and if you'd carefully and without malice and jumping 20' in the air read the Scientific American article or any other publication on the topic of base rate fallacy you might understand why. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

In short, you're correct to say that "base rate fallacy" is a real miscalculation that people make, but it does not apply here because vaxed people are dying a bit above their percentage of the population. 

Only according to you though.  I've not found anything anywhere from any reputable source that explains why the fallacy doesn't apply here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

1. Because it was vetted and printed by a highly respected science publication.

2. No you really don't know that at all and if you'd carefully and without malice and jumping 20' in the air read the Scientific American article or any other publication on the topic of base rate fallacy you might understand why. 

1. Careful though, it's only respected by *reasonable, *intelligent, *sane people... ie. those who are "in on it" and those who DON'T believe science = SCHMIENCE

2. You are basically asking a cat to become a dog, or in other words for someone to change their religion.  If they don't believe that big-heads with glasses and suits might be working openly and honestly, no publication with the word "Scientific" in the title will convince them.

But... keep popping bubble wrap and indulging your boredom.  I do it too, and feeding the trolls is as much fun as feeding squirrels so don't mind me...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. You are basically asking a cat to become a dog, or in other words for someone to change their religion.  If they don't believe that big-heads with glasses and suits might be working openly and honestly, no publication with the word "Scientific" in the title will convince them.

But... keep popping bubble wrap and indulging your boredom.  I do it too, and feeding the trolls is as much fun as feeding squirrels so don't mind me...

Well, don't look now but this seems like a pretty massive back-peddle to me.

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

In short, you're correct to say that "base rate fallacy" is a real miscalculation that people make

I'm pretty sure this is the very first thing I've ever said here that hasn't been dismissed as a lie.

It's like a paradigm shift.

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

No you really don't know that at all and if you'd carefully and without malice and jumping 20' in the air read the Scientific American article or any other publication on the topic of base rate fallacy you might understand why. 

Yes, I absolutely do know that, Health Canada's stats say so.

If you're too dumb to do the basic arithmetic then maybe you shouldn't chime in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Only according to you though.  I've not found anything anywhere from any reputable source that explains why the fallacy doesn't apply here.

It is basic math, right from Health Canada's website. Are you saying that health Canada isn't a reputable source? Are you saying that you can't do subtraction with 4-digit numbers, and one simple division calculation on your phone?

I could do this stuff when I was in grade 3 dude, no joke. 

You're not making your case, you're admitting to being dumber than an 8 yr old. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Well, don't look now but this seems like a pretty massive back-peddle to me.

I'm pretty sure this is the very first thing I've ever said here that hasn't been dismissed as a lie.

It's like a paradigm shift.

That's just your confirmation bias speaking eyeball.

I said that the big word you used is real, it has an actual meaning, you just used it incorrectly. 

Teacher: "2 + 2 = 4"

eyeball: "THAT'S A BASE RATE FALLACY!"

Teacher: "Not really, but I'll give you half marks for using an actual mathematical term." (Just so that you can pass, I don't want you in my grade 2 class for the 11th time)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a wild thread. I've been busy with the other Libbies, including a new Crack ho, on another rather pedantic thread but, I must say, it's obvious now that the argument for taking this sirum has eroded quite a bit. The goal posts have moved right out of the stadium. 

The jab does not prevent anyone from getting The Rona. Jabbed folks are getting it and dying. 

So now the main argument is that a jabbed person is less likely to die. 

Bottom line...this "vaccine" is a flop. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2022 at 9:55 PM, eyeball said:

This next explanation of what this fallacy means fits WasteCanMan to a tee;

A typical diversion of legitimate questions and concerns. The question was, to remind: was / is forced or clearly coerced administration of the treatments justified by the actual, factual situation, not its interpretation in some minds?

That is a tall threshold. It requires high level of confidence on several points simultaneously:

1. The event causes clear and extreme danger to the whole society.

2. The treatment confidently and demonstrably protects against the condition, both the recipient and from the spread.

3. There are no other, less intrusive options.

None were proven confidently, forget all together. This irresponsible use of authority based on shady science is  a concerning and potentially dangerous direction. Countries did not have mandates and they did just as well. Panicked bureaucratic overreacting is no alternative for reason, quality and efficiency.

Edited by myata
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Goddess said:

haha.thumb.jpg.2cb76bc702032ba2b85e0348b98f03fa.jpg

The opinion of the people that were there?

Probably has more validity than from the opinions of the folks on here that were thousands of miles away.

Then again, with all the whining from the folks on this forum, maybe it is their opinion of what it was like there? Police brutality, beatings, gas attacks, etc etc :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The investigation is over with the predictable results. Trudeau and his band of trolls now know that they're completely 'un-touchable' . . . . free rein granted, carry on with impunity.

The precedent has been set for future Emergency Act 'emergencies' . . . . such as parking violations, littering, or even openly questioning this appalling federal government on their behavior and their propensity to deceive.

Carry on Justin, make Hardner, ExFlyer, Queenie85, and their ilk happy . . . . . and remember Justin, Canada loves you.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nefarious Banana said:

The investigation is over with the predictable results. Trudeau and his band of trolls now know that they're completely 'un-touchable' . . . . free rein granted, carry on with impunity.

The precedent has been set for future Emergency Act 'emergencies' . . . . such as parking violations, littering, or even openly questioning this appalling federal government on their behavior and their propensity to deceive.

Carry on Justin, make Hardner, ExFlyer, Queenie85, and their ilk happy . . . . . and remember Justin, Canada loves you.

The commission is not quite over. There are still reports to be presented but not any more witnesses to be questioned.

The Commissioner then has to sort out all the material and present a report.

I actually suspect that the report will not look good for the government. I am not sure if it will admonish the government but i think it may state that the enactment of the EMA was premature or not needed at all (as I have said before).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I actually suspect that the report will not look good for the government. I am not sure if it will admonish the government but i think it may state that the enactment of the EMA was premature or not needed at all (as I have said before).

We needed a commission to state the government handled things incompetently?

Okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, eyeball said:

We needed a commission to state the government handled things incompetently?

Okay.

When the EMA was enacted, by law, a commission was required.

Okay??  But hey, you knew that legal requirement??

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,752
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Dorai
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...