but quinn over misreading a grammatical structure
๐ณ๐ฑ
@icedquinn It wasnt about the gramatical structure, it was about the incorrect facts it inferred (which were still incorrect once you corrected your wording).
@icedquinn Either way, your statement was incorrect.. there is no meaningful link between SAr-COV-2 and the common cold
i said the ones we know about have a lot of mutations, therefore inferred they are highly mutatable.
@icedquinn @freemo
Actually coronavirus and all RNA viruses mutate **faster** than DNA viruses.. its just that recombination isnt considered a mutation so DNA viruses **adapt** quicker without relying on mutations (as in novel genes)
what is the expectation? are they going to put everyone back in to lockdown every time a mutation is found (which there will always be one) until they can rush a new EUA and just keep people on an indefinite chain of experimental vaccines?
Two seperate topics here.. 1) the discussion around how likely and common it will be for the CV to circumvent vaccines and 2) what procedure saves the most lives when there is an outbreak.
To #1, we should be pretty good. Its always a crap shoot but even against current variants like the delta variant the vaccine efficacy is still very higher (88% - 93%). so in reality people are over reacting over it. As long as people are getting vaccinated they are pretty safe
As for #2, lockdowns were never an effective solution even before it mutated. We had contagion guidelines in place long before CV and while quarantine was a part of it, that only carried so far as to when the virus is in a isolated geographic location. All traditional advice when it comes to contagion suggests that once a virus is out into the wild that lockdowns cause greater loss of life and are not effective at reducing the total long term body count.
So considering lockdown as a viable solution has never been a good idea.
>vaccine efficacy is still very higher (88% - 93%).
post some evidence for this. hint: you don't have any.
correct the CDC and WHO's crap numbers and you'll find that the vaccine is far more dangerous than the virus itself.
Hint: I do
let me know if you need me to dig up the peer-reviewed study this article references.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vaccines-highly-effective-against-b-1-617-2-variant-after-2-doses
@meowski @icedquinn @allison
registration required... if someone is registered and wants to get me the study i'll read it with an open mind
but i'm not going to jump through any hoops to find it
thats fine, I cant change the unfortunate paywall system research uses to fund itself. But yes the evidence is there.
True but they have to pay for their overhead costs somehow. Want to see more open-access papers, push for more tax-payer funded research (which often means open-access).
Usually the people complaining about paywalls are the same people who think scientific studies should be privately funded.
well one thing we can all agree on is that publicly funded research shouldn't be behind paywalls
Aye, I'm sure a "journal" (content aggregator) has such high overhead they need to charge $30/paper on public research (that the authors will often give for free if you ask nicely)
I'm not attacking you or anything, I'm just frustrated at defense of capitalizing of free information
No worries, I didnt take it as an attack. I side with your sentiments, just pointing out studies cost money to make so someone has to pay for it somehow.
The aggregator isnt the one getting 100% of that money. They have to pay back to the journal, which has to pay its peer-reviewers, editors, and authors.
if it's anything like the other studies they're using this slimy "x% effective at reducing symptoms" measure which is basically meaningless beacuse you can still transmit the virus
if a vaccine is highly effective the infection isn't going to linger and stay latent for any significant amount of time while you pass it on to others
its not meaningless, it just serves a different purpose that transmissibility.
Being effective against symptoms means you probably wont die and getting the virus will be non consequential. If the vast majority of people are all vaccinated that means having the vaccine will significantly reduce death rates even if it doesn't reduce transmissibility.
If you want to study the vaccines ability to reduce transmissibility that is a different measure and useful in different ways. Namely, if measuring the likelihood of eradication, which would be nice, but not entirely necessary to see some level of success.
you already "probably won't die"
as i said, when you correct the numbers for the overblown PCR tests and the under-reported vaccine adverse events, the vaccines are around 10x more likely to kill you than the virus
the end. it's garbage
Can you show me the paper you wrote that demonstrates those numbers and what criticisms it has drawn from others who had a chance to review your theories?
no time for your appeals to authority. this should be plainly obvious. the paper i wrote is my fedi timeline going back the previous year. the peers are anyone who reads it
have a nice day
"appeals to authority".. nothing i just said implies any authority.. you should really learn what that means.
you're asking for something published in an academic journal. don't be obtuse
No I asked for nothing of the kind, and specifically chose my words to make that clear... I asked for a written paper, one that is open to criticism. I do not care if its published in a journal or a blog.
Exactly. you never made a clear well written case, nor did you make it public so anyone could critique it... you basically made some spitballed uneducated back of a napkin numbers that were wrong and called it a day... sorry but that has very little value if your trying to convince anyone to think you have a leg to stand on. Even if you are right you have to articulate to convince people.
i don't have to convince people like you. it's pointless
and i actually want you to get the vaccine so you won't reproduce. so it all works out
Its not about convincing people like me.. Its a question of your own character.. Are you dogmatic and stuborn and just make shit up with little rigor, dont seek out counter-opinions and integrate them... and thus never really develop a meaningful opinion on things... or... are you constantly improving your opinions and integrating new information without reliance on confirmation bias and ego...
Which of those two characters you happen to have makes all the difference.
Well I already have some data points to answer that based on how you conduct yourself in this and other threads. I also get some insight by the way you answered my question about if you did a write up.
Obviously i wont waste my time on your whole timeline but if you have specific posts you've made where you show yourself changing your mind and incorporating new opposing ideas into your own then please, by all means, share it, I will read.
there are only a few data points you need to look at
1. the 40 cycle PCR tests causing wildly overblow false positive results (~ 100x)
2. the unprecedented cause of death reporting guidance to enter "presumed covid" without even testing as cause of death
3. the fact that VAERS adverse events, according to a recent harvard study) only capture around 1% or less of actual adverse events
if you can take an honest look at these 3 factors you will come to the same inescapable conclusion
Ok, and what are the most valid criticisms against your points that you have considered so far? In what ways do you feel there is potential for you to be wrong?
So your criticism of your theory is that you might actually be too correct, and doubt yourself too much and your theory is in fact even more correct than you thought.
Ok.. I think that answers my question regarding your character in considering your own mistakes or incorporating contrary ideas to your own. Thanks.
Jesus Christ meowski are you conceited enough yet?
*that publishers force on anyone trying to do anything useful