ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Don't underestimate the lack of intellect with trolls. They're generally not very bright...
And this was why I knew earlier that he's retarded. You two are peas in a pod. Retarded peas in a retarded pod.
Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare
- Thread starter chair
- Start date
And this was why I knew earlier that he's retarded. You two are peas in a pod. Retarded peas in a retarded pod.
Lon
Well-known member
If they have bunnies or pineapples all over them? :think: Well, maybe not the pineapples, but the bunnies would just draw too much proximity. Especially the baby ones.
i got my stats from that very page. I guess you didn't read it as thoroughly as you think you did. Or you don't understand the data as well as you think you do. There is a column on that page that lists deaths per million population. The US is 465/million. Then just search the page for the countries I listed. Use ctrl-f and you'll get a search box at the bottom of your browser. Type the name of the country and it will take you directly to it.
It isn't the hijabs that accounts for the difference in numbers. There are studies on both sides of the mask issue. Some say they do, some say they don't. It is far from a conclusive fact that masks actually help. And, Sweden has not implemented a lock down and their death rate/million is lower than England's, Italy's and Spain's. So the idea that masks and lockdowns actually work is far less than convincing. These are not foregone conclusions no matter what the corrupt the press and politicians tell you. The facts tell another story.
It's easy to cherry-pick countries to try and prove a point. How are Iran and Iraq doing with the virus? Do the numbers from poor countries mean anything? Does anybody really know what is happening in India? Should we compare Sweden to England Italy and Spain (clearly chosen for being the worst-off in Europe- or to Denmark or Norway?
expos4ever
Well-known member
Red ball cap?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
You've been lied to, but here's the truth: There isn't a cure for COVID but there are good treatments. Masks don't help much. Herd immunity is the best option and the first stage of herd immunity has been met in NY and Sweden.
There will be a second stage come fall, but it will be better than what already happened.
NY tried using the crisis to make political gains, so the politicians there hurt a lot of people, particularly old people because they were the ones that ended up dead, but also the young because they are the ones taking the abuse of lockdowns and forced muzzling. The economic deaths carried by the second group will be greater, over time, than COVID. But since the plan worked, the political gains were made, and they are political gains you like, you don't care about those people.
Sweden stayed opened. They welcomed treatments that worked. So even if the sickness got into their aged population (even with full masking), their rate of death wasn't as bad as NY. And not only is their economy not in ruins, but the people are confident they have beaten the first stage of the sickness because they have.
So the correct analogy is this: whenever you walk outside there have been, in all of recorded history, bullets that randomly ricochet off you. Sometimes there are a lot of bullets flying around, and sometimes there are few. But muzzles that supposedly don't let these bullets ricochet off you don't work well. And the muzzles hurt in other ways so the net gain is zero. But the most important part of the analogy is that once a bullet hits you, it can't hit you again if you survive it which over 99 percent do... so in a way, getting hit isn't as bad as you made in your analogy. Especially since over 99 percent of people that get hit by these bullets don't die (they rarely even get hurt) because treatments for those bullets are available. And if you don't want to get hit by these bullets, there are things you can do to avoid it.
See the difference? You're not the originator of these bullets, they ricochet off you like everyone else. I'm not personally responsible nor are you, in general, for shooting them. Unlike real bullets, these can't hit me twice. Unlike real bullets, when I get hit I, over 99 percent chance, will not die. In fact, I won't even get hurt unlike real bullets over 99 percent of the time.
Sure, there are vaccines which if you really are worried will stop bullets from ricocheting off you... maybe. And I would encourage people at high risk to get it. But it comes with it's own risks and in my demographic those risks out-weigh doing nothing but the normal avoidence measures like washing hands and staying away from sick people. But remember that vaccines for Corona virii have been worked on for decades and you think in a few months this one can be conquered? I'm sure that's what your political leaders want to tell you. Especially since the results cannot be verified by you... it's a snake oil salesman's dream sickness. And it's a good way for your side to point to an invisible threat in order to lord it over the rest of us.
BTW, at least have you been disabused of the notion that forcing people out of shops, travel, and work if they don't get a vaccine is, in fact, forcing people?
Lon
Well-known member
Oddly, that is what I always think about you. Why you challenge when your math isn't up to scratch all the time is odd. Then challenge mine? I've been an Algebra teacher and my masters carried statistics (no easy class). You are playing at it and it shows.
That's fine, just realize that per 1000 is the death rate.
See, you posture right out of the gates on discussion when you can be very reasonable in discussion. Just saying this would have been welcomed. It is what I was asking for and I appreciate the input this last paragraph.
Right. I posture and use logical fallacies all the time. Right? My math was correct. Just because I look at the overall death rate in the population or per million rather than per 1000 I'm wrong. Baloney. If that was true no one would give stats such as deaths per million of population. And the real death rate in a country is the total deaths per the total population. That's the percentage of the population that dies. It's a valid way to look at the numbers. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it invalid. If it was invalid no stat page would list the total population.
The scientists who run the numbers disagree with you. Multiple researchers place the death rate from coronavirus at a lot less than 1%. Thus they are looking at the total deaths per total estimated infections. That's a completely different number as the number of asymptomatic infections cannot be known by the simple fact that they cannot be identified. This means your percentage of deaths is flat out wrong. You're basing it on numbers you cannot know. Thus running the deaths per million or per entire population is the only way to get a true grasp of the situation.
Lon
Well-known member
Why even bring up the death rate? Without comparing it to last year, etc. it has no bearing on Coronavirus discussion. [/QUOTE]
Does it mean you present logic fallacies? Why do you carry these chips on your shoulders. We disagreed on a different topic over Jewish celebrations, does that one HAVE to crossover to every thread we ever participate in? I've given you due, when you are right but statistics aren't your strength.
:sigh: On what?
And? I'm not even sure you talk about the same subjects other people are talking about.
Er, no. Are you just arguing to be arguing? ????
Go back:
Note a couple of things with me: 1) the number I gave is from 'those who are infected.' As far as the whole population, you are likely correct, but you need to communicate those numbers for one, for another, you need to show how such is involved in coronavirus discussion where 'infected' is the number, not the population at large. I'm not sure why you want to talk about the death rate among people that do not even have the virus (death rate of each nation). It doesn't make sense. If it matters, explain why and also why you introduce such (at least for now seemingly) unrelated statistics.
2) All you needed to do was talk about Burkas. I was simply asking a question. Why do you want to show your arguing prowess over material nobody is arguing? :idunno:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
LOL
To whom (say you) has it been demonstrated? Of course YOU would say that it has been demonstrated TO YOU. But, really, think about it: what's saying that worth to anybody outside of yourself? That's right: it's worthless, beyond whatever (if anything) you feel you get out of saying so. For, since I know that what you said is false, in fact, it could not possibly be the case that it has been demonstrated TO ME that what you said is "true, in fact".
Where did I criticize you "for using offensive language"? That's right: I never did, Professor. Try to quote exactly what I said, in which, as you imagine, I called something you had written, "offensive", or "offensive language". Have fun with that.
LOL
You must've "argued" it all out inside your own head, eh? Of course, you've supplied nothing resembling an argument, here, on TOL.
I go off of what you write on TOL. Since you write in opposition to God, truth, logic, and mankind, why would I not observe that you are an enemy of God, truth, logic, and mankind?
Since I think you are an enemy of God, an enemy of truth, an enemy of logic, and an enemy of mankind, why should I not say that you are? Do you wish me to not say things I think? Do you wish me to say things I do not think? Do you wish me to say things contrary to what I think? Is that how you operate? Do you avoid saying things you think? Do you say things you do not think? Do you say things contrary to what you think?
Would you say that, though I think you are an enemy of God, I should not say so? And, that I should say, instead, that you are not an enemy of God, though I think that you are an enemy of God?
Like this: My "behavior"--my having written what I chose to write--is/was not hypocritical.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I agree. Unfortunately, that sort of thinking/doing is somewhat rare, nowadays, I would imagine.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
"a motivation to blame the Chinese"?
Which did you mean?
- "a motivation to blame ALL the Chinese"
- "a motivation to blame SOME, BUT NOT ALL the Chinese"
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Don't underestimate the lack of intellect with trolls. They're generally not very bright...
That's the brightest thing you've ever said, troll!
You said Muslim countries were not fairing well. I disputed that assertion. I guess you think I should just accept any assertion you make as fact. I'm just really sure that's what you do in debating a subject.
Sorry. That isn't acceptable.
Worldometer doesn't agree with you either as they list deaths per total population and deaths per million population. Nowhere do they list deaths, or even cases per thousand. So you're going to have to explain why what is probably the number 1 coronavirus statistical site on the internet gives no breakdown of cases or deaths per 1000. You just want it that way even though nobody else does it that way.
Read up on what Dr. John Ionnides has to say about the number of cases. He says the total number of cases is between 50 and 85 times greater than the number of diagnosed cases. He figured that out by doing antibody testing of the general public in California. He flat out states that the death rate is no where near your estimates.
Here is an excerpt of an interview with him.
Up to 300 Million People May Be Infected by Covid-19, Stanford Guru John Ioannidis Says
By
Patricia Claus-
Jun 27, 2020
Leading epidemiologist Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University estimates that about 150-300 million or more people have already been infected by COVID-19 around the world, far more than the 10 million documented cases.
In an interview with Greek Reporter, the Greek American scientist warns, however, that the draconian lockdowns imposed in many countries may have the opposite effect of what was intended. “Globally, the lockdown measures have increased the number of people at risk of starvation to 1.1 billion, and they are putting at risk millions of lives,” he says.
It was just three months ago, soon after the onset of the coronavirus outbreak in the US, when Dr. Ioannidis wrote an article for the journal STAT excoriating the US and other countries for not conducting enough testing, and deploring how little real evidence there was of true infection rates, which he feared might soar and create widespread societal unrest.
Now, after the world has experienced approximately 490,000 deaths from the virus, Greek Reporter contacted Dr. Ioannidis to ask the professor for his opinion on several points he made in his March 17th article, and what he has observed in the fight against the virus as it has progressed around the globe.
Greek Reporter: You stated at that time, when everything seemed so very uncertain, that the evidence at that point for the number of actual infections was “utterly unreliable” and that the “vast majority” of infections were being missed. How do you think the US and other countries have progressed since then in pinning down the actual numbers of those suffering from the virus? You had said at that time “no countries have reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative, random sample of the general population.” Do you still believe that is true? Which countries have performed the best in this regard?
Dr. Ioannidis: We have learned a lot within a short period of time about the prevalence of the infection worldwide. There are already more than 50 studies that have presented results on how many people in different countries and locations have developed antibodies to the virus. These numbers are anywhere between 5 times (e.g. Gangelt in Germany) and 600 times (e.g. Japan) more compared to the documented cases, depending on whether a lot or limited testing was already performed in different locations. We know that the prevalence of the infection varies tremendously across countries, but also within countries, within states, and even within population groups in the same location. COVID-19 attacks some disadvantaged and deprived communities (harder), and disadvantage and deprivation means different things in different countries. Of course none of these studies are perfect, but cumulatively they provide useful composite evidence. A very crude estimate might suggest that about 150-300 million or more people have already been infected around the world, far more than the 10 million documented cases. It could even be substantially larger, if antibodies do not develop in a large share of people who get through the infection without symptoms or sparse symptoms.
Here is a link to the rest of the transcript. https://usa.greekreporter.com/2020/0...oannidis-says/
And here is a video of an interview with Ionnidis on the pandemic.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Well, you're the one who volunteered that "they don't wear their hijab 24 hours a day". What, then, were you trying to suggest by saying that "they don't wear their hijab 24 hours a day"?
("and for most denominations": What? You mean not for allah them?)
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
What (if anything) do you mean by "science"?
You cherish your word, "science", right? I mean, you wouldn't want to be with out it, as your slogan, in your war to advance your Nazi leftard cause. You feel it's the name of something of the utmost foundational priority to your worldview, no? Your chant boils down to something along the lines of, "I'm with science! You're not, idiot!" But, of course, when you can't really talk self-coherently in an attempt to, in the first place, say what you imagine you mean by your slogan word, "science", why then, your "I'm a friend of science!" and "You're anti-science!" slogans amount to nada--to mere displays of emotion, or pep talks to yourself, and to your fellow Nazi leftards.
So, let's get to the bottom of exactly what (if anything) you imagine you mean by your slogan word, "science". Get to it, poser. Believe me, I look forward to working against you, and watching how swiftly you'll find you've exhausted your quiver of meaningless, groupthink slogans--to no avail but your own chagrin.
Let's see, now, if you consider it your responsibility to try to defend your slogan-parroting of the word, "science", against the logical criticism and the ridicule that it richly deserves.
Lon
Well-known member
All in your own head. Whatever 'fairing well' means you should have asked. I've heard Iran, on point, wasn't fairing well, for instance. THEN I asked a question. Get off your horse.
:nono: World meter doesn't disagree with me. YOU disagree with me. For what??!! For 'not fairing well' unqualified. Who cares? You apparently. You don't even know what "fairing well" means because you didn't ask. Whatever 'fairing well' means, I simply asked, in light of it, what was and wasn't working. You? WANT SO BADLY to pounce on something, like a terrible kittten pouncing a dust bunny. "Fair well" is a dust bunny. Congratulations, you killed it. There you go.