Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
All Covid-19 measures are permanent, don't be a boiling frog!
Options
Comments
-
Mr. Karate wrote: »We have been sacrificing all year to prevent something that never happened [the ERs overcrowding].
So the measures were followed enough to prevent it from happening, but because it didn't happen, following the measures weren't worth it?
0 -
-
-
Thank you
So you agree the virus is spread by droplets and aerosols from people's mouths.
1. Taking that in account someone is wearing a mask, does it reduce the number of droplets/aerosols spread from someone's mouth, yes or no?
Following question:
2. Considering you believe that the virus spreads from aerosols and droplets from people's mouths, if there is a room with 100 people wearing masks, and another room with of 100 people not wearing masks. There are 10 infected people in each room, which room is it more likely that the virus will spread via aerosols and droplets?
a) the room with people who are not wearing masks
or
b) the room with people are wearing masks
Please no caveats or tangents, just answer a) or b). It's extremely difficult to get straight answers on this forum (for a reason), so you are doing very well so far.
There is also the little fact that having a mask on makes people touch their faces many times more than they would without a mask on. That contributes to the spreading of the virus too. I do not know anyone who would wash or sanitize their hands every time they touch their face or mask to adjust it or scratch or so on...
This mask obsession deserves a couple of conspiracy theories of its own. Like this one - perhaps staunchest mandatory mask followers are people who think they are ugly so they love to have masks on so nobody can see their faces no more?0 -
Yes. Because standards of evidence and research have improved as well as oversight and regulations. And on top of that knowledge has simply increased along with an increase in recognising patients rights and wellbeing.Thanks. So that majority of doctors were wrong, but this majority isn't. Got it.
According to you we should always listen to the minority be it when they say the Earth is flat or "mental illness is caused by demons, the cure is to drill a hole in their head to let the demons out."0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes. Because standards of evidence and research have improved as well as oversight and regulations. And on top of that knowledge has simply increased along with an increase in recognising patients rights and wellbeing.
According to you we should always listen to the minority be it when they say the Earth is flat or "mental illness is caused by demons, the cure is to drill a hole in their head to let the demons out."
My impression was that you agreed with them on the grounds that they represent the majority. So I was wondering how one majority at a certain time in human history could be wrong, but another majority at another point in human history right. I don't find it very logical. If a person agrees with the majority of doctors because they are the majority of doctors then shouldn't the person agree with the majority of doctors in any and every era?0 -
Which is a lazy misrepresentation on your part.My impression was that you agreed with them on the grounds that they represent the majority.
And this has been explained to you in my previous post.So I was wondering how one majority at a certain time in human history could be wrong, but another majority at another point in human history right.
Again you believe it is logical that there is A giant global conspiracy to fake a virus and a pandemic so the government can forcefully implant people with a big antenna sticking out of their head and make them into cyborgs.I don't find it very logical. If a person agrees with the majority of doctors because they are the majority of doctors then shouldn't the person agree with the majority of doctors in any and every era?
You don't have a very good grasp of logic.0 -
Which is a lazy misrepresentation on your part.
And this has been explained to you in my previous post.
Again you believe it is logical that there is A giant global conspiracy to fake a virus and a pandemic so the government can forcefully implant people with a big antenna sticking out of their head and make them into cyborgs.
You don't have a very good grasp of logic.
But I asked you if at that time you would've agreed with the majority. Not as a man of the 21st century finding himself in that era. So advances in ethics, standards etc are irrelevant because the question was about what you would believe as a man of that era at that point in human history.
When did I say anything about implanting a giant antenna in people's heads? I mentioned Schwab saying it (cue another 'you're too lazy to read the book').0 -
But I asked you if at that time you would've agreed with the majority. Not as a man of the 21st century finding himself in that era. So advances in ethics, standards etc are irrelevant because the question was about what you would believe as a man of that era at that point in human history.
When did I say anything about implanting a giant antenna in people's heads? I mentioned Schwab saying it (cue another 'you're too lazy to read the book').
The general public back then wouldn't have a clue and would generally be very distrustful of doctors as they were uneducated and superstitious. It's not comparable. We have more information available now to the general public than we have ever had at any time in our history.0 -
But I am a guy who lives in the 21st century. I can't time travel so I can't say what I would have believed in a place and time I did not exist.But I asked you if at that time you would've agreed with the majority. Not as a man of the 21st century finding himself in that era.
Chances are I would have died of a disease preventable by proper hygiene and/or vaccination.
But they are relevant as we do live in the 21st century where these advances have taken place.So advances in ethics, standards etc are irrelevant because the question was about what you would believe as a man of that era at that point in human history.
You did claim this when you pointed to an example of a cyborg that you were afraid of becoming. And when I asked you if you believed this was the goal of the conspiracy you believe you confirmed it.When did I say anything about implanting a giant antenna in people's heads? I mentioned Schwab saying it (cue another 'you're too lazy to read the book').
If that's not what you believe you could explain you position. But this would be a radical change in form for you.
And yes, you are too lazy to read the book and this robs you of a good deal of credibility.0 -
Advertisement
-
And notice how they keep ignoring their own "rules", thereby showing how little they think of them. Birx in the US is the latest one. Also the Governor of California, the Governor of New Jersey, Neil Ferguson, Dominic Cummings. There are others as well. But we're expected to obey.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9080743/Nicola-Sturgeon-apologises-spotted-pub-without-wearing-face-mask.html
Another hypocrite. What a surprise.
And yet so many people still believe this crap.0 -
runawaybishop wrote: »The general public back then wouldn't have a clue and would generally be very distrustful of doctors as they were uneducated and superstitious. It's not comparable. We have more information available now to the general public than we have ever had at any time in our history.
But I'm poking holes in the majority argument. I keep being told that the majority of doctors and scientists think x about covid and that because they are in the majority the doctors and scientists who think y are to be dismissed because they think y. But the exact same could be said of the majority of doctors who believed lobotomies were okay vs doctors who believed they weren't okay. How is the principle different?0 -
But I am a guy who lives in the 21st century. I can't time travel so I can't say what I would have believed in a place and time I did not exist.
Chances are I would have died of a disease preventable by proper hygiene and/or vaccination.
But they are relevant as we do live in the 21st century where these advances have taken place.
You did claim this when you pointed to an example of a cyborg that you were afraid of becoming. And when I asked you if you believed this was the goal of the conspiracy you believe you confirmed it.
If that's not what you believe you could explain you position. But this would be a radical change in form for you.
And yes, you are too lazy to read the book and this robs you of a good deal of credibility.
You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I clearly don't mean that you go back in time as a man from the 21st century and drawing on all that we know now in terms of ethics and how awful lobotomies were decide that you would've been against the majority of doctors. I'm asking you to imagine yourself as a man of that era who understood the world according to the culture and society of the time. But you say you would've been against the majority of doctors at that time, but dismiss the minority of doctors and scientists today who go against the majority you support re covid. Your rationale for doing so is that it is the majority that is saying x about covid and that because it is the majority it must be right. So the covid majority is right, but the majorities who believed the wrong things were wrong. And there have been loads of examples throughout history of the majority of doctors, scientists and psychiatrists believing things that would horrify us today.
I quoted Schwab talking about human beings becoming cyborgs in the future and how humans would become a subspecies. I said it frightened me, as it should most people.
For the hundredth time, I've ordered the book and will read it when it comes. And I've read excerpts from the book, articles about it (you'll call them conspiracy articles, no doubt, without knowing what the articles are). What will it do for you to acknowledge that Schwab, based on his horrific views on humanity and technology, is a madman?0 -
But I'm poking holes in the majority argument. I keep being told that the majority of doctors and scientists think x about covid and that because they are in the majority the doctors and scientists who think y are to be dismissed because they think y. But the exact same could be said of the majority of doctors who believed lobotomies were okay vs doctors who believed they weren't okay. How is the principle different?
The principle is different as you are comparing apples and oranges.
We as a race know more now, science has advanced, we have more studies which you have been linked to and refuse to either read or believe.
Instead you believe faked graphs in tweets that you don't question just blindly follow.0 -
EyesClosed wrote: »The principle is different as you are comparing apples and oranges.
We as a race know more now, science has advanced, we have more studies which you have been linked to and refuse to either read or believe.
Instead you believe faked graphs in tweets that you don't question just blindly follow.
How am I comparing apples and oranges? I'm comparing the majority of doctors believing x in a particular era with the majority of doctors believing x in this era. People have told me that the majority of scientists and doctors today believe x re covid and that because it is the majority the minority that believes y, such as the doctors and scientists behind the Great Barrington Declaration, is to be dismissed. So I'm absolutely comparing apples and apples. I'm comparing a majority of doctors in one era believing x with the majority of doctors of this era believing x. I'm comparing the principle of the majority always being right, which is what is being argued today re covid, but argued against re lobotomies.0 -
How am I comparing apples and oranges? I'm comparing the majority of doctors believing x in a particular era with the majority of doctors believing x in this era. People have told me that the majority of scientists and doctors today believe x re covid and that because it is the majority the minority that believes y, such as the doctors and scientists behind the Great Barrington Declaration, is to be dismissed. So I'm absolutely comparing apples and apples. I'm comparing a majority of doctors in one era believing x with the majority of doctors of this era believing x. I'm comparing the principle of the majority always being right, which is what is being argued today re covid, but argued against re lobotomies.
No you are making a stupid comparison. You can't possibly compare today's science with science of a hundred years ago... How do you think that holds up?
That's like saying I refuse to get on a plane cause two hundred years ago we didn't have planes. Or I refuse to use the Internet cause a hundred years ago it didn't exist.
Do you refuse to use the Internet and planes? Do you see how silly your comparison sounds now?0 -
EyesClosed wrote: »No you are making a stupid comparison. You can't possibly compare today's science with science of a hundred years ago... How do you think that holds up?
That's like saying I refuse to get on a plane cause two hundred years ago we didn't have planes. Or I refuse to use the Internet cause a hundred years ago it didn't exist.
Do you refuse to use the Internet and planes? Do you see how silly your comparison sounds now?
Okay, let me clarify, and I don't wish to be patronising or condescending, but the comparison I'm making is being misunderstood, so it's important to clarify the comparison I'm making:
1. I'm not comparing today's science with the sciene of hundred years ago. Absolutely not.
2. I am comparing believing the majority of doctors today who believe x re covid with people of a particular era believing the majority of doctors who believed lobotomies were okay. I have lost count of the number of times people have said to me "well, the majority of doctors and scientists believe this about covid, so I believe them because they are the majority". The point I'm trying to make is that believing what the majority believes isn't always a good idea. The majority of doctors believed that lobotomies were okay. The majority of psychiatrists once believed that homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder.
So I am not comparing today's science with yesterday's science. I am arguing against believing the majority simply because it is the majority. The majority can be wrong, as history has shown. I realise the comparison is extreme, i.e. lobotomies vs covid, but I'm not comparing lobotomies and covid. I am simply saying that the majority can be wrong, and that the minority that believes y should not be dismissed simply because they are not the majority.0 -
Okay, let me clarify, and I don't wish to be patronising or condescending, but the comparison I'm making is being misunderstood, so it's important to clarify the comparison I'm making:
1. I'm not comparing today's science with the sciene of hundred years ago. Absolutely not.
2. I am comparing believing the majority of doctors today who believe x re covid with people of a particular era believing the majority of doctors who believed lobotomies were okay. I have lost count of the number of times people have said to me "well, the majority of doctors and scientists believe this about covid, so I believe them because they are the majority". The point I'm trying to make is that believing what the majority believes isn't always a good idea. The majority of doctors believed that lobotomies were okay. The majority of psychiatrists once believed that homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder.
So I am not comparing today's science with yesterday's science. I am arguing against believing the majority simply because it is the majority. The majority can be wrong, as history has shown. I realise the comparison is extreme, i.e. lobotomies vs covid, but I'm not comparing lobotomies and covid. I am simply saying that the majority can be wrong, and that the minority that believes y should not be dismissed simply because they are not the majority.
OK grand... But we are not believing the majority just cause. We are listening to the facts and data... Which has been linked to you loads of times now, and you ignore it.
You listen to people on twitter who post fake or nonsense graphs and worry.
I will happily listen to the minority if any of them have some good science behind their ideas...they do not.
All their science is either miss used data, or there is nothing to back up their claims except paranoid fantasy.
So if you can show me data and fact then I'm all ears, but you have yet to do so.0 -
NewMan1982 wrote: »Where do you get your information from?
You call conspiracy theorists people of low intelligence.
Well you'd have to have an IQ hovering around room temperature to think it makes perfect sense to allow 30 people to attend a wedding (indoors) but only 10 people to attend a funeral (outdoors).0 -
EyesClosed wrote: »OK grand... But we are not believing the majority just cause. We are listening to the facts and data... Which has been linked to you loads of times now, and you ignore it.
You listen to people on twitter who post fake or nonsense graphs and worry.
I will happily listen to the minority if any of them have some good science behind their ideas...they do not.
All their science is either miss used data, or there is nothing to back up their claims except paranoid fantasy.
So if you can show me data and fact then I'm all ears, but you have yet to do so.
I'm not saying you are Eyes Closed, but I have had people say to me that the reason they believe the majority is simply because it is the majority.
How have I ignored it? I appreciated other posters helping me understand that the claims of 0 excess deaths in the UK were wrong, for example. They produced data which showed how the claim was wrong, I examined it, and then I realised that the claim being made was wrong. By the way, I don't use Twitter or Facebook or social media. I just typed '0 excess deaths' into Twitter and a load of graphs, statistics and figures came up. It can be very difficult to distinguish between fake graphs, which often look legit, and proper graphs. That's why I like to get people's opinions on boards. I'm always open to being wrong.
The argument against the majority of doctors and scientists re covid is that the consequences of what they believe, be it 0 covid or endless lockdowns, is that they don't seem to consider the catastrophic consequences of their policies. When has Tomás Ryan, for example, ever spoken of the dire consequences his 0 covid fantasy would have? Or Gabriel Scally? Staines?
Would you call the doctors and scientists who support the Great Barrington Declaration paranoid fantasists? They call for targeted protection of the elderly and the vulnerable. Why not try their way? The countries that have gone for lockdowns and extremely harsh measures are still grappling with huge case numbers and deaths.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not saying you are Eyes Closed, but I have had people say to me that the reason they believe the majority is simply because it is the majority.
How have I ignored it? I appreciated other posters helping me understand that the claims of 0 excess deaths in the UK were wrong, for example. They produced data which showed how the claim was wrong, I examined it, and then I realised that the claim being made was wrong. By the way, I don't use Twitter or Facebook or social media. I just typed '0 excess deaths' into Twitter and a load of graphs, statistics and figures came up. It can be very difficult to distinguish between fake graphs, which often look legit, and proper graphs. That's why I like to get people's opinions on boards. I'm always open to being wrong.
The argument against the majority of doctors and scientists re covid is that the consequences of what they believe, be it 0 covid or endless lockdowns, is that they don't seem to consider the catastrophic consequences of their policies. When has Tomás Ryan, for example, ever spoken of the dire consequences his 0 covid fantasy would have? Or Gabriel Scally? Staines?
Would you call the doctors and scientists who support the Great Barrington Declaration paranoid fantasists? They call for targeted protection of the elderly and the vulnerable. Why not try their way? The countries that have gone for lockdowns and extremely harsh measures are still grappling with huge case numbers and deaths.
Firstly... Don't use twitter for research.
I will say that the doctors/people who are out of step with the majority usually have their own agenda.
This is they want to sell their books or get people to believe them and send them money.
So what I would suggest is when you read anything online, don't trust it, check the sources and science.0 -
So you're asking if I would hold a different position than I actually have because I don't have access to all the reasons I hold my position.You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I clearly don't mean that you go back in time as a man from the 21st century and drawing on all that we know now in terms of ethics and how awful lobotomies were decide that you would've been against the majority of doctors. I'm asking you to imagine yourself as a man of that era who understood the world according to the culture and society of the time.
Well then I suppose I would hold a different position then.
What's the point of your bizarre hypothetical.
But that's not my rationale. That's a lazy and dishonest straw man on your part.Your rationale for doing so is that it is the majority that is saying x about covid and that because it is the majority it must be right.
Ok and?So the covid majority is right, but the majorities who believed the wrong things were wrong. And there have been loads of examples throughout history of the majority of doctors, scientists and psychiatrists believing things that would horrify us today.
There's plenty more examples of the minority who believe things that weren't true.
And the example you gave of this was a guy with an antenna sticking out of his head. You said this was what terrified you.I quoted Schwab talking about human beings becoming cyborgs in the future and how humans would become a subspecies. I said it frightened me, as it should most people.
And I suspect that this is a lie.For the hundredth time, I've ordered the book and will read it when it comes.
First you claimed that you weren't going to read it because you didn't need to and it was too scary. Now you've been claiming it's "in the mail" for the last week.
Evidence from the book. Evidence in general. A rational argument that doesn't rely on giant ridiculous conspiracies.What will it do for you to acknowledge that Schwab, based on his horrific views on humanity and technology, is a madman?0 -
EyesClosed wrote: »Firstly... Don't use twitter for research.
I will say that the doctors/people who are out of step with the majority usually have their own agenda.
This is they want to sell their books or get people to believe them and send them money.
So what I would suggest is when you read anything online, don't trust it, check the sources and science.
What book is Professor Sunetra Gupta trying to sell? When did she ask people to send her money? Is Professor Carl Heneghan looking for money? Is he trying to sell a book. Does Professor Harvey Risch have a book on the way?
Did the doctors who were out of step with the majority of doctors on lobotomies have an agenda?
Could it also be possible that they have, and had, a different opinion?0 -
What book is Professor Sunetra Gupta trying to sell? When did she ask people to send her money? Is Professor Carl Heneghan looking for money? Is he trying to sell a book. Does Professor Harvey Risch have a book on the way?
Did the doctors who were out of step with the majority of doctors on lobotomies have an agenda?
Could it also be possible that they have, and had, a different opinion?
Yet again... Facts and sources please... Then we can talk0 -
So you're asking if I would hold a different position than I actually have because I don't have access to all the reasons I hold my position.
Well then I suppose I would hold a different position then.
What's the point of your bizarre hypothetical.
But that's not my rationale. That's a lazy and dishonest straw man on your part.
Ok and?
There's plenty more examples of the minority who believe things that weren't true.
And the example you gave of this was a guy with an antenna sticking out of his head. You said this was what terrified you.
And I suspect that this is a lie.
First you claimed that you weren't going to read it because you didn't need to and it was too scary. Now you've been claiming it's "in the mail" for the last week.
Evidence from the book. Evidence in general. A rational argument that doesn't rely on giant ridiculous conspiracies.
The point is that you have dismissed doctors and scientists because they do not represent the majority. You have called them quaks. So I was wondering if you would've called the doctors who were in the minority at the time of lobotomies quaks as well because they did not represent the majority.
So what is your rationale? Their policies have had catastrophic consequences, so it's hardly because you think they're policies are effective, is it? Their policies resulted in the death of a young mother from cancer in the UK because vital appointments were cancelled due to the covid obsession. A 24 year old mother in the UK has terminal cancer because of cancelled appointments due to the covid obsession.
Yes, and is it strange that it would terrify a person, or should a person be okay with the idea of being a cyborg?
Isn't quoting from the book evidence? Isn't quoting Schwab in interviews evidence?0 -
EyesClosed wrote: »Yet again... Facts and sources please... Then we can talk
What sources do you want? I linked to a paper Professor Heneghan wrote on how deaths were being recorded in England. That prompted, or forced, Hancock to order an urgent review into the way deaths were being recorded there. Now, it's still a farce because anyone who dies within 28 days of testing positive for covid is said to have died of covid, but it's less of farce compared with what was going on before Professor Heneghan's intervention.
Do the professors I mentioned have books on the way?0 -
What sources do you want? I linked to a paper Professor Heneghan wrote on how deaths were being recorded in England. That prompted, or forced, Hancock to order an urgent review into the way deaths were being recorded there. Now, it's still a farce because anyone who dies within 28 days of testing positive for covid is said to have died of covid, but it's less of farce compared with what was going on before Professor Heneghan's intervention.
Do the professors I mentioned have books on the way?
Peer reviewed sources is what I want.
Was his paper peer reviewed? Was it thrown aside by others or accepted? Did you look that up, or just see doctor that fits your belief and run with it. That's called confirmation bias.0 -
EyesClosed wrote: »Peer reviewed sources is what I want.
Was his paper peer reviewed? Was it thrown aside by others or accepted? Did you look that up, or just see doctor that fits your belief and run with it. That's called confirmation bias.
Sorry, it was an article, not a paper. I posted a link to the article.
It was accepted by the government because it forced Hancock to order an urgent review into the way deaths were being recorded in England.0 -
But that's not why I dismiss them.The point is that you have dismissed doctors and scientists because they do not represent the majority. You have called them quaks.
And I don't remember calling anyone "quaks" or "quacks".
I refer to the various twitter people you use as sources as cranks.
Again, I can't answer that as it's a bizarre hypothetical you constructed based on a silly and dishonest misrepresentation of my position.So I was wondering if you would've called the doctors who were in the minority at the time of lobotomies quaks as well because they did not represent the majority.
Evidence and rational arguments.So what is your rationale?
Ok. So believe that there's a plot to force people to get antenna implanted in their heads for some reason. This is what I said your position was.Yes, and is it strange that it would terrify a person, or should a person be okay with the idea of being a cyborg?
Not sure what all that objecting was about...
Quotes can be taken out of context by people wishing to misrepresent things and frame them in a certain light.Isn't quoting from the book evidence? Isn't quoting Schwab in interviews evidence?
We've seen that you are dishonest enough to do this yourself and we've seen you're credulous to believe it when someone presents you with something like that.0 -
Advertisement
-
EyesClosed wrote: »The principle is different as you are comparing apples and oranges.
We as a race know more now, science has advanced, we have more studies which you have been linked to and refuse to either read or believe.
Instead you believe faked graphs in tweets that you don't question just blindly follow.
The principle isn't different. The physical world hasn't changed. The laws of physics haven't changed. Just our understanding of science has become clearer.
Cracking open somebody's head to cure schizophrenia 70 years ago didn't work then and it doesn't work now. You seem to believe that we are more enlightened now and have the answers that were out of reach in the last century. Following that trajectory it's fair to believe that in another 70 years people will look back at 2020 and laugh at our consensus regarding viruses and measures to curtail them.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement