All Covid-19 measures are permanent, don't be a boiling frog!

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

. 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.

Much like we'll laugh at how we all believe the Earth is round?
After all, the majority believe this and the minority believe it is flat.
The minority must be right cause they're the scrappy rebels who buck the trend!

The Raging Bile Duct

ShatterAlan wrote: »

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.

Do people now laugh at how people and countries tried to tackle the Spanish Flu given their more limited understanding of viruses and measures to curtail them? I reckon you'd want to be a bit of dick to do that.

Also, lobotomies were always a controversial treatment and as far as I can tell there wasn't a general consensus approval of its use. There were something like 50,000 lobotomies carried out in the States in total over a couple of decades. In comparison, there's been almost 331,000 Covid deaths in the States so far with close to 19 million cases. It is completely like comparing apples and oranges and trying to bash the healthcare response to Covid because lobotomies used to be carried out is akin to saying you don't want life-saving heart surgery because they used to believe that blood flowed like the tides back in the middle ages.

ShatterAlan

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?

And you have the audacity to talk about stupid comparisons?


Why not talk about what DOES exist today and what DID exist a few decades ago.?


Do you smoke? It wasn't long ago that the majority of doctors maintained that smoking had no harmful effects. In fact many of them recommended sparking up to relieve stress.


Even as the weight of evidence gathered linked tobacco with a plethora of maladies many of them refused to relent.



You seem to think that the majority consensus at the present couldn't be wrong and your shabby reasoning for that is that in the past we were thick and we are so much smarter now. Talk about hindsight being 20/20

runawaybishop

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Do people now laugh at how people and countries tried to tackle the Spanish Flu given their more limited understanding of viruses and measures to curtail them? I reckon you'd want to be a bit of dick to do that.

Also, lobotomies were always a controversial treatment and as far as I can tell there wasn't a general consensus approval of its use. There were something like 50,000 lobotomies carried out in the States in total over a couple of decades. In comparison, there's been almost 331,000 Covid deaths in the States so far with close to 19 million cases. It is completely like comparing apples and oranges and trying to bash the healthcare response to Covid because lobotomies used to be carried out is akin to saying you don't want life-saving heart surgery because they used to believe that blood flowed like the tides back in the middle ages.

Yeah, lobotomies are are really bad example to choose. It was generally acknowledged that they were dangerous as hell with very limited chance of a totally successfully outcome but the alternative was lifetime incarceration in a nuthouse.

EyesClosed

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And you have the audacity to talk about stupid comparisons?


Why not talk about what DOES exist today and what DID exist a few decades ago.?


Do you smoke? It wasn't long ago that the majority of doctors maintained that smoking had no harmful effects. In fact many of them recommended sparking up to relieve stress.


Even as the weight of evidence gathered linked tobacco with a plethora of maladies many of them refused to relent.



You seem to think that the majority consensus at the present couldn't be wrong and you're shabby reasoning for that is that in the past we were thick and we are so much smarter now. Talk about hindsight being 20/20

Thanks for acknowledging my comparisons where stupid, they where meant to be.

I never said the majority is always right, I said facts and science currently show it is, they may change.

I will ask again... Any facts that prove otherwise... I would love to see them

ShatterAlan

Quiner wrote: »

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.

Beautifully illustrated. Simple, clear and concise. Yet EyesClosed can't seem to grasp this.

EyesClosed

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Beautifully illustrated. Simple, clear and concise. Yet EyesClosed can't seem to grasp this.

You're right I won't grasp random comments with no facts.

aido79

ShatterAlan wrote: »

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).

I'm not questioning your IQ but funerals are generally held inside a church and the burial is held outdoors so the restriction is on the number of people in the church and not at the burial.

You might want to educate yourself on the difference.

Quiner

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And you have the audacity to talk about stupid comparisons?


Why not talk about what DOES exist today and what DID exist a few decades ago.?


Do you smoke? It wasn't long ago that the majority of doctors maintained that smoking had no harmful effects. In fact many of them recommended sparking up to relieve stress.


Even as the weight of evidence gathered linked tobacco with a plethora of maladies many of them refused to relent.



You seem to think that the majority consensus at the present couldn't be wrong and you're shabby reasoning for that is that in the past we were thick and we are so much smarter now. Talk about hindsight being 20/20

Smoking is a better example than lobotomies. Thanks. I'm guessing people who believe the majority of doctors and scientists re covid today would have believed the majority of doctors back then too since they were the majority.

King Mob

Quiner wrote: »

Smoking is a better example than lobotomies. Thanks. I'm guessing people who believe the majority of doctors and scientists re covid today would have believed the majority of doctors back then too since they were the majority.

Lol.
We explained to you why this silly strawman wasn't the case.
Did you not read the responses to your last silly hypothetical?

EyesClosed

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.
We explained to you why this silly strawman wasn't the case.
Did you not read the responses to your last silly hypothetical?

Nope, deflect, ignore, and then repeat the same already proven wrong argument over and over again.

Quiner

EyesClosed wrote: »

Nope, deflect, ignore, and then repeat the same already proven wrong argument over and over again.

Person A: "I believe the majority of scientists and doctors re covid because they are the majority"

Person A (transplanted back to a bygone era): "I don't believe the majority of doctors re smoking even though they are the majority"

I'm not saying you're Person A. I'm specifically referring to people who have told me that the reason they believe the majority of doctors and scientists re covid is because they are the majority. No other reason.

King Mob

Quiner wrote: »

I'm not saying you're Person A. I'm specifically referring to people who have told me that the reason they believe the majority of doctors and scientists re covid is because they are the majority. No other reason.

Who has done this?
Besides the strawman you're making?

You've been specifically told that this is not our position. Why are you pretending that it is our position?

EyesClosed

Quiner wrote: »

Person A: "I believe the majority of scientists and doctors re covid because they are the majority"

Person A (transplanted back to a bygone era): "I don't believe the majority of doctors re smoking even though they are the majority"

I'm not saying you're Person A. I'm specifically referring to people who have told me that the reason they believe the majority of doctors and scientists re covid is because they are the majority. No other reason.

And I have told you I believe facts... Present some and I may join you

ShatterAlan

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.

Why not?


Twitter is just a digital form of word of mouth. Do you realise what you have just said?


You've said "don't believe everything you read on Twitter". That equates to "Don't believe everything you're told".


If someone on Twitter posted that the Sun sets in the East I would not believe them. That doesn't mean that someone who posts that the Sun sets in the West shouldn't be believed.

EyesClosed

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Why not?


Twitter is just a digital form of word of mouth. Do you realise what you have just said?


You've said "don't believe everything you read on Twitter". That equates to "Don't believe everything you're told".


If someone on Twitter posted that the Sun sets in the East I would not believe them. That doesn't mean that someone who posts that the Sun sets in the West shouldn't be believed.

This poster has shown to read twitter accept it as fact and get worried by it. By all means check twitter, but make sure you check the sources yourself. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet... That's Internet rule one

ShatterAlan

EyesClosed wrote: »

Yet again... Facts and sources please... Then we can talk

You just said that doctors whose views are outside those of the majority are pimping a book or grubbing for money and now you just sidestep that when you've been shown up.


Have you no shame, sir?

Quiner

EyesClosed wrote: »

This poster has shown to read twitter accept it as fact and get worried by it. By all means check twitter, but make sure you check the sources yourself. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet... That's Internet rule one

But I check it the odd time. I dislike Twitter in general. I didn't accept it as fact. That's why I asked about the claim of 70,000 excess vs 0 excess deaths. And I asked about the claim of 300,000 excess deaths in the US vs the claim of fewer deaths this year than previous years. I didn't except either as fact.

King Mob

Quiner wrote: »

But I check it the odd time. I dislike Twitter in general. I didn't accept it as fact.

And yet, the majority of your sources and references come from cranks on twitter...

ShatterAlan

Quiner wrote: »

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?

Nevermind that a woman died in Ireland just a few short years ago from sepsis because her vagina was dilated and the staff wouldn't induce a pregnancy termination because there was a "heartbeat". That was the majority consensus in the 21st century in this country albeit it governed by religious law as opposed to medical practicality.


No doctor stepped up to save the women, despite saving her would have contravened the law of the land....a law that has thankfully been fcuking scrapped.


So much for the Hippocratic Oath "First do no harm."

The Raging Bile Duct

Quiner wrote: »

Smoking is a better example than lobotomies. Thanks. I'm guessing people who believe the majority of doctors and scientists re covid today would have believed the majority of doctors back then too since they were the majority.

Smoking isn't really a better example. When the links to lung disease were starting to be properly established by the scientific community, The six biggest tobacco manufacturers in the US got together to create a successful campaign of disinformation.

The Raging Bile Duct

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Nevermind that a woman died in Ireland just a few short years ago from sepsis because her vagina was dilated and the staff wouldn't induce a pregnancy termination because there was a "heartbeat". That was the majority consensus in the 21st century in this country albeit it governed by religious law as opposed to medical practicality.


No doctor stepped up to save the women, despite saving her would have contravened the law of the land....a law that has thankfully been fcuking scrapped.


So much for the Hippocratic Oath "First do no harm."

That wasn't the majority consensus in this country at the time and you know it - people were appalled by the outcome and it led to the revoking of the 8th amendment. The problem was not with the doctors in that case but the rights of the unborn being enshrined in the constitution which completely hamstrung the medical profession in cases like that.

King Mob

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Smoking isn't really a better example. When the links to lung disease were starting to be properly established by the scientific community, The six biggest tobacco manufacturers in the US got together to create a successful campaign of disinformation.

The other thing to note is that this campaign was not in actual scientific journals, it was in the popular press and media.
If the science about smoking was only changing now, I wager that twitter would be full of folks saying how the link between smoking and cancer is a scam and a conspiracy.

ShatterAlan

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Do people now laugh at how people and countries tried to tackle the Spanish Flu given their more limited understanding of viruses and measures to curtail them? I reckon you'd want to be a bit of dick to do that.

Also, lobotomies were always a controversial treatment and as far as I can tell there wasn't a general consensus approval of its use. There were something like 50,000 lobotomies carried out in the States in total over a couple of decades. In comparison, there's been almost 331,000 Covid deaths in the States so far with close to 19 million cases. It is completely like comparing apples and oranges and trying to bash the healthcare response to Covid because lobotomies used to be carried out is akin to saying you don't want life-saving heart surgery because they used to believe that blood flowed like the tides back in the middle ages.

I doubt they do. That's not the point.



The point is that there are treatments now and knowledge now that was adhered to hundreds if not thousands of years ago and is unflappable.



Pi = 22/7 is as true today as it was thousands of years ago when it was determined.


Nobody is saying that the science practiced in the past is wrong. What they are saying is that not ALL the science practiced in the past was bona fide purely because it was the majority consensus.


I wouldn't laugh at any practice in the past that proved to be correct. Nor would I laugh at a practice that proved to be bizarre.....purely because I would sympathise that the practioners were ignorant, misguided, ill-informed or just plain dumb.


You can't seem to accept what Quiner is saying, despite the simplicity.


Quiner is stating that just because the majority say something today doesn't mean that they are right and has given very clear examples from when, in the past, that majority has been wrong.


You are tying yourself in knots to avoid the logic of that exceedingly simple yet lucid observation by quarrying completely irrelevant and tangential comparisons.

ShatterAlan

EyesClosed wrote: »

Thanks for acknowledging my comparisons where stupid, they where meant to be.

I never said the majority is always right, I said facts and science currently show it is, they may change.

I will ask again... Any facts that prove otherwise... I would love to see them

If they are right then why would you say that they may change?

They are either right or not right.

EyesClosed

ShatterAlan wrote: »

If they are right then why would you say that they may change?

They are either right or not right.

Do you understand how science works?
As of the evidence and data as it currently stands, they are right.
The data may change when knew facts come to light, it may not. Its not black and white, I think you know this though.

The Raging Bile Duct

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Quiner is stating that just because the majority say something today doesn't mean that they are right and has given very clear examples from when, in the past, that majority has been wrong.

You are tying yourself in knots to avoid the logic of that exceedingly simple yet lucid observation by quarrying completely irrelevant and tangential comparisons.

There not clear examples though, that's why I raised my points with them. I don't understand how you think I'm tying myself in knots.

ShatterAlan

EyesClosed wrote: »

You're right I won't grasp random comments with no facts.

Facts aren't needed when they aren't required. What is wrong with you?


The premise of Quiner's post was to question why something should believed today because of majority opinion/consensus when at another time majority opinion/consensus was wrong.


Why is that so cryptic for you? What don't you get about the question?

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Facts aren't needed when they aren't required. What is wrong with you?

Pretty good summation of the threads on covid lately.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Quiner is stating that just because the majority say something today doesn't mean that they are right and has given very clear examples from when, in the past, that majority has been wrong.

No one is arguing the converse.