Maybe

I just read through a substantial portion of this thread and tooth mopped the floor with you over and over again handing you Ls on every post. This is partly because he is smarter than you, but mostly because people like you will hold on to your mistaken beliefs even if your life depended on letting them go. You'd rather go down with the ship than admit you were wrong.

It's not hard to be smarter than Cuepee.

It's been one of the lowest bars on this forum since my time here.

You'll be fine.

People under 50 have nearly no issues with covid statistically. If you are healthy and under 30 it may be a net negative to get a vaccine shot.

Because you want restrictions lifted.

You have to weigh liklihood of a serious side effect against liklihood of further restrictions.

I dgaf if I get the virus but got the vac pronto because I'm desperately sick of restrictions.

Also lol at the folks who think c19 would have pets dropping like stones animals are young and hard af they wouldn't bat an eye at covid

My dog had an inch thick stick jabbed into her ribs and blood all over the place recently and just wanted to keep chasing her stick. She wouldn't give two ***** about covid and no way in hell I nor 90% of non upper middle class pet owners have insurance and are gonna chunk over five bills for a vet cause my pooch sneezed.

Toothsayer king of this hill and it's not even remotely close

Just to punt the football one more time in this thread.

OAK was pounding his desk last year and having a meltdown about USA allowing a slow burn strategy and comparing how awful that strategy was compared to Europe and their multiple hard lockdowns and covid elimination strategies.

USA ends up being absolutely fine when compared to western Europe countries in aggregate with similar death rates. How can this be?!!? But teh science!!


OAK and Cuepee were borderline crying that Trump was only concerned about the economy. Biden gets elected and..... wait for it, does exactly what Trump did = worries about the economy so he doesn't even consider more shutdowns. Biden did order masks in the White House and federal property though!

It's almost certain that non-preventative measures caused more harm than good. Masks, social distancing, working from home, obsessive hand washing, etc... all cause direct and indirect overall harm to society.

Looking at overall deaths between California and Florida show this precisely. California had some of the most restrictions for the longest time, while Florida had some of the least for less time.

We'd expect overall deaths to be far less in California, but instead, what we see is an enormous increase in youth deaths with elderly deaths approximately the same as Florida.



https://i.ibb.co/WWkVw6y/Screen-Shot...1-03-38-PM.png

Youth deaths are far more valuable than elderly deaths. A single extra 15 year old dying because of the preventative measures is literally worth more than 100 extra 87 year olds dying 6 months earlier than they would have because of covid. Furthermore, there is no evidence that these preventative measures would have given these 87 year olds 6 more months.

California succeeded at slaughtering its youth and doing nothing to help its elderly. It's ranked near the top out of all states when comparing overall deaths in 2020-21 vs the 2017-19.



https://i.ibb.co/q9zC1yf/Screen-Shot...1-28-23-PM.png

This is of course a complete bullshit summary.

One poster and his baggage train of actual slavish cucks was arguing that the burn through strategy meant USA was going to avoid an Autumn/Winter wave, and was even denying it was starting when everyone else could see it happening in real time.

Others correctly pointed out how utterly ******ed this was.

USA turns out to have a worse wave of cases and deaths in aggregate to Europe instead of the magical fantasy of having a much better/no wave.

One set of posters seems not only set on being consistently wrong, but plumbing the depths of personal integrity and intellectual honesty on the way there.

I have a never forget for Tien as well.

ahahahahaha.

I'll just requote this as the answer all the M'Uh Freedums derps hate being forced to see as they have no counter or answer to it.

There is a vast conspiracy underway and you guys are having some argument about dogs that I don't exactly understand.

No one is winning this thread.

Have to be a bit careful with this. USA is looking worst for excess deaths by a fair bit among the G7. Its a lot worse than the UK#2 which really ****ed up badly imo.

Maybe it will come to other factors such as obesity but a bit early to proclaim that the USA didn't seriously **** up compared to the rest of the west.

Ok. Probably regret it but I'll bite.

Cuepee, Can you answer these questions for me please?

What are the long term risks associated with these vaccines?

What is the sole system used to report on adverse events in the US and what are the current numbers?

Are you aware that those numbers are suspected to represent merely 10% of the real numbers?


Telling people to ignore those risks to their own health in order to protect others is monumentally stupid. Especially so when you are never going to vaccinate enough people worldwide to eliminate spread or variants. And even if you do there is no guarantee that mutations or variants won't evade the vaccines through adaption anyway. Also, vaccinating healthy children who are statistically at zero risk of dying from covid is not only stupid but criminal imo.

Okay.

So who do you trust? How do you decide when the science can be trusted?

By not trusting the science do you mean; your positions aren't supported by data/evidence.

Okay.

So who do you trust? How do you decide when/which science can be trusted?

By not trusting the science do you mean; your positions aren't supported by data/evidence.

I'll let you in on a little secret.

so you just go with your feelings...

lol.

science = bad

bobbyj random feelings= good

Not exactly. I was being a bit flippant with that post. Science isn't bad, some scientists are though. There's a big difference. You obviously missed the point I was trying to make.

But seriously, how do I decide who to trust?

By looking at a variety of opinions and evaluating the data they use to back up those opinions. The science itself isn't the problem if it's backed up by solid reliable data. Unfortunately a lot of the so called experts these days have huge conflicts of interest and cherry pick data to back their own biased opinions or flat out lie.

Getting back to the climate change analogy as an example, if you want to find out what a giant fraud the climate change hysteria is I can recommend a good book with the data to back it up which exposes the whole con. Read that and you will never trust another scientist again. Well, that's probably a slight exaggeration but you will at least be more skeptical. Whenever I hear the words "trust the science" or "the science is settled" I think of that book.

But as always do your own research and make up your own mind. Don't blindly accept what some scientist says just because he's got some letters after his name.

Exhibit A: one Anthony Fauci.

Whatever you think of global warming theory itself - and opinions differ - one thing any sane person can agree on is expert consensus science on global warming mitigation strategy is perhaps the second biggest expert cluster**** of our generation. Just total fail on every level, ending up with a worse outcome in the end (more CO2 emitted than if all the climate hand wringers had never existed, and a heavily polluting energy inefficient communist dictatorship empowered). A perfect example of expert committees/consensus science missing simple things outside of the scope of their analysis that totally destroy their efforts, things that redneck Billy-Bob understands and wouldn't make the same mistake on.

It's fascinating to be 20 years on from Bjorn Lomborg's predictions and have him be completely correct. I'm coming more and more to the view that experts below 130 IQ (and probably the majority below 150 IQ) are just worthless to net harmful when it comes to formulating conclusions in uncertain areas and creating non-net-harmful policy. Unfortunately the fields where public policy gets made (climatology or epidemiology for example) actually tend to attract the low IQ losers, as no one with a brain finds intellectual interest in such weak fields.

You were having weekly meltdowns over countries that didn't lock down harshly. Especially USA.

USA states that allowed the burn through strategy ends up being totally fine and even outperforming some western countries per capita that harshly locked down. All in all, within line with a lot of western European countries. Republican states that opened up a lot sooner vs democratic states end up outperforming or performing just as well as states that locked down for longer.

Science.

You hit this nail on the head with your posting in this thread.

Next time listen to the science.

I am punting the football in your face.

USA deaths per million 1,848
UK deaths per million 1,875
Italy deaths per million 2,103
France deaths per million 1,688

All within line. And USA didn't have mask mandates all over the country (which OAK and Cuepee were pounding the table over) nor did the USA locked down as harshly.

UK still thinking about extending its partial lockdown 15 months into the pandemic while USA #1 has been opened 100% for 3 months now.

The debate is over.

Sorry tien but recent data for excess deaths per 100k for the 1st year in the G7 shows:

USA: 227
UK: 181
Italy: 180
France: 125
Germany: 92
Canada: 92
Japan: 47
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57421886

As I said we really ****ed up badly in the UK imo. I'm less familiar with the USA but it really doesn't look good.

The debate hasn't properly begun yet.

Just didnt happen bro, Tooth just straight up lies about what he was arguing at the time, and you just straight up lie about about what I was arguing at the time.

Your both worthless posters that are completely dishonest and FOS.

You dont even have a football.

Dont melt down about the USA Chez.