rigorousintuition.ca

99, if no one is bringing you counterarguments yet you would desperately like to hear some, why not see if you can come up with any? If you throw down the gauntlet, but there are no takers, there's no rule that says you can't do it yourself.

"taking time off because others don't seem to understand the essential character of discussion."

I think it's pretty clear. My position is lunacy and authoritarianism, which everyone knows can only lead to the new world order of AI control. I represent the Bill Gates globalist agenda.

People might not like being put in that spot before any discussion gets underway. Not me of course, lunacy and authoritarianism are the bread and butter I swim in. But others might find it offputting.

Sure, but what do you really think?

dada » 22 Nov 2020 20:58 wrote:99, if no one is bringing you counterarguments yet you would desperately like to hear some, why not see if you can come up with any? If you throw down the gauntlet, but there are no takers, there's no rule that says you can't do it yourself.

Believe me, I have tried. The best I can come up with is that the people who best understand the profound effects that false positives are having on reported COVID-19 case, hospitalization, and death rates are perhaps rightly convinced that too many Americans are not taking the threat of COVID-19 seriously enough. Thus, they have no professional or moral incentive to sound any alarm about the severe, mathematically inescapable consequences of even a small percentage of false positive results when testing individuals whose probability of currently having COVID-19 is not significantly higher than the tests' false positive rates.

dada » 22 Nov 2020 22:39 wrote:"taking time off because others don't seem to understand the essential character of discussion."

I think it's pretty clear. My position is lunacy and authoritarianism, which everyone knows can only lead to the new world order of AI control. I represent the Bill Gates globalist agenda.

People might not like being put in that spot before any discussion gets underway. Not me of course, lunacy and authoritarianism are the bread and butter I swim in. But others might find it offputting.

You are some sick mother fuckers to post this bogus shit here while the death toll mounts in the US.

Yeah, us sick mofos who are actively helping fascists by posting bogus shit as we revel in people's loved ones getting killed by COVID-19 are obviously totally guilty of pigeon-holing others into offputtingly extreme positions before any discussion gets underway.

It's tragic how hyper-divided every dispute has gotten. For just one relevant example among scores, pro-science has now somehow come to mean the inflexible, unquestioning quasi-religious worship of the infallible authority of supposed "scientific consensus."

"I believe in science" is now as much of an article of faith as "I believe in God" once was. I was taught that science is a process that requires continual careful observational measurements and continually revised theoretical analysis based on these continual careful observational measurements. Thus to "believe in science" is to continually question rather than worship supposed scientific authority.

Today we have so many litmus tests that we are willing to "cancel" each other on for failing that we typically can no longer even argue productively with those (conspiracy) theories we disagree with or with those who disagree with our favored (conspiracy) theories..

"Sure, but what do you really think?"

What I really think is a goddess, the goddess of sand. I think a temple of the faithful, all the oldest friends I've never met. I think gardens, moonscapes, a mountain of dizzying heights and an ocean of desert.

I also think mullah sadra is right, that the imagination is a faculty of the soul, and as such is immortal.

Basically, what I really think has little bearing on the matter at hand.

dada » Mon Nov 23, 2020 5:08 am wrote:"Sure, but what do you really think?"

Basically, what I really think has little bearing on the matter at hand.

I couldn't disagree more. What I can think is intimately bound with what I really think. How much more bearing could that have on any matter at hand?

The Narrative Industrial Complex has already boiled this down for us: The real problem we face, whatever the problem we face, is alternative narratives.

I'm not sure that's a disagreement. It's precisely because what I can think is intimately bound with what I really think, that I can think that what I really think has little bearing on the matter.

I'd say it depends on where you stand. From outside of the narrative industrial complex, alternative narratives are the real problem. But from the inside, alternative narratives are just alternative narratives, and the real problems are all your basic nuts and bolts problems of any industry.

.

Harvey » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:51 pm wrote:Members threatening to leave because they feel personally insulted by the nature of the debate, or taking time off because others don't seem to understand the essential character of discussion. I feel we have a perfect macrocosm of the censorship debate occuring outside our little teacup. As intended by 24/7 media propagandists. Divide and rule.

Try not to take it all so personally guys and gals. If we can't discuss sensitive topics here, then who the fuck can? And where the hell can they do it? The free flow of ideas has seldom been as important.

Well-stated, Harvey. My reasons for taking a break here have more to do with simply shutting down, or minimizing, online access for a bit, which is increasingly important in this remote-work/largely 'online' world thrust upon us.

As JRiddler indicated elsewhere:

JackRiddler » Mon Nov 23, 2020 5:54 am wrote: (...breaks from Internet are usually if not always warranted, for unrelated, more general reasons.)

That aside, we have a good discussion going here in this thread, and in the spirit of discourse will address a few additional points raised.

------------------------

In response to DrEvil:

DrEvil » Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:36 pm wrote:

First, with respect to these claims that COVID causes long-term damage: nothing can be said definitively at this point. It'll be at least a year or more before any such assessment can be made, and even then, it will be a challenge to isolate the issues specifically to COVID.

Yeah, pretty much, but it needs to be looked into. We can't just hope there will be no long term effects.

Of course - I wouldn't suggest otherwise, but again, it woudn't justify the more extreme measures currently implemented to combat this virus, especially if a portion of the information we receive is based on lies and fear tactics.

DrEvil » Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:36 pm wrote:

Belligerent Savant » Sun Nov 22, 2020 7:09 pm wrote:

The goal has always been pretty clear: maintain various measures until an effective vaccine is in place, which hasn't happened yet. Nothing mysterious about it.

Actually, that has NOT always been the goal. The goal, initially, was to "flatten the curve". The curve has been f'ing FLAT, despite BS/misleading narratives attempting to indicate otherwise (See stickdog's contributions to this thread, which have yet to be challenged). The goalposts have since been moved to EXTENDED and excessive lockdowns, and now -- reportedly -- it's waiting for a would-be vaccine. An mRNA vaccine that has been fast-tracked. It's risky to take any vaccine that's been pushed through this quickly, but in this instance, we must also consider that mRNA vaccines have never before been authorized for distribution to humans.

That's just one of the many, many vaccines being developed, and yes, that was the goal. Flatten the curve at first to avoid overwhelming hospitals and then mitigate as necessary until a permanent solution (read: vaccine) was in place. No one expected it to just stop on its own after the first lockdowns.

This 'goal' of, essentially, 'keeping lockdowns in place until there's a vaccine' was never articulated during those initial months, and has only begun to materialize in overt messaging within the last few months, and never formally. NONE of this has been subject to any debate or formal proceedings prior to being mandated or enforced on the populace.

Again, this is a virus. A virus will never just "stop", regardless of vaccines that may be deployed. There is no "cure" for this. The "wait for the vaccine" narrative appears to part of an overall long-term gameplan. One of several 'vehicles' to keep the goalposts perpetually ahead of us while pushing measures that are at best questionable, if not outright fascistic/technocratic, and ultimately to the benefit of the few, not the majority. Indeed, the majority to this point have been devastated by current measures -- devastation that hasn't yet been fully realized.

DrEvil » Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:36 pm wrote:

Despite this -- and here, we must credit the onslaught of media/govt propaganda; Edward Barnays would be proud -- individuals will be lining up to be injected with this vaccine as soon as it's available, despite caution from a number of doctors and physicians warning against taking such a vaccine when first made available (such caution is largely suppressed, of course).

All for a virus that -- Yes, i will repeat this once more, because it's a critical data point -- has over a 99% SURVIVAL RATE for those under 70, and almost 95% for those over 70 (per the CDC).

Almost 95% survival rate for those over 70. That's 36,6 million Americans with a 1 in 20 chance of dying if they catch it. I don't know about you, but those odds suck in my opinion.

Do you also perform statistical sampling of all other causes of possible death? I assure you there is greater probability of dying as a result of a number of other causes besides COVID. What to do, then? Stay home 24/7? Even that won't save you. A percentage of humans will die at home as a result of fluke accident or any number of other causes unrelated to a virus.

How on earth are current sweeping actions on human populations jutified given the minimal probability of death due to COVID? Answer: they're not.

Another example of allowing the narratives to drive FEAR.

DrEvil » Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:36 pm wrote:

If one opts to take the vaccine, fine: it's their choice. But there's been numerous indications that vaccines will be MANDATED. This should be a non-starter topic for any human maintaining autonomous thought.

(As a reminder, my position from the onset has been a balanced approach to mitigate spread: self-quarantine for those at risk, keep distance, minimal mandates. Take necessary precautions. The 'across-the-board' lockdown/curfew/mandates approach has been and will be devastating for years, even if they changed course today.)

Up until fairly recently most humans didn't make it past 40, on average. How do you think those humans would have responded to this reported crisis?

Not really true. Child mortality was sky high, to the point were people simply assumed that some of their children would die before age 5. Those who made it through childhood could expect to live well past 40. Anyway, what kind of argument is that? Are you saying old people should shrug and drop dead because people used to die at a younger age in the past?

Also: self-quarantine for those at risk. That's 36 million elderly plus who knows how many with compromised immune systems or other risk-factors. Let's say something like 40-50 million Americans. Should they all just suck it up and lock themselves inside so everyone else can get on with their lives?

I was referencing the average lifespan of males during the mid-1800s, which, relatively-speaking, is not long ago. Cited from page 120 of the book After Death: A New Future For Human Consciousness, by Darryl Reanney, a molecular biologist (recommended reading, by the way):



DrEvil:
"Anyway, what kind of argument is that? Are you saying old people should shrug and drop dead because people used to die at a younger age in the past?"

No, to the contrary. My broader point is that humans of that era were more closely tied to dying -- it was more present in their lives -- and as such, they weren't as terrorized by the prospect of their demise as many in our current culture have become conditioned to be (this is a theory, of course -- no way to prove this). I'd wager that many in that era would not oblige or tolerate restrictions in their livelihoods for the --relatively brief, at least compared to our current life expectations -- time they had here. Quality of life over quantity.

I've observed -- primarily during my perusing of social media, which is not advisable, generally -- that in addition to the tendency to falling prey to fear-based tactics, there is also an apparent willingness by a segment of populations to accept any measures handed down by Authority if it means a convenient, albeit restricted, existence for the 'comfortable' classes.
There appears to be a sizable segment of the populace, predominantly those that are able to maintain steady income via "remote work" and have the convenience of ordering meals/goods online, that are perfectly fine with any restrictions in place so long as it can maintain their online livelihoods. AT THE EXPENSE of the working/struggling classes.

Harvey touched on the fear-based drivers more simply/elegantly -- though without the allusion to economic factors -- here:

Harvey » Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:14 pm wrote:
I do think we're nearing the point where the level of fear most people seem to be living under could very easily see them corralled into almost any abandonment of their rights and the rights of others, if offered the promise of a solution to their fears. We've seen it all before too many times. Even absent some catastrophic and catalysing event.

...

Spot-on observation, in my view.

With respect to this bit:
DrEvil:
"Also: self-quarantine for those at risk. That's 36 million elderly plus who knows how many with compromised immune systems or other risk-factors. Let's say something like 40-50 million Americans. Should they all just suck it up and lock themselves inside so everyone else can get on with their lives?"

-- I don't understand this. We are CURRENTLY, RIGHT NOW, doing exactly that FOR EVERYONE, including those that are of minimal/no risk.

What I'm proposing is a more balanced process that focuses on those that are of GREATER RISK, rather than impose on the livelihoods and well-being of the rest of the population, without laying waste to the economy and the general health of the population at large.

I've seen interviews online, and spoke to a number of family members and neighbors, that are all in the 70+ range, and many of them are devestated by the ISOLATION. Their inability, in some instances, to interact with their family. Again, they lament the disastrous impact to the QUALITY of their remaining years rather than the QUANTITY.

Let humans have the agency to decide -- I've far more faith in their collective choices with respect to well-being than I have for those currently in power.

There is a legal term, proportionality, which essentially encapsulates my position here: "The concept of proportionality is used as a criterion of fairness and justice in statutory interpretation processes, especially in constitutional law, as a logical method intended to assist in discerning the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act."

DrEvil » Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:36 pm wrote: For many people the question isn't about living in fear, it's about living at all.

Again, yours is a dramatic take, and one that can also be made, if one is of the mind to do so, for any number of other -- more probable -- causes of death.

Stickdog summarized it best here:

stickdog99 » Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:51 pm wrote:
That's a pithy rejoinder. But. like everything we see in all of our corporate media outlets, it has nothing to do with quantifying actual risk and everything to do with inflating perceived risk. Can you do any better?

Re: dada --

dada » Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:39 pm wrote:"taking time off because others don't seem to understand the essential character of discussion."

I think it's pretty clear. My position is lunacy and authoritarianism, which everyone knows can only lead to the new world order of AI control. I represent the Bill Gates globalist agenda.

People might not like being put in that spot before any discussion gets underway. Not me of course, lunacy and authoritarianism are the bread and butter I swim in. But others might find it offputting.

I actually chuckled audibly reading this. Thank you for that. Any would-be Regime will have their sycophants, of course; usefool tools to be later discarded as canon fodder.
--------



A few other quick points:

There has yet to be any formal/firm estimation of exactly how many EXCESS deaths for 2020 ar due to COVID vs. LOCKDOWN MEASURES. I saw an article a couple months back, in the mainstream press, that referenced ~100K lives LOST (deaths) due specifically to lockdowns (inadequate access to care for the terminal ill; death due to depression/suicide, related stress, etc. -- this doesn't include devastation to livelihoods, which is in the millions+). What if the number is markedly higher than 100K?
We already know that the COVID death tallies are INACCURATE, in that they are attributing many deaths to COVID even when the primary cause was due to other factors (dying 'with' COVID rather than 'of' COVID specifically). As far as I can see -- and others are welcome to correct this -- there's been no true accounting of the delineation between deaths caused by lockdown measures vs. deaths caused specifically to COVID.

Figures have been, and will continue to be, manipulated to achieve ends.

Also: I want to emphasize here, as I've alluded in prior commentary, that my interest in this topic is not only driven by own personal livelihood/views on personal freedoms/govt. overreach, etc. The primary driver is my concern for the future.

I have children. I think about the next 10+ years ahead, and the impact this dystopic, technocratic future may have on future generations, if we allow unilateral/unchecked power to these so-called decision-makers.

Some may not pay much mind to this, and are instead focused on their own remaining time here in this Reality. That's your choice, of course.

But there is far more at stake here, potentially. Much remains open-ended right now --- we're still in it.

Contrary Case Study: South Dakota

South Dakota is definitely experiencing a s surge in excess deaths, IMHO.

The Department of Health reported the deaths of 30 more South Dakota residents Wednesday. There have been 249 deaths in November — well above October's former record of 202. Since the pandemic began, 677 state residents have died from COVID-19 illnesses.

For months, state officials touted South Dakota's low death rate. After Wednesday's report, the state is behind only 15 other states in deaths per thousand residents and is just below the national average.

To put this in context, roughly 750 people die of the flu or chronic respiratory diseases annually in South Dakota, so 249 deaths from COVID-19 (even if many of these are miscategorized due to false positives) in just two weeks is definitely alarming.

Sixteen men and 14 women were included in the 30 deaths. Seventeen of the people who died were over 80, 11 were in their 70s and two were in their 60s. State Epidemiologist Dr. Joshua Clayton said 12.7% of people over 80 who acquire coronavirus die.

Of the 30 most recently reported deaths, 28 were among people over 70 and all 30 were among people over 60.

She said more than 3,800 people took advantage of recent mass testing events and about 9.8% of those tested were positive and 34% were showing symptoms. Due to rising cases in Pennington County, mass testing is planned in Rapid City from Nov. 20-23.

"The process is easy, convenient and fast," Malsam-Rysdon said.

She said making testing available is a key factor in controlling the spread of the disease in the state. She also announced a new program for people who live with someone who tested positive recently. An at-home saliva test will be sent to people who live with a person who tests positive to make sure those in close contact aren't unknowingly spreading the disease to others.

The at-home tests are definitely of the crappy antigen variety.

The good news is that there is still a lot of ICU and ventilator capacity, even in South Dakota.

Once again, I cannot find any reliable information about total hospital capacity or total current hospitalization rates and how these compare to a normal influenza season. All that is reported is percentage capacity and percentage of cases associated with COVID-19, which makes it impossible to analyze the percentage of COVID-19 patients (if any) likely overestimated by false positive tests.

And once again the huge overall spike in COVID-19 cases mirror the recent spike in total tests, including the recently distributed antigen tests.

"How on earth are current sweeping actions on human populations jutified given the minimal probability of death due to COVID? Answer: they're not."

We don't want the infection rate to blossom exponentially. The highly contagious nature of the virus justifies the lockdowns, without them things could get out of hand quickly.

This spot was paid for by the technocrats for a better dystopia foundation. Now, back to the narrative-driven fear show.

dada » Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:54 pm wrote:"How on earth are current sweeping actions on human populations jutified given the minimal probability of death due to COVID? Answer: they're not."

We don't want the infection rate to blossom exponentially. The highly contagious nature of the virus justifies the lockdowns, without them things could get out of hand quickly.

I disagree. It does not justify lockdowns as currently mandated. I'm not against balanced lockdowns during initial periods of influx (focused on those most at risk, while applying proper precautions elsewhere). The deaths and loss of livelihoods due to the broad reach of the lockdowns are NOT justified given current figures.

Also: long-term, extended lockdowns havent been successful in managing the spread of a virus. Our hospitals also aren't as 'overtaxed' as often reported.

According to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control:

“There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread. It is hard to imagine that measures like those within the category of social distancing would not have some positive impact by reducing transmission of a human respiratory infection . . . However, the evidence base supporting each individual measure is often weak.”
...

...there are good arguments that there should be default plans (plans that have been tested during exercises to be implemented in the absence of other information). Indeed there is WHO guidance to that effect and many European countries have been developing plans. However, given the above considerations, these plans should have considerable flexibility and command and control structures that will allow changes to be made quickly in the light of new data and experience.

All public health measures have costs and many also have secondary effects. The secondary effects of most measures can be considerable and many will require careful consideration. The more drastic societal measures that have been suggested (e.g. proactive school closures and travel restrictions) have significant costs and consequences that will themselves vary by their setting. These are also difficult to sustain. Hence for ordinary seasonal influenza or a mild pandemic their application, and especially their early application, could be more damaging than just allowing the infection to run its course and treating those with more severe illness.

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publicati ... -ecdc-menu

Are the virus-related deaths and taxes caused by the virus? Do we count them in the death-by-virus tabulations?

I would say no, they're not caused by the virus, but they are virus-related.

.

Oh my god, it's in The Economist, can this sort-of-obvious argument be trusted?

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... o-covid-19

Why rich countries are so vulnerable to covid-19
Based on people’s age alone, you would expect the disease to be ten times more deadly in Italy than in Uganda



Nov 16th 2020

NEARLY A YEAR into the pandemic, researchers have identified dozens of factors that can increase a person’s chances of dying from covid-19, including hypertension, diabetes and obesity. But the biggest risk factor of all is being old. People in their 60s are twice as likely to die of covid-19 as are those in their 50s; the mortality rate of 70-somethings is higher still. Indeed, the probability of dying from the disease roughly doubles for every eight years of age. This helps to explain why older, richer countries have fared worse than expected in the pandemic, compared to younger, poorer ones.

To estimate a country’s vulnerability to covid-19, The Economist has combined population data from the United Nations with age-specific infection fatality rates (IFRs) for the disease. The latter was estimated using data from Brazil, Denmark, England, Sweden, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and parts of Switzerland and the United States. From these data we calculated an age-adjusted IFR: the probability that a randomly selected person from a given country would die if stricken with covid-19, assuming access to health care similar to that available in the sample countries.

The US federal government overturned the State of Nevada's decision to ban the use of antigen tests in nursing homes. See below for the data that led Nevada to ban these tests.

http://dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dpbhnv ... 9.2020.pdf

Urgent:

Effective immediately, the Nevada Department of Health and Human Service’s (DHHS) Chief Medical Officer’s
(CMO) directive requiring Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) to immediately discontinue the use of all COVID-19 point of care (POC) antigen tests until the accuracy of the tests can be better evaluated, will be removed as directed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of the Secretary. This effectively allows the use of such tests in all SNFs.

Background:

On October 2, 2020, DHHS’s CMO in consultation with the Nevada State Public Health Laboratory Director, issued a directive to stop the use of antigen testing in SNFs until the accuracy can be better evaluated. This directive was issued in response to high rate of false positive results reported by SNFs.

In mid-September DHHS started receiving anecdotal reports from SNFs that individuals with a positive antigen test were subsequently testing negative by confirmatory Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction test (RTPCR). RT-PCR tests are considered the gold-standard for testing and the result of a PCR test is considered accurate. Such tests are based on nucleic acid detection which is a process of extreme sensitivity and specificity.

The SNFs were surveyed systematically in order to quantify the issue. The initial findings are as follows --

A total of 12 facilities were performing antigen testing:

• Total tests: 3,725 antigen tests were performed
• Positivity: 60 positive antigen test results were resulted

Of the 12 facilities that have performed testing, eight (8) facilities collected specimens for confirmatory RT-PCR
testing on the positive individuals:

• Total confirmatory tests: Of the 60 positive antigen tests, 39 (60%) had samples collected and sent for
confirmatory RT-PCR testing AND results were available at the time of survey response
• True positives: 16 (40%) were true positives (confirmatory RT-PCR result was positive)
• False positives: 23 (60%) were false positives (confirmatory RT-PCR result was negative)

Accuracy by test brand:

• BD Veritor: 30 tests (performed at six (6) different facilities) were positive using the BD Veritor. Fifteen
were confirmed as positive and 15 did not confirm by RT-PCR
• Quidel Sofia: Nine (9) tests (performed at two (2) different facilities) were positive using the Quidel Sofia. One (1) was confirmed and eight (8) did not confirm by RT-PCR