Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AJL wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your Name wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's simple: Americans are stereotypically stubborn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupid,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selfish, and egotistical. Just look at how many of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them refuse to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wear seatbelts in their car, insist on letting every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiot have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gun, believe in fantasies and conspiracy theories
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (UFOs, angles,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religions), use their own spellings and definitions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for "English"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, sue anyone (if not shoot them) for "breathing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong", continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use miles, gallons, and inches, elect braindead
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morons to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> President (Trump, Bush), stick their noses and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> military into other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> country's personal business, etc., etc., etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet my part of the country (USA) is overrun with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegals wanting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live here. Strange, huh...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People living in abject poverty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plenty of them dont live in abject poverty and fly in to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the USA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And your source for this alleged "knowledge" is... ...what?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those turned away at US airports when it is obvious they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arent genuine tourists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not a source.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Corse it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Show me a source complete with numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Show me a source, complete with numbers that the sun rose
>>>>>>>>>>>> fine every single day of this year.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you can't produce your source...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Neither did you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I haven't made a claim that requires support.
>>>>>>>> Corse you did with your original claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You accepted that claim
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup.
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>>>> and claimed in rebuttal
>>>>
>>>>>> So I didn't accept your claim.
>>>>
>>>>> The rebuttal was of the "yeah, but" variety.
>>>> There was no rebuttal.
>>>>
>>>>>>> that "plenty of them" "fly in to the USA".
>>>>
>>>>>> Because plenty do and clearly those weren't living in abject
>>>>>> poverty.
>>>>
>>>>> Again, what is your source for declaring that "plenty" do?
>>>> Again, those who get turned away at the airport for not being
>>>> genuine tourists.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's still not a source.

>> Neither was yours.

> You're the one making the outrageous claim.

Nothing outrageous about it.

And you made the original unsubstantiated claim.

> What percentage of people trying to illegally immigrate to the US do so
> by plane?

Impossible to know that. We dont even have official numbers
on how many are not allowed to enter the country as tourists.

> What is your claim?

Plenty of them dont live in abject poverty and fly in to the USA

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 21:21:22 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>>> Hell, Chris, did you ever even take a _single_ college class of the above?
>>
>> "College" is not the same thing here. I went to University for 8 years for
>> undergrad and postgrad. I covered most of those topics plus have
>> collaborated in many of those areas in my research career.
>
> Chris,
>
> I accepted a priori that you have a "PhD in Medicinal Chemistry", and yet
> you claimed the coronavirus genome is "tiny" (likely because you google it).

You made an absolute statement about the COVID genome size. Which was
wrong. If you'd said it was huge "for a virus" then you'd be right.

> Yet the coronaviridae have been well studied even in my day, Chris, where
> it's one of the freaking hugest RNA viruses known to infect man, Chris.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/rw8V0jfj/books10.jpg>
>
> If you had _any_ educational background in either genetics or virology, you
> would _never_ have claimed that the RNA coronavirus genome is "tiny", Chris.
>
>>> I've taken _every_ one of those classes, Chris (and lots more).
>>
>> A class doesn't sound very in-depth. Can't learn much in a class.
>
> Chris,
>
> You claim to have a PhD in Medicinal Chemistry, right?
> OK. I'll accept that, a priori.
>
> The problem I have with you is that _nobody_ with _any_ PhD in the sciences
> would say the childishly inane things you _keep_ saying Chris.

You can't deal with nuance and the language used in scientific research.
That's your problem.

> It makes me doubt if you even have a high school GED,

The only person being stupid is you. Of course I don't have a high school
GED -whatever that is - as it doesn't exist in the UK.

> Chris, when you say
> stupid things like "a class isn't in depth" when just one book itself is
> 1500 pages that you have to study (most of it anyway) to pass the tests.

Anyone can parrot answers to pass a test. Research degrees are very, very
different. You create new knowledge that is in no textbook.

> And then you have to take tons of "stuff" to get the degrees, that you don't
> even seem to be _aware_ of (which makes me doubt what you claim).

Doubtful claims are made by people you claim to speak in facts, but don't
back them up. Or pretend opinion is fact. Or simply parrot mistruths. Or
attack anyone and everyone who challenges them.

> In summary, if you really do have a PhD in Medicinal Chemistry, then don't
> say abysmally stupid things like you did when you said the coronaviridae
> genome was "tiny" when it's freaking huge for an RNA virus, Chris.

The proper use of language matters critically in science and is something
you need to learn. You wouldn't say a stag beetle is huge would you? When
you mean it's huge *for an insect*.

Higher vertebrates have many examples of single genes which are larger than
the whole SARS-CoV-2 genome. e.g. titin is over 100kb
https://www.ensembl.org/Equus_caballus/Gene/Summary?g=ENSECAG00000042020;r=18:56786141-57051511

On 02/02/2022 23:16, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:37:28 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> How many times do I have to tell that reading a book is not a degree.
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I'm not going to call you an idiot but I will say that's a stupid thing to
> say.
>
> It likely means you're desperate to create an argument where there is none.
>
> Nonetheless, as I've said, you have done some adult things in this thread.
> a. You're the only one who even _looked_ at the references, and,
> b. You at least found that Singapore paper on transmission rates.
>
> So I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt; but I do ask you to
> refrain from saying such stupid things again please.
>
>>> What higher degrees do _you_ have, Chris?
>>
>> I have a PhD in Medicinal Chemistry.'
>
> OK. I'll accept that.
>
> But I'll be looking for some evidence that you have pharmacological
> background then (you know, like if I walk into your office and there's no
> big fat Merck manual on the shelves, I'll start to wonder).

Ridiculous way to assess someone's knowledge. Books are useful for
teaching not research. I have next to no books as all the literature is
in journals.

>> Not from those books you won't. You'll know more about the history of
>> science though.
>
> Again, I'm not going to call you an idiot - but that is a stupid statement.
> That statement makes me wonder if you really do have a higher degree Chris.
>
> The fundamentals of science have not changed in recent years, Chris, and if
> you actually think they have, then you are lending credence to my worry that
> you may have fabricated that degree.

Our understanding of molecular biology, genomics and genetics has
fundamentally changed over the last 30-40 year (i.e. since your precious
books were published). Even 5 years ago it would have been a staggering
achievement to have sequenced nearly 2m clinical samples.
https://www.cogconsortium.uk/

The fact you believe biological research hasn't changed since the 1970s
is symptomatic of your inability to accept alternative views and change.

> Nobody who is well educated in sciences would say what you said, simply
> because the fundamentals of science never change appreciably.

The central dogma of biology is no longer accurate since those books
were written. That's one fundamental that has changed. Then there's the
discovery of epigenetics. Etc. (see the list I posted elsethread).

> That knowledge is what allows me to read almost any paper in any field
> surrounding Covid & I can understand the vast majority of what is in that
> paper.

There's that arrogance again. You may be able to read, but not
appreciate context.

> Can you?
>
> Before you answer, you need to realize I'm well aware you read that CDC
> slideshow and you didn't even _see_ where they said that the fatality rate
> for children was 99.998% so I have to wonder about your abilities, Chris.
>
> Again, I won't call you an idiot because maybe you didn't look hard enough.
> But it's there. (I'll even tell you on what page if you still can't find it
> but someone with a reputed PhD in the sciences should be able to comprehend
> a simple slideshow for the hoi polloi Chris.)

Go on then.

>>> I have my name on published peer-reviewed biological papers, Chris.
>>> (I wasn't the principle author though.)
>>
>> Cite?
>
> Isn't gonna happen. Privacy.

You say you have your name on a paper, but that can mean very little.
What exactly did you contribute to the work, intellectually, and what
was the topic? I mean I've had UG students on my papers but their
contribution has sometimes not been anything more than a pair of hands.

>>> On that topic of mutation, most people are ignorant like you are Chris, in
>>> that they don't realize RNA viruses mutate. That's what they do.
>>
>> All organisms mutate. It's the basis of natural selection and evolution.
>
> Chris,
> Stop saying stupid things. Just stop it. Please.
>
> I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but you keep stating things
> that Alan Baker would say (and he can't possibly even have a GED Chris).
>
> If you really have that degree, you wouldn't say stupid stuff like that
> because it's likely the first thing a fifth grader is taught on evolution.
>
> I expect you to say thing befitting of someone higher than fifth grade.
>
> Back to the point, the point was that RNA mutates more frequently than DNA.

Again that isn't what you said. Stop changing your absolute statements
to relative ones, when you get caught out. Relative mutation rate was
not the original point and is a different topic.

>> The RNA "ball" is not huge. It's genome is tiny. It's only 32kb (that's
>> bases) in length. Simple bacteria have genomes that are megabases.
>> The human genome is 3.2Gb but as we're diploid every cell has two copies.
>> Some plants have even larger genomes.
>
> OK. That's it.
> I strongly suspect you do _not_ have the degree you claim.
>
> Nobody with the degree you claim would say something _that_ obviously wrong.
> *For your edification, it's huuuuuuuuuuuge for an RNA virus!*
>
> Astoundingly huge, Chris.
>
> *Its genome is one of the _largest_ of all RNA viruses ever known*, Chris.
> It's freaking huge, Chris. Not tiny.
>
> Nobody who has the degree you claim you have would say what you said.
> Nobody.

You might want to have a word with the authors of this paper, then
(emphasis is mine otherwise copied verbatim):

"As with their virions, viruses exhibit a wide diversity of genome
sizes. RNA viruses possess genomes that are *universally small*, ranging
from 1,682 nucleotides (nt) (hepatitis delta virus [Deltavirus]) to
31,526 nt (murine hepatitis virus [Coronaviridae]). In contrast, the
genome sizes of DNA viruses range over 3 orders of magnitude, from only
1,758 nt (porcine circovirus [Circoviridae]) to 2,473,870 nt for the
recently discovered Pandoravirus salinus (2), although all ssDNA viruses
are small, possessing genomes that overlap in size with those of RNA
viruses."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093846/

Not big. Not huge. Not freaking huge. You're just being childish.

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 08:33:23 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

>> I accepted a priori that you have a "PhD in Medicinal Chemistry", and yet
>> you claimed the coronavirus genome is "tiny" (likely because you google it).
>
> You made an absolute statement about the COVID genome size. Which was
> wrong. If you'd said it was huge "for a virus" then you'd be right.

Chris,

Wrong again.

The SARS-CoV2 genome is not huge for a virus so much as it's huge for an RNA
virus (where again, Chris, you show _zero_ comprehension of virology that
anyone who has taken even a _single_ basic course in microbiology would have
known).

But all this means is
a. You have never taken _any_ course in either genetics or virology, and,
b. You don't even realize what you have no clue about

Which is ok....
Because _most_ people are ignorant about _everything_ on this disease.

Still, I'm not going to call you can idiot because you, did these things
1. You answered the question on your education
2. You looked up Covid transmission rates
3. You _read_ the CDC slideset I referenced
All of which indicates you may have the capacity to learn.

That, alone, is far more ability than the iKooks would ever have (including
Steve), since they're all ignorant to the core (aka incapable of learning).

Hence I give you the hope of being able to _learn_ something, which is a
hellovalot more than the morons like nospam, Alan Baker, & Rod Speed can do.

I'll drop the fact that you were completely unaware of how astoundingly huge
this RNA genome given it's shockingly huge for an RNA virus (which was what
you were disputing with respect to mutations), even as it's not huge at all
if it were a DNA virus, as I don't expect you to know even a billionth of
what I know about Covid.

All you know is what the newspapers feed you.
I know a billion times more than what you know, Chris, about Covid.

You can learn something.
I hope.

I only expect you to comprehend my main point, which is the more ignorant
these people like Steve are, the more they feel compelled to force the
decisions they make (out of fear) upon others.

Which is, after all, _what_ this thread is all about, is it not?

More to my goal, Chris, since it frustrates me how little people know.
What can you teach me about this disease that I don't already know, Chris?
>> The problem I have with you is that _nobody_ with _any_ PhD in the sciences
>> would say the childishly inane things you _keep_ saying Chris.
>
> You can't deal with nuance and the language used in scientific research.
> That's your problem.

Chris,

Again, I'm not going to call you an idiot because I respected three _adult_
things you did which were (a) you answered the question, and (b) you looked
things up, and (c) you read the cited references, all of which are things
_none_ of the iKooks (and Steve) are capable of doing.

They will _never_ learn a thing, Chris.
You can.

Having said that, I will ask you to stop making the claim that "I can't deal
with nuance" when _you're_ the one who ranted about the use of "vehicle"
while discussing injecting substances into our bodies - which is a common
term you'd know if you had taken even a _single_ class in immunology.

Moving forward, given Usenet is water under the bridge, all that matters is
you _learn_ that, for an RNA virus, SARS-CoV-2 is
a. An RNA virus
a. With a rather large genome
b. That does _not_ mutate all that much given both (a) and (b) above.

If you've learned only that from me Chris, you now know _more_ than billions
of extremely ignorant people like nospam and Steve do about the disease.

Which is my point after all.

>> It makes me doubt if you even have a high school GED,
>
> The only person being stupid is you. Of course I don't have a high school
> GED -whatever that is - as it doesn't exist in the UK.

Fair enough. I admit I have no experience with secondary school GED's in any
country, including the USA (I had a 16 college credits in chemistry &
biology well _before_ I was even a junior in high school for example); so
I'm completely ignorant of what the UK does for people who can't earn their
high school degree in the first pass.

Based on what you said I'll openly and easily admit I'm wrong (only a fool
disagrees with facts - that's why they're fools), but what I'll do to
rectify that is _look_ it up so that I can edify myself for next time.
*What is the UK equivalent of a US high school diploma?*
<https://colors-newyork.com/what-is-the-uk-equivalent-of-a-us-high-school-diploma/>
"Does UK have a GED?
There isn't a GED equivalent, as the UK does not have a standard
school-leaving test or qualification."

Thank you.
I learned something from you.

That's good because Usenet is a team sport.
We "can" learn from each other since nobody knows everything.

Note very clearly that I also voluntarily admit openly (and quite easily)
that I was also wrong in assuming that the UK even had a "high school
diploma", let alone a GED.
"Do you graduate from high school in the UK?
At no age does anybody graduate high school in England.
High schools do not hand out degrees, so nobody graduates."

Interesting. Very interesting.
Thank you for edifying me.

I apologize for not knowing this information prior to you explaining it.

Apparently this is the perhaps closest you have in the UK to a USA GED:
"Is GCSE and GED the same?
No. We have GCSEs that one sits when you are 16.
If you achieve pass grades at C or above at the basics
(Maths, English Lang, English Lit, Science subjects),
that's probably the equivalent to the GED."

>> Chris, when you say
>> stupid things like "a class isn't in depth" when just one book itself is
>> 1500 pages that you have to study (most of it anyway) to pass the tests.
>
> Anyone can parrot answers to pass a test. Research degrees are very, very
> different. You create new knowledge that is in no textbook.

Please stop playing games.

You have no idea what my research was in and you certainly have no idea what
I did in decades at Silicon Valley startups, where if you think people who
can only "pass tests" thrive and retire early in some of the most expensive
places on earth, then you're just not being anywhere near logical.

Just stop saying stupid things and I'll stop asking you to stop doing it.
I'll accept that you have a PhD and if you do that alone deserves respect.
Especially since this newsgroup is filled with people who couldn't even earn
a pass grade in the basics in their secondary school GCSEs. :)

>> And then you have to take tons of "stuff" to get the degrees, that you don't
>> even seem to be _aware_ of (which makes me doubt what you claim).
>
> Doubtful claims are made by people you claim to speak in facts, but don't
> back them up. Or pretend opinion is fact. Or simply parrot mistruths. Or
> attack anyone and everyone who challenges them.

Stop it.
Stop saying nonsensical things.

Do you really _believe_ what you wrote?
If you do believe it, you are wrong.

a. What mistruth have I parroted Chris - name just one.
b. What doubtful claim have I presented as fact Chris - name just one.
c. What "attack" do I make that isn't warranted Chris - name just one.

For heavens sake Chris.
You can't name a _single_ one of the above.

And yet, you apparently hold a belief system devoid of facts.

It's fine that your belief systems are devoid of facts, Chris, but then
don't claim to be a scientist if all your beliefs are based on zero facts.

Religion is devoid of facts.
Not science.

My point is people like you don't know the first thing of Covid.
And yet people like Steve feel they need to force others to do what they do.

I probably likely know more about Covid than all of you put together, and
even then, I am the _last_ person to tell others what to inject in their
body.

Steve knows _nothing_ about Covid. Nothing.
And yet he wants to inject things into your body.

He can't even make an educated decision for himself, Chris.
Let alone for all of humanity.

I know too much about Covid to ever force anyone to inject things into their
bodies, especially when so much about that injection is vastly unknown.
>> In summary, if you really do have a PhD in Medicinal Chemistry, then don't
>> say abysmally stupid things like you did when you said the coronaviridae
>> genome was "tiny" when it's freaking huge for an RNA virus, Chris.
>
> The proper use of language matters critically in science and is something
> you need to learn. You wouldn't say a stag beetle is huge would you? When
> you mean it's huge *for an insect*.

Stop it.
I will let it drop that you have absolutely no training in genetics or
virology as I don't expect everyone to know what I know about this stuff.

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:42:16 +0000, Chris wrote:

>> But I'll be looking for some evidence that you have pharmacological
>> background then (you know, like if I walk into your office and there's no
>> big fat Merck manual on the shelves, I'll start to wonder).
>
> Ridiculous way to assess someone's knowledge. Books are useful for
> teaching not research. I have next to no books as all the literature is
> in journals.

Stop being a fool Chris.
Do you have _something_ (anything!) to offer by way of teaching me something
about the topic that is in the SUBJECT line of this thread nor not, Chris.

What do you know about Covid that you can teach me, Chris.

>> The fundamentals of science have not changed in recent years, Chris, and if
>> you actually think they have, then you are lending credence to my worry that
>> you may have fabricated that degree.
>
> Our understanding of molecular biology, genomics and genetics has
> fundamentally changed over the last 30-40 year (i.e. since your precious
> books were published). Even 5 years ago it would have been a staggering
> achievement to have sequenced nearly 2m clinical samples.
> https://www.cogconsortium.uk/
>
> The fact you believe biological research hasn't changed since the 1970s
> is symptomatic of your inability to accept alternative views and change.

I have to wonder if you're a scientist, Chris, because you know I said I've
read over a hundred papers on Covid (and I've posted _many_ of them here!).

It's unlikely you're a "real" scientist if you don't comprehend that the
background you get in college enables you to _comprehend_ what is in the
scientific papers. Anyone who is well educated would have known that Chris.

I realize you have no background in immunololgy (otherwise you wouldn't have
ranted at the use of "vehicle" which is _common_ in immunology papers).

I realize you have no background in virology Chris (otherwise you would have
known that the coronavirus is a large genome RNA virus, Chris).

And I realize you have no background in genetic Chris (otherwise you would
have known that RNA viruses tend to mutate far more than DNA viruses do).

That's ok that you're ignorant of {immunology,virology,genetics} Chris.
Most people are.

And that's my point after all.

The more ignorant people are of Covid, the more they seem to tend to want to
force what they would do onto others (which is the SUBJECT of this thread).
>> Nobody who is well educated in sciences would say what you said, simply
>> because the fundamentals of science never change appreciably.
>
> The central dogma of biology is no longer accurate since those books
> were written. That's one fundamental that has changed. Then there's the
> discovery of epigenetics. Etc. (see the list I posted elsethread).

Stop it Chris.
a. Clearly I knew stuff about immunology that you are clueless about.
a. Clearly I knew stuff about virology that you are clueless about.
a. Clearly I knew stuff about genetics that you are clueless about.

If you had taken even a _single_ class in each of those, about a dozen
stupid statements made by you would _not_ have been made (e.g., vehicles,
RNA mutations, genome size, etc.).

Just stop it with the crap Chris defending why you were wrong on all that.
I don't _expect_ you to know even a billionth of what I know about Covid.\\

It's likely _nobody_ on this newsgroup does.
Certainly not Steve (who authored this thread).

Steve makes all his decisions not based on knowledge, but on fear.
That's fine if he kept his fears to himself.

But the point of this thread is Steve wants to _force_ everyone to get
injected with a shot that they might not want to get injected with.

Whatever happened to Steve's mantra of: "My Body; My Choice"?
Anyway, Steve has merely an EE degree so he knows nothing about Covid.

You claim to have a PhD in the sciences, so maybe you learned something?
Something about Covid perhaps?

If so, the salient question I have for you is:
*Can you teach me something about the topic that I don't already know?*

>> That knowledge is what allows me to read almost any paper in any field
>> surrounding Covid & I can understand the vast majority of what is in that
>> paper.
>
> There's that arrogance again. You may be able to read, but not
> appreciate context.

Stop it.
You're the one who googled for the subunit size and who didn't have any
context that for an RNA virus, particularly with respect to propensity to
mutate, that the Covid genome is astoundingly huge.

You claimed it was "tiny" so just stop it with the context crap Chris.
Your claim it was "tiny" showed immense lack of perspective, Chris.

But I'm done with that as long as you learned something from me.
Now... the question is...

You claim to have a PhD in the sciences, right.
Well then, teach me something about Covid that I don't already know, Chris.

>> Again, I won't call you an idiot because maybe you didn't look hard enough.
>> But it's there. (I'll even tell you on what page if you still can't find it
>> but someone with a reputed PhD in the sciences should be able to comprehend
>> a simple slideshow for the hoi polloi Chris.)
>
> Go on then.

Jesus Christ Chris.
DO you realize what you just did?
No?
Really?

Let me tell you.
a. You claim my vast education doesn't provide me context
b. Then you ranted about words that are used in basic scientific context
c. Now you can't even _find_ a statistic that is right in front of you?

Really?
Are you serious?

You have a PhD in the sciences, right?
And you can't even _find_ a statistic about the 0.002% on page 20?

This is scary Chris.
No scientist on the planet would _miss_ something.

Hell, a simple "control-f" for "0.002%" should have found it Chris.
Stop claiming that I don't have context when you can't even find "context"
which is right in front of your eyes on page 20 of the slide set I gave you.

You are indicative of what's wrong with people like Steve and nospam.
You don't even realize how utterly incapable you are of evaluating Covid.
And that's fine.

As long as you don't _force_ others to think the wacko ways that you do.

I snipped the rest of the stuff that you copypasted since I've taken more
virology classes than you have Chris, and genetics, so I'm well aware that
the SARS-CoV-2 genome is not only huge for an RNA virus, but for an RNA
virus, it doesn't mutate all that much.

Do you realize that one sentence is more than _billions_ of people like
Steve and nospam know Chris?

All _they_ know is what the newspapers feed them.
All I'm asking from you is for you to teach me something about the SUBJECT.

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 00:31:56 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Do you even _have_ something as easy to get as a BA, nospam?
> That's a bachelor of _arts_ nospam, in case you're unaware of what it means.

It appears nospam doesn't even have the brains for a liberal arts degree.
At least Steve has an EE degree (which means he "can" comprehend details).

This nospam doesn't even have the ability to comprehend details for a BA.
That's fine, by the way. A lot of people are stupid like nospam is.

But if they're stupid, they're supposed to know that they're stupid.
This nospam is dispensing accusations that he has no business making.

He apparently has _zero_ higher education in the sciences.
And yet, he deprecates them all.

That.
That.
That.

That is what the problem is here.
*The less people know, the more they tell others what they should do.*

Given nospam's lack of education, what on earth makes nospam think he's
qualified to understand _anything_ scientific, even science basics...
Like virology?
Or genetics?
Or immunology?

If nospam is as ill educated as it appears he is, then why doesn't he
realize he doesn't have the intelligence nor the science background to
comprehend a word anyone says that is above the high school level?

Meanwhile, the coronaviridae has been studied for decades, even as people
like nospam never even heard of them until about a year or two ago.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rw8V0jfj/books10.jpg>

In article <stgn0k$112n$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> But if they're stupid, they're supposed to know that they're stupid.

what's your explanation for not knowing?

On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 09:32:14 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> But if they're stupid, they're supposed to know that they're stupid.
>
> what's your explanation for not knowing?

I'm making an _adult_ point here, nospam.

The fact you don't even have a college education, nospam, isn't a big deal
as a _lot_ of people are ill educated; but the point is you have no right to
disparage those who _do_ have both intelligence and education. That's all.

It's the same adult point on this thread, where Steve, with only a mere
engineering degree, feels, somehow, (magically?) qualified to _force_ people
to make the same fear-based decisions he makes. They're not fact based.

Those most ignorant are those trying to force their decisions on everyone.

On 2/3/2022 12:33 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> The proper use of language matters critically in science and is something
> you need to learn.

It matters a lot in finance, marketing, sales, engineering, law,
government affairs, marketing, etc., as well.

When someone isn't interested in facts the proper use of language does
not serve them well, we certainly saw that with 45, and we see it with
our favorite nym-shifting troll as well.

In article <stgqo7$sli$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Those most ignorant are those trying to force their decisions on everyone.

that means you're both stupid and ignorant.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 10:30:18 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Those most ignorant are those trying to force their decisions on everyone.
>
> that means you're both stupid and ignorant.

I find it interesting that nospam doesn't even have an education to speak
of, and yet, he feels highly qualified in {genetics,immunology,virology}.

And that's my point.

The more ignorant these people are, the more they tell others what to do.

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 07:18:50 -0800, sms wrote:

> It matters a lot in finance, marketing, sales, engineering, law,
> government affairs, marketing, etc., as well.
>
> When someone isn't interested in facts the proper use of language does
> not serve them well, we certainly saw that with 45, and we see it with
> our favorite nym-shifting troll as well.

I find it interesting that Steve doesn't even have an education in
{genetics,immunology,virology} and yet, he wants to _force_ people to get a
shot that, clearly, many of them don't want.

While I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, Steve is a die-hard far-left
Democrat, so I'll just ask Steve whatever happened to _his_ slogan of:
My Body My Choice

And that's my point.
The more ignorant these people are, the more they tell others what to do.

On 2022-02-03 9:09 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 07:18:50 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> It matters a lot in finance, marketing, sales, engineering, law,
>> government affairs, marketing, etc., as well.
>>
>> When someone isn't interested in facts the proper use of language does
>> not serve them well, we certainly saw that with 45, and we see it with
>> our favorite nym-shifting troll as well.
>
> I find it interesting that Steve doesn't even have an education in
> {genetics,immunology,virology} and yet, he wants to _force_ people to get a
> shot that, clearly, many of them don't want.

I find it interesting that you won't actually tell us what degrees you hold.

On 2/3/2022 9:19 AM, Not Joe wrote:

<snip>

> I find it interesting that you won't actually tell us what degrees you
> hold.

Our favorite troll is lying again. I have never said that anyone that
doesn't want to be vaccinated should be forced to do so.

The armed forces, businesses, schools, etc., are giving their employees
the option to either get vaccinated or to find other employment.

Trust science.

In article <sth47g$j69$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> The armed forces, businesses, schools, etc., are giving their employees
> the option to either get vaccinated or to find other employment.

or get tested, often.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 13:20:55 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> The armed forces, businesses, schools, etc., are giving their employees
>> the option to either get vaccinated or to find other employment.
>
> or get tested, often.

As for _testing_, that is a fantastic thing.
The more testing the better.

In my humble opinion, the government should be applauded for making these
tests and shots available to everyone for free, with no hassles whatsoever.

What I'm against is Steve saying with one side of his mouth:
*It's your body, and your choice*

But then on the other side of Steve's mouth he claims:
*It's _not_ your body and it's _not_ your choice*

Because _he_ is driven by his insane fears (and not by scientific fact).
It's political bullshit where they don't even believe their own slogans.

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 09:43:11 -0800, sms wrote:

> Our favorite troll is lying again. I have never said that anyone that
> doesn't want to be vaccinated should be forced to do so.

Steve,
If the risk is losing your job, that is _force_ by another means.

What is interesting is you're so far against the left that you can't even
see that you're driven insane by your own crazed fears so much that you're
willing to destroy the basic human rights we have earned in this country.

> The armed forces, businesses, schools, etc., are giving their employees
> the option to either get vaccinated or to find other employment.

Idiot.
That's force.
> Trust science.

Don't ever say that again, Steve, since your mantra is clearly:
*Trust abject fear!*

Everything you've said is based on fear.
Not science.

Steve, the science is that the risk of _not_ dying from Covid is over 99%.
For children, it's two orders of magnitude _less_ than that.

These are CDC statistics, Steve.
You know... Science.

In article <sth7c8$1k31$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> As for _testing_, that is a fantastic thing.
> The more testing the better.

especially psychological testing.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 13:43:11 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> As for _testing_, that is a fantastic thing.
>> The more testing the better.
>
> especially psychological testing.

Despite the fact that nospam has no education to speak of so he can't
comprehend anything logical and sensible, I'm all for Covid testing.

In fact, I'm all for the shots too.
I think the government should be applauded for making them available.

My point is that people, like Steve, who are driven insane by their fears,
are the ones most likely to want to _force_ people to get those shots.

On one side of Steve's mouth he says "it's your body and your choice";
but on the other side of his mouth he says it's no longer your body.

Because _he_ is driven by fear.
Not by facts.

The great thing about testing is it provides some of those facts.
Especially if the results are _reported_ back to responsible parties.

In article <sth83o$ua$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> In fact, I'm all for the shots too.

many people would be happy to give you shots...

On 2/2/2022 4:24 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> What's very clear is that 38% of 5-11 American children of COVID
> positive, which has huge implication for population spread and the
> potential for novel mutations.

No one, adults or children, should be forced to be vaccinated.

Just like school children can’t attend public schools if they are not
vaccinated, individuals that choose not be vaccinated should not be
going to venue with the regular population.

Airplanes, ships, hotels, corporate offices, supermarkets, restaurants,
shopping centers, libraries, museums, stadiums, etc., should be
off-limits to the unvaccinated until the pandemic is over. This type of
quarantining is vital both for the health of the general population as
well as for the financial health of businesses that are suffering
because vaccinated people are reluctant to be in the same place as
unvaccinated people.

What some businesses are doing, instead of terminating unvaccinated
employees, is to substantially increase the employee contribution to
health insurance premiums. That's a pretty good incentive to encourage
employees to abandon junk science.

There should also be continuing efforts to discredit the junk science
being promulgated by the far-right media. Even former President Trump
and the Pope are urging people to get vaccinated. It’s the crazies at
OAN, Fox News, etc., that are endangering the health of the U.S. for
their own political benefit. Sadly, they've brainwashed a lot of
low-information residents of the U.S. as well, so deprogramming them is
going to be especially difficult.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 14:00:09 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> In fact, I'm all for the shots too.
>
> many people would be happy to give you shots...

I already got the Covid shots. Long ago.
I'm scheduled for the booster at Costco Santa Cruz next week in fact.
*But it's _my choice_ based on logic, sense, and science and risk.*

My risk factors are old age and a few other things as I'm not a 25 year old
svelte marathon runner *whom Steve wants to _force_ to get the shot*.

That's all I'm trying to educate you people on.
a. The risk of Covid is an individual calculation each person must make;
b. Nobody has the right to force injection of "stuff" into your body;
c. For something that has a rather low risk of causing death (<99%).

I _understand_ all sides.
a. People like Steve are driven insane by their irrational fears.
b. Some people are afraid of the genetic material in the shots.
c. Others feel they're healthy enough to take their own risks, thank you.
d. While still others, like me, hate the shot, but get it anyway.

I'm not going to tell _any_ of those people what to do.
Certainly I'm not for _forcing_ them to do what they don't want or need.

My main point is this, since Steve is one of those who get their rocks off
(apparently) by forcing people to do what _he_ wants them to do:

*The more ignorant people are, the more they want to force others*

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:41:27 -0800, sms wrote:

> No one, adults or children, should be forced to be vaccinated.

Idiot.

You are defining force as "physical force" perhaps, Steve?
HINT: *It's definitely _FORCE_ to take away your job*.

Don't play coy pretending that it's not force Steve.
Nobody is as stupid as you need them to be to believe that ruse.

> Just like school children can't attend public schools if they are not
> vaccinated, individuals that choose not be vaccinated should not be
> going to venue with the regular population.

Idiot.
Vaccinated from _what_ Steve?
HINT: Nobody is fooled by that tremendously false comparison Steve.

You make ignorant statements like that which are not based on science.

Even Chris, by now, must have found the CDC stats on page 20 of the slides.
The fatality risk is no worse to children than the flu Chris (look it up).

> Airplanes, ships, hotels, corporate offices, supermarkets, restaurants,
> shopping centers, libraries, museums, stadiums, etc., should be
> off-limits to the unvaccinated until the pandemic is over.

Sure. *You _love_ taking away people's rights because _you_ are scared.*

> This type of
> quarantining is vital both for the health of the general population as
> well as for the financial health of businesses that are suffering
> because vaccinated people are reluctant to be in the same place as
> unvaccinated people.

Steve,
You have _zero_ education in {immunology,virology,genetics} where all you're
doing is proving me completely correct about ignorant people like you Steve.

The most ignorant people are the ones who want to _force_ their fears on
everyone else.

> What some businesses are doing, instead of terminating unvaccinated
> employees, is to substantially increase the employee contribution to
> health insurance premiums. That's a pretty good incentive to encourage
> employees to abandon junk science.

Surprise of all surprises, Steve that *you _love_ to "tax" people to death*
It's what you do for a living.

To you, government is a weapon.
> There should also be continuing efforts to discredit the junk science
> being promulgated by the far-right media. Even former President Trump
> and the Pope are urging people to get vaccinated. It's the crazies at
> OAN, Fox News, etc., that are endangering the health of the U.S. for
> their own political benefit. Sadly, they've brainwashed a lot of
> low-information residents of the U.S. as well, so deprogramming them is
> going to be especially difficult.

Steve,
You are ignorant of virology.
You're ignorant of genetics.
And you're ignorant of immunology.

Yet, you're filled to the brim with an immense hateful crazed fear.
All your "policies" are a _weapon_ you use to ameliorate _your_ fears.

You don't give a shit about your principles, Steve:
*My Body*
*My Choice*

Those.
Those are principles you ignorant people don't give a shit about, Steve.

In article <sthcna$c11$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> >> In fact, I'm all for the shots too.
> >
> > many people would be happy to give you shots...
>
> I already got the Covid shots. Long ago.

whoosh.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 17:08:04 -0500, nospam wrote:

>>>> In fact, I'm all for the shots too.
>>>
>>> many people would be happy to give you shots...
>>
>> I already got the Covid shots. Long ago.
>
> whoosh.

Given nospam has no education to speak of, he can be forgiven for not
realizing I didn't take his ad hominem bait, instead I took the high road.

The facts remain that people like nospam are completely ignorant of almost
everything (immunology & virology) having to do with Covid, and that's OK.

People like nospam and Steve are _completely_ uneducated in the sciences.
It's not a problem until or unless they start telling others what to do.

The problem is when people like Steve begin _forcing_ people to think the
ignorant way they do that their ignorance causes a problem in society.

And that is my point.