On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 21:06:30 +0000, Robert Marshall wrote:

> and Rumsfeld is well known (inter alia) for his statement which I referenced in
> my footnote:

Here is politics for you...
What happened to the Democrat's mantra of: *My Body My Choice*?

The fact remains a fact even if you hate all the facts about Covid.
*The chance of anyone _not_ dying from Covid is well over 99%*
*The chance of a kid _not_ dying from Covid is 99.9998%*

And yet, there are people who want to force 100% of people to get a shot.
Without those people who are being shot up having _any_ choice whatsoever.

What happened to the Democrat's mantra of: *My Body My Choice*?

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 11:16:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> A percentage that could not come from what was presented in the side.

Chris,
I'm not that stupid, but I'm ok that you are dodging the fact you could find
a percentage that was there in front of your face for _days_ on end.

The reason I'm OK with your dodge above is that my point is that people like
you and Steve won't accept _any_ facts which conflict with your imaginary
belief systems (which themselves are not based on facts, but on fear alone).

Even if _you_ recognize the fact that the risk of kids _not_ dying from
Covid is 99.9998%, Steve _still_ refuses to acknowledge that that fact
exists.

Why?
Why does Steve claim that that fact, in front of your face, doesn't exist?

Who on earth is that ignorant to do something like that, Chris?
Who?

Answer: People like Steve whose belief systems are _threatened_ by facts.
>> you objected to the CDC figures I quoted,
>
> I object when people quote supposed facts but then cannot or will not back
> them up. You're very bad at that.

Hell, Chris,
I backed up _every_ fact that I said, so stop bullshitting me because _you_
couldn't find a fact that was right in front of your very eyes for days.

The fact you couldn't find the fact is obvious.
You couldn't even find the _page_ the fact was printed on, Chris.

I gave you all of that.
So stop it with the crap that I don't back up my facts.

The minor error I made makes my argument even better, not worse.
So the fact you denied facts is even more preposterous with the correction.

*The chance of kids _not_ dying from Covid isn't 99.998% but 99.9998%*
Big fucking deal the difference, Chris.

It doesn't change my argument one whit.
But either figure blows your entire argument out of the hole.

Why is that?
Why does a _single_ fact destroy your entire argument, Chris?

I know why.
Do you?

> The actual fact didn't matter, but it's impossible to discuss facts without
> verifying their accuracy first.

OK. Do you agree or do you not agree with the 99.9998% figure from the CDC?
And how would you make a claim that's appreciably different from 99.998% ?

There is almost no chance of kids dying from Covid, and yet, people like
Steve want to _force_ them to all get a shot that _they_ clearly don't need.

Why?
I know why.

Do you?

>>> You've made three mistakes.
>>
>> Let's look at them since I'm never afraid to admit a mistake (only fools do
>> that).
>
> False. You haven't admitted you were wrong to call the COVID genome
> "astoundingly huge".

Holy shit, Chris.
Did you buy too many arguments?
Really.

You know _nothing_ about virology.
You know _nothing_ about immunology.
You know _nothing_ about genetics.

The fact is that this is one of the largest human RNA viruses known.
The fact you are trying to ignore that fact make you into a fool, Chris.

Only a fool ignores facts which everyone who is intelligent already knows.
There isn't a {virologist,immunologist,geneticist} alive who doesn't know
that fact and you can google it if you want so there's no excuse for you.

The _reason_ you are ignorant, is you're unaware of the basic facts.
That's OK. Most people are ignorant. They're just like you are.

My point is that the more ignorant these people are, the more they ignore
the facts and work off their fears alone, which is what I consider a
problem.

You being ignorant is no big deal.
You're no different than most people.

None of you have even one billionth the background in this stuff I have.
>>> 1. 0.2 per 100,000 is 0.0002 per 100 or 0.0002%. Not 0.002% as you claim.
>>
>> I moved the decimal point instantaneously, off the cuff, in my head
>
> And made yourself look silly.

Not really.
It doesn't change my argument one bit if it's 99.998% or 99.9998%.

And yet, your argument is blown out of the water.
With a single fact.

A fact you denied vehemently even existed.
That makes you look stupid, Chris.

Not me.

> The point that comes across clearly in that presentation is that COVID is
> equally as dangerous to children, if not worse, as flu.

Yup.

> Seeing as we
> already vaccinate kids against flu then it makes sense to do the same for
> covid.

Do we _force_ all kids to get the flu vaccine Chris?

>> I believe, offhand, it's the "Crude Mortality Rate", is it not?
>> That's the _typical_ value which is quoted in pandemics, is it not?
>
> Nope. It's useless.

Idiot.
Chris, if you took just _one_ class in virology, you'd know it's the typical
figure quoted for pandemics. Every cite I gave you backs up that claim.

I even gave you a cite which said people like you misunderstand it.
And you do.

> Need to look at effects across cases or infections.
> Especially when you want to discuss the risk of dying. If you never come
> into contact with the virus then you never have any risk but that doesn't
> help in assessing global risk.

Idiot.
All this time and you never once understood my argument?

My argument is that each person has a choice.
In order for them to make that choice, they assess the risk to them.

That you can't fathom that argument simply means you're against choice.
Any fact that bolsters choice, you dismiss out of hand.

Even facts that are directly from the CDC you dismiss out of hand.
Why?

Do you even know _why_ you dismiss all facts that belie your fear-based
belief system?

I do.
>
>> Why do you think the "crude mortality rate" exists Chris?
>> Why do you think the CDC quotes it, Chris?
>
> It's easy to calculate and easily comparable across mortality risks due to
> very different things.

Idiot.
If you took just one class in virology you'd know it's the typical rate that
is quoted for pandemics.

The reference I supplied you says that directly.
The fact you ignore that fact is troublesome, Chris.

It means you hate all facts that don't fit into your imaginary belief
system.

Which means, in the end, you hate all facts.
And that's fine.

But you'll remain ignorant that way.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 09:40:57 -0600, joe wrote:

> If you look at page 15, you can observe the impact those mitigation
> efforts had on the flu.

And yet, page 20 shows the two rates to be about the same, do they not?

That instantly blows your 2019 claims out of the water (notwithstanding the
date that Covid arrived in the USA is generally quoted as in early 2020).

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 08:22:31 -0800, sms wrote:

> Still, nothing gets around the fact that we've lost
> about 0.34% of the U.S. population due to Covid.

Steve,
You do realize that that figure means the chance of any one person of NOT
dying from Covid is rather far over 99%, right?

Even so...
Can you show the two numbers that bolster your "fact" above please?

Presumably that figure comes from this simple math:
Total population of the US divided by total number of Covid deaths.

I'm sure you're using (rounded) numbers like
a. Roughly about 340 million people
b. Roughly about 900 thousand deaths

But I'm looking for the source of your calculations.
Can you please cite the URLs where your figures came from Steve?
Thanks.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 10:47:52 -0600, joe wrote:

> Yes, the US is #1 when it comes to infections and deaths. Those are not
> statistics that one should be proud of.

Do you really _believe_ figures coming out of the likes of Russia and China?
Do you really believe New Zealand has the same conditions as does the USA?
Do you realize autocracies like Singapore are _different_ from the USA?

No?
Really?

Why not?
> It is a result of people refusing science and thinking only of
> themselves and not their impact on others.

No.
It is _you_ refusing to believe basic scientific facts.
*The chance of a kid _not_ dying from Covid is 99.9998%*

And yet, you want to _force_ that kid to be injected with the shot.
Right?

The fact is that Covid isn't going to kill (almost) any kids.

I get it you _hate_ that fact.
I even know why you hate that fact.

HINT: Facts don't fit into your imaginary fear-based belief system.

I get it that you promote injecting everyone, even kids, against their will
perhaps, solely because you _feel_ afraid of something which, by all
accounts, has a 99.something chance of _not_ killing you.

You're _that_ afraid, that you revoke all basic human rights from others?
Out of fear alone?

Really?

>
> "my body, m choice" means I don't care if I cause one serious illness or
> death.

I find it interesting that it's My Choice My Body when you're not filled
with mind-crazing fear; but when you are filled with mind-numbing fear, you
_instantly_ without any qualms whatsoever, revoke that basic human right of
choice.

Why is it I'm not surprised.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 09:40:34 -0800, sms wrote:

> Per-capita, the U.S. is not #1. Not sure who is #1, it's difficult to
> get data from some countries, and some countries are hugely
> under-reporting. China's official death count is less than 5000 while
> the actual death count is estimated at 1.7 million (0.121%). Russia
> (0.691%) is much worse per-capita than the U.S. (0.336%).

It doesn't matter who is number one except to politicians like you are.

The USA is completely different than, oh, say Singapore, in every way.
It's completely different from China, or North Korea, or Russia too.
It's completely different from some sub Saharan country in Africa too.

And while I don't see any of Rod Speed's post, if he brings up Australia,
it's completely different too (e.g., how far is Mexico from Australia?).

At least you brought up the "per capita" comparison, Steve, to your credit.
The clickbait that "joe" posted has no value other than fear mongering.

And besides, the USA is "one" of the most populous countries in the world.
Hell, we report well and we have a shit ton of people, so why wouldn't we
have large numbers? We also allow freedom of choice and we have countries on
our borders with loose controls. We also have plenty of immigration. And we
have people sneaking into and out of our country.

So what matters isn't the number, but the percentage, if it could be
calculated accurately (and you're just not going to get that accuracy).

Bear in mind the figures we're quoting are likely well above the actual
accuracy anyway (either way) because of asymptomatic and complicated cases.

I find it interesting this "joe" character only cares about the clickbait of
who is number one, but at least you rejected his clickbait belief sytstem,
to your credit.

What this "joe" uses as "facts" are simply irresponsible clickbait.
All chant now: We're number one! We're number one! We're number one!

>> It is a result of people refusing science and thinking only of
>> themselves and not their impact on others.
>
> Sadly, there are a lot of low-information people in every country, but
> it seems like the U.S. has an disproportionately large number of people
> that want to be ignorant, are proud of it, and want others to be equally
> ignorant. No one has ever seen anyone work as hard to be ignorant as our
> favorite troll.

Steve,
I quoted a fact that the CDC published recently of the 99.9998% and you
_still_ refuse to believe that fact even exists, let alone is correct.

I'm promoting facts.
You deny facts exist.

> Back to the original subject line, I'm glad to see so many large
> corporations taking steps to encourage vaccinations.

Of course you are.
You never miss a chance to be duplicitous to your own mantra:
*My Body My Choice*

Ooops. The instant you become afraid of something that won't happen, it's:
*Your Body My Choice*

> I've seen the
> positive effect of these policies in the companies that my friends and
> relatives work for. When it comes down to keeping your job versus
> admitting that you were just refusing a vaccine to "own the libs" they
> will usually get vaccinated. Unfortunately, some companies are stubborn,
> and refuse to comply with certain health and safety mandates. In San
> Francisco, one popular fast food restaurant, eliminated in-person dining
> rather than comply with a rule that diners eating inside had to be
> vaccinated.

All you care about, Steve, is taking away our basic human rights by force.

You use government as a weapon _against_ the people.

You lie (your slogan is bullshit, Steve).
You deny facts.

You're evil, Steve.
But lots of people are evil.

As long as you stay out of government, I'm happy that you won't hurt us.

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 22:21:05 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Presumably that figure comes from this simple math:
> Total population of the US divided by total number of Covid deaths.

Ooops. Thinko. Flip that math, but the result is the same that I simply ask
Steve where he got the two figures so I can run the math myself to check it.

Something like 900K divided by something like 340M (times a hundred)
But what URLs did Steve use for his math please?

Even so, it's _always_ going to be well below 1% by the way, so it really
doesn't matter but Steve has outright denied all facts that he doesn't want
to believe don't exist, so I want to see where his facts came from.

Overall *Americans have well over a 99% chance of NOT dying from Covid*.
For kids, the CDC says it's closer to 99.9998% chance of kids NOT dying.

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 22:39:40 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 09:40:34 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> Per-capita, the U.S. is not #1. Not sure who is #1, it's difficult to
>> get data from some countries, and some countries are hugely
>> under-reporting. China's official death count is less than 5000 while
>> the actual death count is estimated at 1.7 million (0.121%). Russia
>> (0.691%) is much worse per-capita than the U.S. (0.336%).
>
>It doesn't matter who is number one except to politicians like you are.
>
>The USA is completely different than, oh, say Singapore, in every way.
>It's completely different from China, or North Korea, or Russia too.
>It's completely different from some sub Saharan country in Africa too.
>
>And while I don't see any of Rod Speed's post, if he brings up Australia,
>it's completely different too (e.g., how far is Mexico from Australia?).
>
>At least you brought up the "per capita" comparison, Steve, to your credit.
>The clickbait that "joe" posted has no value other than fear mongering.
>
>And besides, the USA is "one" of the most populous countries in the world.
>Hell, we report well and we have a shit ton of people, so why wouldn't we
>have large numbers? We also allow freedom of choice and we have countries on
>our borders with loose controls. We also have plenty of immigration. And we
>have people sneaking into and out of our country.
>
>So what matters isn't the number, but the percentage, if it could be
>calculated accurately (and you're just not going to get that accuracy).
>
>Bear in mind the figures we're quoting are likely well above the actual
>accuracy anyway (either way) because of asymptomatic and complicated cases.
>
>I find it interesting this "joe" character only cares about the clickbait of
>who is number one, but at least you rejected his clickbait belief sytstem,
>to your credit.
>
>What this "joe" uses as "facts" are simply irresponsible clickbait.
> All chant now: We're number one! We're number one! We're number one!
>
>
>>> It is a result of people refusing science and thinking only of
>>> themselves and not their impact on others.
>>
>> Sadly, there are a lot of low-information people in every country, but
>> it seems like the U.S. has an disproportionately large number of people
>> that want to be ignorant, are proud of it, and want others to be equally
>> ignorant. No one has ever seen anyone work as hard to be ignorant as our
>> favorite troll.
>
>Steve,
>I quoted a fact that the CDC published recently of the 99.9998% and you
>_still_ refuse to believe that fact even exists, let alone is correct.
>
>I'm promoting facts.
>You deny facts exist.
>
>> Back to the original subject line, I'm glad to see so many large
>> corporations taking steps to encourage vaccinations.
>
>Of course you are.
>You never miss a chance to be duplicitous to your own mantra:
> *My Body My Choice*
>
>Ooops. The instant you become afraid of something that won't happen, it's:
> *Your Body My Choice*
>
>> I've seen the
>> positive effect of these policies in the companies that my friends and
>> relatives work for. When it comes down to keeping your job versus
>> admitting that you were just refusing a vaccine to "own the libs" they
>> will usually get vaccinated. Unfortunately, some companies are stubborn,
>> and refuse to comply with certain health and safety mandates. In San
>> Francisco, one popular fast food restaurant, eliminated in-person dining
>> rather than comply with a rule that diners eating inside had to be
>> vaccinated.
>
>All you care about, Steve, is taking away our basic human rights by force.
>
>You use government as a weapon _against_ the people.
>
>You lie (your slogan is bullshit, Steve).
>You deny facts.
>
>You're evil, Steve.
>But lots of people are evil.
>
>As long as you stay out of government, I'm happy that you won't hurt us.

Well, disregarding all the toing and froing above the actual CDC
numbers indicate that about 2% of those who contacted Covid die from
it, in the U.S. In Singapore, to date, it 0.2% of those who have
contracted the disease have died from it. In Singapore some 6% of the
population caught the disease in the U.S. it looks like some 23%.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 06:17:42 +0700, John B. wrote:

> Well, disregarding all the toing and froing above the actual CDC
> numbers indicate that about 2% of those who contacted Covid die from
> it, in the U.S.

You don't get to ignore facts just because imaginary belief systems have no
room for facts.

I don't think you understand that what matters to an individual who has to
make an informed choice on mortality is the risk to _that_ individual, which
is the typical CMR percentage that is normally quoted for all pandemics.

You don't get to cherry pick your statistics when _that_ risk, for kids, is
*0.0002%*

I repeat.
You do not get to cherry pick your pandemic factors for no good reason.
*The officially quoted figure is the CMR which is 0.0002% for kids.*

Just because facts don't fit into your belief system doesn't mean you get to
ignore them.

On 2/6/2022 4:10 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 09:40:57 -0600, joe wrote:
>
>> If you look at page 15, you can observe the impact those mitigation
>> efforts had on the flu.
>
> And yet, page 20 shows the two rates to be about the same, do they not?
For the reading impaired, note 1) "Leading Causes of Death in Children
5-11 Years of Age, NCHS, 2019" and 2) "COVID-19 associated deaths in
children 5–11 10/3/20-10/2/2021".
The data for different years is being compared.

So, NO, page 20 does not show the rates to be the same _for the same year_.

>
> That instantly blows your 2019 claims out of the water (notwithstanding the
> date that Covid arrived in the USA is generally quoted as in early 2020).

Again what does "2019" on page 20 tell you?

Yet if you look at page 15, it shows covid and flu data for the 20/21
time-frame and also clearly indicates "Mitigation measures in place
during 2020-2021". It is also clear the impact those mitigation
measures may have had on flu rates.

On 2/6/2022 4:28 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 10:47:52 -0600, joe wrote:
>
>> Yes, the US is #1 when it comes to infections and deaths. Those are not
>> statistics that one should be proud of.
>
> Do you really _believe_ figures coming out of the likes of Russia and China?ata

Well, you can compare the data from the US to many other countries. The
data for the US is not impressive.

> Do you really believe New Zealand has the same conditions as does the USA?

Is the biology of the US population noticeably different from New
Zealand? I don't think so. But what IS different is how serious each
country responded to the virus. New Zealand closed its borders and had
very strict quarantine and distancing rules. As a result the fatality
rate for covid in the US is 250 times that of New Zealand.

> Do you realize autocracies like Singapore are _different_ from the USA?

Yes, Singapore is different in its response to covid. The fatality rate
is much lower than the US.

>
> No?
> Really?
>
> Why not?
>
>> It is a result of people refusing science and thinking only of
>> themselves and not their impact on others.
>
> No.
> It is _you_ refusing to believe basic scientific facts.

So, my thinking covid is something to take seriously has caused the
fatality rate in the US to be much higher than New Zealand.

I believe it is people like you who do their best to cherry pick the
statistics that minimize the effect of covid to be a big problem. The
result being too many folks don't take the precautions that would reduce
the spread of covid.

> *The chance of a kid _not_ dying from Covid is 99.9998%*

You ignore the other side effects of a kid getting covid
1) How much does the infected child increase the spread of covid?
2) What is the impact of covid on the medical system? (Like full
hospitals)

>
> And yet, you want to _force_ that kid to be injected with the shot.
> Right?

In my opinion, yes. Children are required to take many other
vaccinations prior to entering school. Covid is highly infectious and a
significant cause of death in the overall population.

>
> The fact is that Covid isn't going to kill (almost) any kids.
(You chose your words to minimize the seriousness of covid. Covid
impacts more than just kids.)
>
> I get it you _hate_ that fact.
> I even know why you hate that fact.
>
> HINT: Facts don't fit into your imaginary fear-based belief system.

Sure, I don't want to die, do you? However, my concerns are based upon
facts. Even as Trump stated denying the danger of covid, I was
concerned. The early news out of China was enough to make me concerned.

Constant denial of the dangers of covid lead to the poor response of the
US to covid. In part this is a leadership issue.

>
> I get it that you promote injecting everyone, even kids, against their will
> perhaps, solely because you _feel_ afraid of something which, by all
> accounts, has a 99.something chance of _not_ killing you.

The risk of death from covid is much higher than the risk of harm from
the vaccination.
Data from the past few months indicating >90% of the hospitalizations
and deaths from covid are among the unvaccinated. This should tell you
something.

Simple math can allow one to determine getting vaccinated is smart.

The result of covid is more than bodies in the ground. It is also the
current inflation, supply shortages and government overspending.

>
> You're _that_ afraid, that you revoke all basic human rights from others?
> Out of fear alone?

There is room for something other than "all or nothing".

It is a false leap to imply that one who favors vaccination wants to
take away all human rights from others. What about my right to be safe
when going out an interacting with others? When I go to work, I prefer a
safe workplace, not a breeding ground for covid.

>
> Really?
>
>>
>> "my body, m choice" means I don't care if I cause one serious illness or
>> death.
>
> I find it interesting that it's My Choice My Body when you're not filled
> with mind-crazing fear; but when you are filled with mind-numbing fear, you
> _instantly_ without any qualms whatsoever, revoke that basic human right of
> choice.

When we are talking something as infectious as covid, it is reasonable
to expect others to take it seriously. When do you stop thinking of
yourself and start thinking about those around you.

>
> Why is it I'm not surprised.

Because you refuse to look at a bigger picture than just yourself.

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:50:55 -0600, joe wrote:

> Yet if you look at page 15, it shows covid and flu data for the 20/21
> time-frame and also clearly indicates "Mitigation measures in place
> during 2020-2021". It is also clear the impact those mitigation
> measures may have had on flu rates.

What's interesting is you're finally coming to grips with facts.
These are facts that _everyone_ educated & intelligent has long known.

It's just you who is finally learning about the extremely basic facts.

FACT:
*The chance of a US kid aged 5-11 _not_ dying from Covid is 99.9998%*

And yet, you want to _force_ 100% of these kids who have no risk of Covid to
speak of, to be forcibly injected with this shot, even though the risk of
dying from Covid, to them, is clearly almost completely negligible.

Why?

You are so _desperate_ that you are dreaming up flaws that don't exist.
Page 15 is hospitalization data, which none of us were talking about.

Page 18 is titled Mortality, which is what we're talking about all along.
Page 19 says 1.7% of all kids who died, did so because of Covid.

That means 98.3% of deaths are from things far more important than Covid.
Think about that.

Then go to page 20, which says what some of those "things" are:
Accidents
Malignant neoplasms
Congenital malformations
Assault (homicide)
Heart disease
Lower respiratory disease (chronic)
And then all these were rated equally (in this order)
Flu and pneumonia
Suicide
*COVID* (from 10/3/2020 to 10/2/2021)
Cerebrovascular disease
Septicemia

Notice Covid deaths === suicide deaths
Notice Covid deaths < both flu & pneumonia deaths combined
Notice Covid deaths <<< homicides

Why not focus on what's important given this fact that you hate?
*The chance of a kid _not_ dying from Covid is 99.9998%*

The crude rate for that last set is the lowest on the chart at 0.2 per 100K
which is 0.0002% of the population of children (total in 2019 being 53K).

*That means a child has a 99.9998% chance of _not_ dying from Covid.*

I realize you hate facts, but why?
Why do you hate that simple fact?

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 02:48:52 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Notice Covid deaths === suicide deaths
> Notice Covid deaths < both flu & pneumonia deaths combined
> Notice Covid deaths <<< homicides

Ooops. Somehow my ad-hoc summary got screwed up in the editing process.

Let's clarify that the years don't matter because we're talking percentages.
It's perhaps extremely likely that in 2018 the percentages were similar.
They were perhaps probably rather similar in 2017 too.
Also they were likely similar in 2016, 2015, 2014, and 2013 (ad infinitum).

Unless you have an argument for a quantum change in what is killing kids,
those numbers can be for _any_ recent year and they can be compared against
Covid, AFAICT. That's just logic.

Now... let's look at the numbers that I screwed up in my edit.

Flu and pneumonia _combined_ was 0.3 per 100K, which is _more_ than Covid.
Covid was the _same_ as suicides and a couple other things.

This slide puts Covid deaths for children into perspective.
It's about the same as suicides and it's less than flu & pneumonia combined.

Does _that_ give you any perspective at all?
No?

Really?
What does it tell you then?

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 19:50:12 -0600, joe wrote:

>> Do you really _believe_ figures coming out of the likes of Russia and China?ata
>
> Well, you can compare the data from the US to many other countries. The
> data for the US is not impressive.

FACT:
*The chance of a kid _NOT_ dying from Covid is 99.9998%*
Where does _that_ fact fit into your belief system, "joe"?

I can tell you thrive on clickbait.
You give a shit about winning a race of who has the most cases?
And yet, you don't take into account the population?

Are you stupid?
(Well, ok, don't answer that. Plead the fifth).

Note: At least Steve told you that per capita is the _only_ way to compare.
>> Do you really believe New Zealand has the same conditions as does the USA?
>
> Is the biology of the US population noticeably different from New
> Zealand? I don't think so.

Idiot.

An island nation of fewer people than the number of people that live within
25 miles of me that is so far in the middle of nowhere that it was likely
the _last_ big island to be found by humans (roughly around 1000AD) is
completely different than one smack dab in the middle of the continent with
over 70 times the population of New Zealand, you moron.

There is absolutely _nothing_ in common in terms of epidemiology.

> But what IS different is how serious each
> country responded to the virus. New Zealand closed its borders and had
> very strict quarantine and distancing rules. As a result the fatality
> rate for covid in the US is 250 times that of New Zealand.

Idiot.
New Zealand is an island in the middle of nowhere, "joe".
It's literally one of the remotest populated island on the planet "joe".
The polynesians, who found Hawaii & Easter Island, found it _last_, "joe".
And they were the best navigators that this earth has ever known, "joe".

There is absolutely _nothing_ in common with NZ and the USA.
Nothing.

That you are so _desperate_ to equate them means you have no argument.

>> Do you realize autocracies like Singapore are _different_ from the USA?
>
> Yes, Singapore is different in its response to covid. The fatality rate
> is much lower than the US.

What is shocking is you think Singapore can be compared to the US.
There's _nothing_ in common whatsoever.
Nothing.

You're _desperate_ to make an equality comparison where none exist.
It's the only way your imaginary belief system can ever make sense to you.

It's like comparing Russia's military to that of the Ukraine.
You would claim they're equal because both have airplanes.
Hell, both have tanks.

What's more, both have people who speak Russian.
Hell, they _must_ be equivalent in your twisted mind.

Stop comparing the remotest places on the planet to the USA.
The constant uncontrollable mix of peoples is completely different.
>> It is _you_ refusing to believe basic scientific facts.
>
> So, my thinking covid is something to take seriously has caused the
> fatality rate in the US to be much higher than New Zealand.

Did I mention yet that New Zealand is, arguably, one of the remotest spots
on the planet? Did I mention it's an island too? And that its entire
population is _less_ than that of the 25 miles surrounding me alone?

No?
Well let me state that for you now, ok.

For you to compare NZ to the USA just means you're _desperate_ to find
anything that will fit into your completely imaginary belief system.

Are you Rod Speed perhaps?

'cuz if you are, this is the end (you published recnet death threats against
me when I showed you to be a fool, which I reported to the FBI who said
they'd take it seriously). Let's hope they did.

> I believe it is people like you who do their best to cherry pick the
> statistics that minimize the effect of covid to be a big problem. The
> result being too many folks don't take the precautions that would reduce
> the spread of covid.

Do you realize I have an education in this that you don't?
You _hate_ that I use facts in my belief system.
I get that.

You're ignorant.
That's OK.

You're scared.
That's OK too.

But just because you're ignorant doesn't mean all facts you hate are wrong.
Just because you're scared doesn't mean all facts you hate are wrong.

It's YOUR problem that your entire belief system isn't based on any facts.
You need to incorporate at least one fact into your belief system, 'joe'.
*The chance of a kid _not_ dying from Covid is 99.9998%*

Where does _that_ fact fit into your belief system, "joe"?

In summary, it's not so much that I find it shocking you don't incorporate
any facts into your purely imaginary belief system, but that you _refuse_ to
incorporate facts into your belief system.
FACT:
*The chance of a kid _NOT_ dying from Covid is 99.9998%*

On 2/6/2022 5:50 PM, joe wrote:

<snip>

> Is the biology of the US population noticeably different from New
> Zealand?  I don't think so. But what IS different is how serious each
> country responded to the virus. New Zealand closed its borders and had
> very strict quarantine and distancing rules.  As a result the fatality
> rate for covid in the US is 250 times that of New Zealand.

The Economist had the best comparison table of excess deaths since Covid
began. See
<https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker>.
As the article states, "In many parts of the world, official death tolls
undercount the total number of fatalities."

Indeed, New Zealand did extremely well, second only to Australia.

Comparing New Zealand to the U.S. in Covid deaths per capita isn't even
really possible since excess deaths in New Zealand actually declined
during Covid due to the Covid precautions.

The biology of the U.S. population is not that different, but the
demographics. education levels, population density in areas, geography,
and especially the politics are very different. New Zealand had Jacinda
Ardern as Prime Minister when Covid hit. The U.S. had Donald Trump as
president. Here's a good timeline of Trump's statements regarding Covid:
<https://doggett.house.gov/media-center/blog-posts/timeline-trumps-coronavirus-responses>.

The U.S. has a lot of people like our favorite troll that don't
understand statistics or science and spread misinformation that is based
on their lack of knowledge and political persuasion.

On 06/02/2022 22:08, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 11:16:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> A percentage that could not come from what was presented in the side.
>
> Chris,
> I'm not that stupid,

The evidence says otherwise. It took you days to even check your figures
and at the point it was clear you'd made a mistake plus some others.

Like a teacher with a child, the teacher doesn't assume the child knows
what they're talking about. They have to see evidence which confirms
understanding. This is what you failed to do for several days.

>but I'm ok that you are dodging the fact you could find
> a percentage that was there in front of your face for _days_ on end.

You said you could find it with ctrl+F. Not possible. You lied. Simple
as that.

>> The actual fact didn't matter, but it's impossible to discuss facts without
>> verifying their accuracy first.
>
> OK. Do you agree or do you not agree with the 99.9998% figure from the CDC?
> And how would you make a claim that's appreciably different from 99.998% ?

Like I said the figure doesn't matter. I can't agree and or disagree
with a made-up number until it can be confirmed.

> There is almost no chance of kids dying from Covid,

There is almost no chance of kids dying from *anything* (in the
developed world). That's the beauty of modern evidence-based medicine.

That's not a reason to not try to reduce a known risk when we can.

>>> Let's look at them since I'm never afraid to admit a mistake (only fools do
>>> that).
>>
>> False. You haven't admitted you were wrong to call the COVID genome
>> "astoundingly huge".
>
> Holy shit, Chris.
> Did you buy too many arguments?
> Really.
>
> You know _nothing_ about virology.
> You know _nothing_ about immunology.
> You know _nothing_ about genetics.
>
> The fact is that this is one of the largest human RNA viruses known.
> The fact you are trying to ignore that fact make you into a fool, Chris.
>
> Only a fool ignores facts which everyone who is intelligent already knows.
> There isn't a {virologist,immunologist,geneticist} alive who doesn't know
> that fact and you can google it if you want so there's no excuse for you.

You're ignoring this fact which I'll repost for your convenience:

"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/

By your judgement, that makes you the fool.

> The _reason_ you are ignorant, is you're unaware of the basic facts.
> That's OK. Most people are ignorant. They're just like you are.
>
> My point is that the more ignorant these people are, the more they ignore
> the facts and work off their fears alone, which is what I consider a
> problem.
>
> You being ignorant is no big deal.
> You're no different than most people.
>
> None of you have even one billionth the background in this stuff I have.

Attacking the messenger makes it clear that you don't have a leg to
stand on.

>
>> The point that comes across clearly in that presentation is that COVID is
>> equally as dangerous to children, if not worse, as flu.
>
> Yup.
>
>> Seeing as we
>> already vaccinate kids against flu then it makes sense to do the same for
>> covid.
>
> Do we _force_ all kids to get the flu vaccine Chris?

Are we in the middle of an active flu pandemic? Have nearly 1 MILLION
Americans died from flu in the last 2 years?

I ask again, what are you so afraid of from the vaccine?

> Idiot.
[..]
> Idiot.

[..]
> Idiot.

The ad hominems speak for themselves.

In message <stq2u5$1lno$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>FACT:
> *The chance of a kid _NOT_ dying from Covid is 99.9998%*

Let's put some more facts forward:
* The chance of a vaccinated child dying from Covid is less than that of
an unvaccinated child.
* The death of every child is an utter tragedy to his or her parents.
* The chance of a vaccinated child having "long Covid" is less than that
of an unvaccinated child. And it's still to early to know whether some
of these cases of "long Covid" are actually "lifelong Covid".
* The chance of a child dying from the vaccine is less than the chance of
a child dying from Covid. Much less.
* Every unvaccinated person is more likely to be a vector for Covid and
to pass it on to others, some of whom will have greater chances of
coming to harm.
* Unvaccinated people increase the chances of more mutations of Covid.
* Unvaccinated people prolong the duration of the pandemic.

I have yet to see any negative effect of vaccination. All the known
effects are positive.

David

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 23:15:25 -0800, sms wrote:

> The biology of the U.S. population is not that different, but the
> demographics. education levels, population density in areas, geography,
> and especially the politics are very different.

While I already commended Steve for noting that only a moron would compare
the Covid stats of a nation whose entire population is less than the 25
miles surrounding Steve, I again commend Steve for noting that the remotest
places on earth, which are also islands to boot, are also not even close to
an intelligent way to compare Covid epidemiology statistics to that of the
USA.

Certainly we can _learn_ from their abilities, but there's a reason the UK
withstood the German onslaught and France didn't, which initially at least
had nothing to do with the "biology" of Frenchmen versus Englishmen
(particularly after the debacle of 1066).

> New Zealand had Jacinda
> Ardern as Prime Minister when Covid hit. The U.S. had Donald Trump as
> president. Here's a good timeline of Trump's statements regarding Covid:
> <https://doggett.house.gov/media-center/blog-posts/timeline-trumps-coronavirus-responses>.

While I've said time and again that Trump is a buffoon whenever his antics
come to the fore, the fact Steve insists on equating _all_ current ills to
someone who is no longer in power and knowing Steve is a far-far-far far
to-the-left Democrat, it's no wonder Steve equates all problems that the
Democrats can't solve today, to Donald Trump (of all people).

I'm not going to defend Trump other than to say that the shot was created in
record time under that administration (which was due to bi-partisan
support!) at great expense, and not a few pulling of strings for the
experimental rules to be relaxed (again bi-partisan so nobody gets the blame
since everyone was pulling for an emergency expedient).

Steve, of course, is oblivious to that, where his buddy, what's his name,
the guy who told the Afghani president to lie as if it was the truth, that
guy, inherited the shot already created in record time (again, I note it was
due to bi-partisan support).

In summary, whenever Steve brings up Trump, he is acting exactly like the
buffoon that Trump is, was, and always will be.

The question isn't whether Trump is a buffoon, but if Steve can grow up.

> The U.S. has a lot of people like our favorite troll that don't
> understand statistics or science and spread misinformation that is based
> on their lack of knowledge and political persuasion.

Steve,
I'm going to give you this warning for you to _stop_ calling me your
favorite troll. I can do things you have no idea of, Steve.

So just stop it.
You call me a troll because I pointed out you lied about FCC maps, Steve.
You call me a troll because you _hate_ that I pointed out CDC facts, Steve.
You call me a troll because you can't even _see_ those FCC stats, Steve.

Stop it.
Just because you are a moron doesn't make me a troll, Steve.

Stop it.
Act like a man.

Not a scared-shitless fear-filled ex Cupertino Mayor inveterate liar, Steve.
Stop it.

Just stop it.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 14:44:24 GMT, David Higton wrote:

> Let's put some more facts forward:

To your immense credit, you are _trying_ to have an adult discussion, which
I welcome, as any intelligent and well educated adult should.

If I'm a bit brutal toward my responses below, please take it lightly as I
simply respond with "bullshit" or "you are correct" depending on the thought
process you write.

Bear in mind that you have _one_ good point which I also said many times
which is that everyone can transmit this virus. In addition, you seem to
think this "pandemic" will blow over, and, while it will (IMHO), it will
never disappear.

Never.
It can't.
It won't.

It's with us forever. (AFAICT)
So we'd better learn how to live with it.

> * The chance of a vaccinated child dying from Covid is less than that of
> an unvaccinated child.

Thank you for bringing this up, but rest assured, there's likely _nothing_
you will bring up that I haven't already heard - since I asked hundreds of
people why they did or didn't get the shot...

So I've heard it all.
Still, let's respond, one by one to your statements, as an adult should.

This is likely true but it's not a fact unless you can quote a reliable
cite, but otherwise, I'll believe it as it's a logical assessment to make.

We can additionally logically and sensibly discuss the merits though of
injecting children with foreign substances when their immune systems are
still developing, and what those foreign substances do to _change_ their
development, which is why almost all medical procedures have to be looked at
differently from the standpoint of adults versus from children.

> * The death of every child is an utter tragedy to his or her parents.

Absolutely true. That's _exactly_ my point.

Each person must weigh the danger to themselves individually (or, together
as in the case of parents). Thank you for comprehending my point on this.

While each parent mourns, so do others. I just cried over the Moroccan boy
who likely was asphyxiated in the tight hole (or maybe he had internal
injuries from the 100 foot fall itself).

See also:
*The Deaths of Others: The Fate of Civilians in America's Wars*
<https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195381214.001.0001/acprof-9780195381214-chapter-10#>
"It cites Joseph Stalin's quote�X��a single death is a tragedy,
a million deaths are a statistic���Xto highlight the military's
tendency to give more importance to a ��single�� casualty if it
was an American than to the million civilians who perished
if they were non-American. It also examines the controversy
surrounding the methods used in accounting for war mortality,
whether it was the war in Korea or Iraq."

> * The chance of a vaccinated child having "long Covid" is less than that
> of an unvaccinated child. And it's still to early to know whether some
> of these cases of "long Covid" are actually "lifelong Covid".

Likely ignorance which is _desperate_ to bolster an imaginary belief system.

Given my education in virology & immunology, but without having looked up
this "long Covid" to see how "real" it is, I suspect, a priori, that it's
mostly click-bait bullshit, although I'm well aware of long lasting ill
effects (such as honeycomb lung); but most of what I've read shows the body
clears out Covid rather well (although recent papers show it lingers in
adipose tissue).

So in the mythbusters realm, we'd say we need to test the myth you propose.

> * The chance of a child dying from the vaccine is less than the chance of
> a child dying from Covid. Much less.

Meaningless.
It just means you're _desperate_ to bolster your imaginary belief systems.

It may not even be the case, but it's _still_ meaningless since nobody but
people who want to create clickbait are worried about dying from the shot.

It happens. Of that there is no doubt.
People _do_ die from the shot alone.

But the percentage is so low that we'd have to look it up (as it could be as
low as the chance of dying from Covid, for all I know offhand, but it's not
a meaningful statistic except to people creating clickbait since they can
always fine one of anything and then make _that_ the entire clickbait
story).

> * Every unvaccinated person is more likely to be a vector for Covid and
> to pass it on to others, some of whom will have greater chances of
> coming to harm.

This is wrongly stated, but it's probably still the most important criteria.
Everyone can pass it to others.
Whether or not they got the shot.

The way you worded that to only implicate the unvaccinated is indicative
that you're _desperate_ to make a case for your imaginary belief system.

Notice my belief system is inherently logical (and that yours is slanted).
Everyone can transmit Covid.

> * Unvaccinated people increase the chances of more mutations of Covid.

Bullshit.
Sorry. That's just bullshit (IMHO).

Complete bullshit.
(If you disagree, we can look it up as I'm going on my assessments.)

We already discussed in detail, that while all "living" organisms mutate,
this particularly huge RNA virus does not mutate all that much, in my
assessments of those that have been documented, particularly given RNA
viruses mutate more so than do DNA viruses (like the other shot is comprised
of).

In fact, there are rather few mutations to the virus in terms that matter.

And, in fact, the people who have the shot are more likely to harbor the
environment for mutations (much as people who take penicillin do for Staph
infections, by the way), than those who don't have the shot.

Notice you have to spout pure bullshit, just to justify your belief systems.
Worse, I can make a case for the _opposite_ of what you claim (as I did
above, generally so, with the case of people on lifelong antibiotics).

All this shows that you are literally _desperate_ to make up reasons, after
the fact, for your imaginary belief system, which is, let's face it, based
on one thing and one thing only.

And that one thing is not facts.
Nor is it an understanding of immunology, genetics, or virology.

> * Unvaccinated people prolong the duration of the pandemic.

See above where it's easy to show _everyone_ can get & transmit the virus.
Whether or not they got the shot.

Again, you're showing _desperation_ to fabricate inane rationales for what
is in actuality a purely imaginary belief system based on one thing and one
thing only.

Fear mongering.

> I have yet to see any negative effect of vaccination. All the known
> effects are positive.

This is where my prior knowledge of immunology trumps yours, although I
certainly don't have a crystal ball into the future any more than you to.

Given my vast knowledge in such things though, I assess that this virus will
be with us forever, and I back that up with the knowledge of coronaviruses
which _are_ with us forever (and which cause about 1/3rd of all colds).

I also estimate that the risk of these shots is unknown, and that we just
ran a huge experiment after no more than a year of in vivo research (yes, I
know there has been in vitro research for more than a decade).

Also, while I'm less worried about the mRNA shots (that's why I chose Pfizer
when I was given the choice for myself, and my family), I'm far more worried
about splicing RNA onto chimpanzee adenovirus DNA and then modifying that
zoonotic DNA to change how it works inside the cellular nuclei.

However, I do agree we were faced with an emergency, where 0.0002% of our
precious children (about 0.2% overall, or maybe 0.3% or 0.4% depending on
whom you ask) of humans overall (many of whom are already extremely sick or
old) would have died from this disease in the short term.

I'm not against the emergency measure mind you (as I recommended the shot
for myself and for my family - along with the boosters more recently).

What I'm against isn't even that most people are ignorant.
Nor am I against the fact most people based their actions purely on fear.

All that is fine.
What I'm against is what Steve did with this thread, and with others.

I'm against the most ignorant people _forcing_ others to do what they do.

In summary, you could say simply so, that I'm against
a. Ignorance
b. Force
c. Political liars

Especially when, as with all things Covid, they're all combined together.

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 19:46:22 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:

> In summary, you could say simply so, that I'm against
> a. Ignorance
> b. Force
> c. Political liars
>
> Especially when, as with all things Covid, they're all combined together.

There are intelligent questions to ask if someone states there is no harm.

I welcome an adult discourse on this topic with Mr. Higton, as he brings up
good points that _nobody_ in this rather long thread has ever thought of.

But of course, I'm way ahead... as I've thought of _all_ of this.
And more.

But let's start here by responding to the "I see no harm" hypothesis.

Given Mr. Higton certainly responded as an adult should, and given I agree
with him that every death is a tragedy, and given I do agree with him that
all people can transmit this disease (whether they had the shot or not), I
didn't address the hardest thing to explain on Usenet, which is shallow, to
respond to his assumption that...
a. I have yet to see any negative effect of vaccination.
b. All the known effects are positive.

Here is where my knowledge is hard to impart on others because most people
are too ignorant (not stupid, per se, but too ignorant) to have the _basics_
of {immunology,genetics,virology} to comprehend what I'm about to say.

Perhaps Mr. Higton isn't too ignorant; let's hope so.

There are key points I wish to make about breaking the Hippocratic Oath
1. Most people (more than half!) are already innately immune to Covid
2. Children, in particularly, have basically negligible risks of dying
3. Children are _different_ from adults in many medically important ways

The related, rather adult, questions to ponder by the intelligentsia are
A. Are we _harming_ adults who never needed the shot in the first place?
B. Are we _harming_ our precious children who have no risk to speak of
C. Are we _harming_ our children whose own immune systems are still forming?

Nobody knows the answer, but what that means is it calls into question Mr.
Higton's heart-felt and sincere (yet, I think, misplaced) assumption that
everything we don't know will (magically?) turn out to be for the good.

Maybe we're _not_ changing the way people respond to the disease, but maybe
we _are_ (which is my point to worry about).

Maybe we're not changing how the kids' immune system develops, but maybe we
are.

And maybe, as we age, we're not changing what happens during inevitable
senescence, but maybe we are.

I can go into vast amount of detail on each of those topics, but Usenet
isn't really the medium for such things, where only David Higton seems to
have even close to the necessary intelligence to comprehend the questions I
ask above.

A. It could be that we're _harming_ the immune system of those who were
clearly previously mounting a more robust response to Covid by
dumbing down that complex respond to that of a reaction to a _single_
antigen.

B. Maybe, over time, as we senesce, and as the virus mutates, that dumbing
down of a previously robust immune system response will haunt us.

C. Maybe we'll find out that the dumbing down of the immune system for kids
has an especially nasty unexpected consequence as a result of their
nascent immune systems still forming.

Hmmmm....
Notice as always, I present the facts and the assesments.

I know too much to claim, as David did, that I don't know of possible harm.
As always, the most ignorant are the most sure of themselves.

Those with the knowledge that I have, are far less sure of what David
assumes, although I am not saying he's wrong.

I'm asking David if he has ever thought of the possible harm I highlighted?
--
It's an intelligent question to ask if someone states there is no harm done.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2022 14:44:24 GMT, David Higton wrote:

> Let's put some more facts forward:

To your immense credit, you are _trying_ to have an adult discussion, which
I welcome, as any intelligent and well educated adult should.

If I'm a bit brutal toward my responses below, please take it lightly as I
simply respond with "bullshit" or "you are correct" depending on the thought
process you write.

Bear in mind that you have _one_ good point which I also said many times
which is that everyone can transmit this virus. In addition, you seem to
think this "pandemic" will blow over, and, while it will (IMHO), it will
never disappear.

Never.
It can't.
It won't.

It's with us forever. (AFAICT)
So we'd better learn how to live with it.

> * The chance of a vaccinated child dying from Covid is less than that of
> an unvaccinated child.

Thank you for bringing this up, but rest assured, there's likely _nothing_
you will bring up that I haven't already heard - since I asked hundreds of
people why they did or didn't get the shot...

So I've heard it all.
Still, let's respond, one by one to your statements, as an adult should.

This is likely true but it's not a fact unless you can quote a reliable
cite, but otherwise, I'll believe it as it's a logical assessment to make.

We can additionally logically and sensibly discuss the merits though of
injecting children with foreign substances when their immune systems are
still developing, and what those foreign substances do to _change_ their
development, which is why almost all medical procedures have to be looked at
differently from the standpoint of adults versus from children.

> * The death of every child is an utter tragedy to his or her parents.

Absolutely true. That's _exactly_ my point.

Each person must weigh the danger to themselves individually (or, together
as in the case of parents). Thank you for comprehending my point on this.

While each parent mourns, so do others. I just cried over the Moroccan boy
who likely was asphyxiated in the tight hole (or maybe he had internal
injuries from the 100 foot fall itself).

See also:
*The Deaths of Others: The Fate of Civilians in America's Wars*

<https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195381214.001.0001/acprof-9780195381214-chapter-10#>
"It cites Joseph Stalin's quote�X��a single death is a tragedy,
a million deaths are a statistic���Xto highlight the military's
tendency to give more importance to a ��single�� casualty if it
was an American than to the million civilians who perished
if they were non-American. It also examines the controversy
surrounding the methods used in accounting for war mortality,
whether it was the war in Korea or Iraq."

> * The chance of a vaccinated child having "long Covid" is less than that
> of an unvaccinated child. And it's still to early to know whether some
> of these cases of "long Covid" are actually "lifelong Covid".

Likely ignorance which is _desperate_ to bolster an imaginary belief system.

Given my education in virology & immunology, but without having looked up
this "long Covid" to see how "real" it is, I suspect, a priori, that it's
mostly click-bait bullshit, although I'm well aware of long lasting ill
effects (such as honeycomb lung); but most of what I've read shows the body
clears out Covid rather well (although recent papers show it lingers in
adipose tissue).

So in the mythbusters realm, we'd say we need to test the myth you propose.

> * The chance of a child dying from the vaccine is less than the chance of
> a child dying from Covid. Much less.

Meaningless.
It just means you're _desperate_ to bolster your imaginary belief systems.

It may not even be the case, but it's _still_ meaningless since nobody but
people who want to create clickbait are worried about dying from the shot.

It happens. Of that there is no doubt.
People _do_ die from the shot alone.

But the percentage is so low that we'd have to look it up (as it could be as
low as the chance of dying from Covid, for all I know offhand, but it's not
a meaningful statistic except to people creating clickbait since they can
always fine one of anything and then make _that_ the entire clickbait
story).

> * Every unvaccinated person is more likely to be a vector for Covid and
> to pass it on to others, some of whom will have greater chances of
> coming to harm.

This is wrongly stated, but it's probably still the most important criteria.
Everyone can pass it to others.
Whether or not they got the shot.

The way you worded that to only implicate the unvaccinated is indicative
that you're _desperate_ to make a case for your imaginary belief system.

Notice my belief system is inherently logical (and that yours is slanted).
Everyone can transmit Covid.

> * Unvaccinated people increase the chances of more mutations of Covid.

Bullshit.
Sorry. That's just bullshit (IMHO).

Complete bullshit.
(If you disagree, we can look it up as I'm going on my assessments.)

We already discussed in detail, that while all "living" organisms mutate,
this particularly huge RNA virus does not mutate all that much, in my
assessments of those that have been documented, particularly given RNA
viruses mutate more so than do DNA viruses (like the other shot is comprised
of).

In fact, there are rather few mutations to the virus in terms that matter.

And, in fact, the people who have the shot are more likely to harbor the
environment for mutations (much as people who take penicillin do for Staph
infections, by the way), than those who don't have the shot.

Notice you have to spout pure bullshit, just to justify your belief systems.
Worse, I can make a case for the _opposite_ of what you claim (as I did
above, generally so, with the case of people on lifelong antibiotics).

All this shows that you are literally _desperate_ to make up reasons, after
the fact, for your imaginary belief system, which is, let's face it, based
on one thing and one thing only.

And that one thing is not facts.
Nor is it an understanding of immunology, genetics, or virology.

> * Unvaccinated people prolong the duration of the pandemic.

See above where it's easy to show _everyone_ can get & transmit the virus.
Whether or not they got the shot.

Again, you're showing _desperation_ to fabricate inane rationales for what
is in actuality a purely imaginary belief system based on one thing and one
thing only.

Fear mongering.

> I have yet to see any negative effect of vaccination. All the known
> effects are positive.

This is where my prior knowledge of immunology trumps yours, although I
certainly don't have a crystal ball into the future any more than you to.

Given my vast knowledge in such things though, I assess that this virus will
be with us forever, and I back that up with the knowledge of coronaviruses
which _are_ with us forever (and which cause about 1/3rd of all colds).

I also estimate that the risk of these shots is unknown, and that we just
ran a huge experiment after no more than a year of in vivo research (yes, I
know there has been in vitro research for more than a decade).

Also, while I'm less worried about the mRNA shots (that's why I chose Pfizer
when I was given the choice for myself, and my family), I'm far more worried
about splicing RNA onto chimpanzee adenovirus DNA and then modifying that
zoonotic DNA to change how it works inside the cellular nuclei.

However, I do agree we were faced with an emergency, where 0.0002% of our
precious children (about 0.2% overall, or maybe 0.3% or 0.4% depending on
whom you ask) of humans overall (many of whom are already extremely sick or
old) would have died from this disease in the short term.

I'm not against the emergency measure mind you (as I recommended the shot
for myself and for my family - along with the boosters more recently).

What I'm against isn't even that most people are ignorant.
Nor am I against the fact most people based their actions purely on fear.

All that is fine.
What I'm against is what Steve did with this thread, and with others.

I'm against the most ignorant people _forcing_ others to do what they do.

In summary, you could say simply so, that I'm against
a. Ignorance
b. Force
c. Political liars

Especially when, as with all things Covid, they're all combined together.

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 13:29:57 +0000, Chris wrote:

> The evidence says otherwise. It took you days to even check your figures
> and at the point it was clear you'd made a mistake plus some others.

Stop playing childish games Chris because _you_ couldn't find the facts.
For days.

I didn't even _look_ during that time because I was quoting from memory.
You, on the other hand, couldn't even find the _page_, let alone the facts.

Look Chris, Usenet is water under the bridge.
Worse, Usenet is filled with ignorant childish morons, Chris.

I was _hoping_ you wouldn't be yet another ignorant childish moron, Chris.

I get it you're embarrassed that you couldn't find it, and when you did, you
realized what I was saying was actually an order of magnitude _worse_ to
your own argument, Chris.

I get it.
Now let's face the facts.
*The risk of a child _not_ dying from Covid isn't 99.998% but _99.9998%_*

That one fact, when corrected, makes my argument an ten times stronger.
Even the uncorrected typo instantly _destroys_ your entire argument Chris.

There is no comparison between the two.
The fact you're _desperate_ to make that comparison merely means you agree.

>> Only a fool ignores facts which everyone who is intelligent already knows.
>> There isn't a {virologist,immunologist,geneticist} alive who doesn't know
>> that fact and you can google it if you want so there's no excuse for you.
>
> "As with their virions, viruses exhibit a wide diversity of genome
> sizes. RNA viruses possess genomes that are *universally small*,

Chris,

I get it you were ignorant that RNA mutates more so than does DNA.
Most people are ignorant of that fact.

I get it that you were ignorant that this virus is a large RNA virus.
Most people are ignorant of that fact too.

I even get it that you are ignorant that, for an RNA virus, let alone for a
large RNA virus, this virus doesn't mutate all that much (in my assessment).
Most people are incapable of making that assessment too.

But if I say an English Mastiff is large, and you endlessly claim that no
way is the largest dog breed large because horses are clearly bigger, that
makes _you_ the fool, Chris, not me.
a. I'll just drop it that you know absolutely nothing about {virology}.
b. I'll just drop it that you know absolutely nothing about {genetics}.
c. I'll just drop it that you know absolutely nothing about {immunology}.

I'm willing to let your foolish antics be water under the bridge, Chris.

Next time, if I say a Shire is large, and you endlessly claim that no way is
the largest horse breed large because elephants are clearly bigger, that
makes _you_ the fool, Chris, not me.

I get it you're ignorant of what _every_ {virologist, geneticist &
immunologist} learned in the first day of class, Chris.

I get it that you're immensely ignorant.
Just stop trying to claim that I'm ignorant because you don't know anything.
Stop it.

Act like an adult for once Chris.
Do you have any _value_ to add on this topic or do you not?

> I ask again, what are you so afraid of from the vaccine?

Idiot.
I said many times I chose to get the shot, didn't I?
I even chose the booster.
For myself.
And for my family.

The fact you think I base my decisions on fear is what tells me you're a
fool, Chris, since it's _you_ who base all your decisions purely on fear.

I base my decisions not on fear, as you do, but on facts.
I base my decisions not on ignorance, as you do, but on knowledge.

> The ad hominems speak for themselves.

When you act like an adult, I'll treat you as an adult.
Provide some _adult_ value in your next post please Chris.

Thank you in advance.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>

[snip verbal diarrhoea]

> Provide some _adult_ value in your next post please Chris.

You snip all the relevant information which doesn't fit your bias so why
don't you address that first before complaining to others?

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 23:17:10 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

>> Provide some _adult_ value in your next post please Chris.
>
> You snip all the relevant information which doesn't fit your bias so why
> don't you address that first before complaining to others?

This is the fact you dispute:
*The CDC says, on page 20, that the CMR for kids 5-11 is 0.0002%*

FACT:
*That means kids have a _99.9998_ percent chance of _not_ dying from Covid*

ASSESSMENT:
You can't even begin to assess that fact until you _comprehend_ it, Chris.
--
Only fools disagree with facts (their belief systems aren't based on facts).

On 2/7/2022 5:30 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 23:17:10 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>>> Provide some _adult_ value in your next post please Chris.
>>
>> You snip all the relevant information which doesn't fit your bias so why
>> don't you address that first before complaining to others?
>
> This is the fact you dispute:
> *The CDC says, on page 20, that the CMR for kids 5-11 is 0.0002%*
>
> FACT:
> *That means kids have a _99.9998_ percent chance of _not_ dying from Covid*

In light of that number, do you have any issues with this statement?
"Children aged 5–11 years are at risk of severe illness from COVID-19"
As a parent, severe illness would be of concern.

>
> ASSESSMENT:
> You can't even begin to assess that fact until you _comprehend_ it, Chris.