On 2022-02-07 4:05 p.m., joe wrote:
> 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.

And he doesn't even want to look at the rate of serious complications
from the vaccine...

....because it is essentially zero.

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 18:05:17 -0600, joe wrote:

> In light of that number, do you have any issues with this statement?
> "Children aged 5�V11 years are at risk of severe illness from COVID-19"
> As a parent, severe illness would be of concern.

Given your belief system is not based on fact, but purely on fear.
Sure.

There is always a 1 in something chance of anything happening.
Why not lock up every person on earth so they don't commit suicide?

That statement makes as much sense as does yours.

The problem I see is your belief system is purely imaginary.
And that's fine.
Just don't tell anyone.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 02:55:00 +0000, Kill Vaxholes wrote:

>> But again, no one is demanding that anyone get vaccinated against their will
>
> Stop lying.

What Steve wants to _force_ people to do is overprescribe drugs that aren't
necessary, and, which increase the liklihood of resistant organisms as a
result.

And yet, Steve doesn't care.
He doesn't even _understand_ but he doesn't care even if he did.

Steve is scared.
Since Steve is scared, Steve wants EVERYONE to get drugs they don't need.

Look at this reference for the antibacterials, such as Azithromycin.
<https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a697037.html>
"Using antibiotics when they are not needed increases your risk of getting
an infection later that resists antibiotic treatment."

Duh, right?
Everyone knows that, right?

Nope.
Steve doesn't know it.

Even though kids don't die from Covid (essentially) and even though most
adults are naturally immune to Covid, Steve wants to _force_ a drug regimen
upon _everyone_ because _he_ is scared.

No other reason.
Steve is scared.

And yet, the fact that is going to _increase_ the resistance of Covid
doesn't dawn on people like Steve who are scared out of their minds.

What Steve wants to do is _force_ people to do is overprescribe drugs that
aren't necessary, and, which increase the liklihood of resistant organisms
as a result.

And yet, Steve doesn't care.
He doesn't even _understand_ but he doesn't care even if he did.

Steve is scared.
Since Steve is scared, Steve wants EVERYONE to get drugs they don't need.

Look at this reference for the antibacterials, such as Azithromycin.
<https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a697037.html>
"Using antibiotics when they are not needed increases your risk of getting
an infection later that resists antibiotic treatment."

Duh, right?
Everyone knows that, right?

Nope.
Steve doesn't know it.

Even though kids don't die from Covid (essentially) and even though most
adults are naturally immune to Covid, Steve wants to _force_ a drug regimen
upon _everyone_ because _he_ is scared.

No other reason.
Steve is scared.

And yet, the fact that is going to _increase_ the resistance of Covid
doesn't dawn on people like Steve who are scared out of their minds.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> 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%*

Once you got your maths right I never disputed it.

I just think it is the wrong measure and also devalues the need to
vaccinate kids.

Now let's see what you dispute and disregard out of hand:
1. the COVID genome is "universally small"
2. COVID is one of the top killers of 5-11 yo children
3. 38% of children have COVID and are a source of infection
4. people can choose to vaccinate or not
5. you don't understand absolute vs relative risk

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 02:55:00 +0000, Kill Vaxholes wrote:
>
>>> But again, no one is demanding that anyone get vaccinated against their will
>>
>> Stop lying.
>
> What Steve wants to _force_ people to do is overprescribe drugs that aren't
> necessary, and, which increase the liklihood of resistant organisms as a
> result.
>
> And yet, Steve doesn't care.
> He doesn't even _understand_ but he doesn't care even if he did.
>
> Steve is scared.
> Since Steve is scared, Steve wants EVERYONE to get drugs they don't need.
>
> Look at this reference for the antibacterials, such as Azithromycin.
> <https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a697037.html>
> "Using antibiotics when they are not needed increases your risk of getting
> an infection later that resists antibiotic treatment."
>
> Duh, right?
> Everyone knows that, right?

OMG! You're comparing bacteria to viruses! How dumb is that? Esp. for an
expert virologist like yourself. They are very, very different and do not
respond in the same way. Plus antibiotics are also very, very different to
vaccines. There is no evidence that vaccines induce resistance in any
virus.

There is a theoretical risk with COVID due to the nature of the vaccines
targeting the Spike protein specifically, but there's no evidence to
support it.

If anything we need to suppress the virus as much as possible in the
population - esp. the unvaccinated - which means we need MORE vaccine
uptake not less.

"Importantly, the overall effectiveness of immunisation will correlate with
rates of vaccine uptake. We therefore encourage researchers, health-care
providers, and policy makers to act as advocates for immunisation, and to
advise individuals with questions about vaccines to seek this information
from reliable sources. The higher the proportion of a population
vaccinated, the lower the number of susceptible individuals, and the fewer
opportunities SARS-CoV-2 will have to spread and mutate."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00075-8/fulltext

You are dangerously misinformed and a risk to anyone around you spouting
rubbish about stuff you don't understand.

Imbecile.

On 2/8/2022 2:02 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> OMG! You're comparing bacteria to viruses! How dumb is that? Esp. for an
> expert virologist like yourself. They are very, very different and do not
> respond in the same way. Plus antibiotics are also very, very different to
> vaccines. There is no evidence that vaccines induce resistance in any
> virus.

It's actually very common for people without any medical or scientific
background to confuse and conflate bacteria and viruses. It's something
that doctors struggle with to this day, with patients demanding
antibiotics for viral infections and the doctors trying to explain why
that antibiotics don't treat viruses but the patients believing that the
doctor is just withholding vital medications.

In the U.S., anti-viral drugs for the flu are not prescribed nearly as
much as in Europe. They must be taken soon after infection and they only
reduce symptoms for 1-2 days
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5240024/>.

<snip>

> You are dangerously misinformed and a risk to anyone around you spouting
> rubbish about stuff you don't understand.

Only a risk to anyone that believes him, which fortunately, in
mathematical terms, is the empty set.

On 07/02/2022 20:07, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
> 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

You probably mean acquired immunity (from being exposed to the virus).
Almost everyone has an innate immunity which works well most of the
time. The rest of the time it requires help from clinical medicine.

> 2. Children, in particularly, have basically negligible risks of dying

....from anything. Relatively speaking, however, some things cause more
deaths in kids than others.

> 3. Children are _different_ from adults in many medically important ways

Yes and no. There are many differences and many similarities. What do
you actually mean?

> 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?

Nope

> B. Are we _harming_ our precious children who have no risk to speak of

Nice bit of inflammatory language there ('precious'), but still nope.

> C. Are we _harming_ our children whose own immune systems are still forming?

Three strikes! Yer out!

> Nobody knows the answer,

Actually we do. Especially B & C, not sure about A as you're not
specific enough.

We have decades of research into vaccine safety and it is
incontrovertibly true that vaccines do not harm children - not even very
young children.

We've given them billions of doses of different ones and the sum total
is healthier and longer lived children. Isn't that a great result?

Vaccines reduce disease prevalence dramatically
http://graphics.wsj.com/infectious-diseases-and-vaccines/

Children used to die predominantly from infectious diseases and died
more frequently.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/causesofdeathover100years/2017-09-18
https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past

>
> 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.

None of the above is factual. You're simply JAQing off.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 17:41:14 +0000, Chris wrote:

>> 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
>
> You probably mean acquired immunity (from being exposed to the virus).
> Almost everyone has an innate immunity which works well most of the
> time. The rest of the time it requires help from clinical medicine.

Good for you Chris, that you seem to perhaps comprehend that the immune
system is complex in that most things are acquired, but some aren't.

Those are innate.

I don't think anyone knows whether the immunity to Covid symptoms that most
people have is due to solely to any one factor, so I accept your questioning
of whether it's purely innate versus if there is prior exposure involved.

Given three coronaviruses cause about 1/3 of all colds, and given that those
colds are often recurring, it's likely more complex than one factor alone.

Therefore I'll accept your well thought out criticism that I don't know for
sure whether the immunity to symptoms most people have is innate or not.
>> 2. Children, in particularly, have basically negligible risks of dying
>
> ...from anything. Relatively speaking, however, some things cause more
> deaths in kids than others.

Oooh. Again, Chris, you pointed out something that shows that you have an
innate intelligence that belies many of your prior denials of facts.

I appreciate an intelligent discourse, Chris. I really do.

I _agree_ with your clarification that kids basically don't die of a lot of
the things that adults often die of (e.g., heart disease, obesity, etc.).

It doesn't change the fact that a kid has a 99.9998% chance of not dying
from Covid, but it puts the small percentage into better perspective.

Kudos to you Chris, for the value in your independent thought processes.

>> 3. Children are _different_ from adults in many medically important ways
>
> Yes and no. There are many differences and many similarities. What do
> you actually mean?

Well, clearly the children are _different_ than the adults in terms of
response to Covid, right? That we don't need to belabor, right?

Now, let's look at history, where the _opposite_ occurred, with the original
1918 "Spanish Flu" (which is a misnomer, but let's just pinpoint it at that.

There, the deaths were mostly in the healthy young people, and yet, the
death mechanism was about the same as covid, which is a concurrent episode
of the cytokine storm with the pneumonia.

Either one wouldn't have killed the people in most cases; but both together
did (same with Covid with a huge difference in age-related susceptibility).

>> 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?
>
> Nope

Ah, but I can make a case that we are.
Are you ready to _comprehend_ that case?

Probably not, right?
You assume, sans any education whatsoever, that it must not be causing harm.

Here is where I believe you are guessing sans any education behind that
guess whereas I'm also guessing, but I have tons of education backing it up.
>
>> B. Are we _harming_ our precious children who have no risk to speak of
>
> Nice bit of inflammatory language there ('precious'), but still nope.

Well, for the same reasons that we're harming adults, Chris, we're harming
the kids (IMHO), but for reasons that are even worse, the kids are harmed
even more than are adults because adults are "mostly" senescing while kids
are mostly growing.

Big difference in an immune system that reacts to what it's presented with.

BTW, that one sentence above puts years and years of education into a single
sentence since I can _predict_ what will happen to both, differentially.

You can't.
(It's not your fault though, as you lack an education I have on this topic.)
> We have decades of research into vaccine safety and it is
> incontrovertibly true that vaccines do not harm children - not even very
> young children.

The fact you said that belies the fact you entirely misunderstand how this
new shot is completely different from any "vaccine" we've ever given kids.

In summary, even as you absolutely zero education in this topic, you
confidently feel qualified (much as the lemon juice bank robber did) to
assess skills at a rather high level compared to people who _have_ years of
training in this field.

a. You don't understand how this shot works
b. You don't understand how the immune system senesces
c. And you don't understand how the immune system recognizes insults

And yet, you feel innately qualified to deny all assessments that conflict
with your imaginary belief system which is based on zero facts in toto.

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 06:39:47 -0800, sms wrote:

> It's actually very common for people without any medical or scientific
> background to confuse and conflate bacteria and viruses.

Steve,
Stop being an idiot.

Just stop it.

I get it you hate me because I _looked_ at your FCC charts.
I get it you hate I proved _none_ of those FCC charts said what you claimed.
I get it you hate that this proved you lied to us, over and over again.

I get that.
But don't claim out of absolutely nothing that I don't know the difference
between a bacterium & a viral particle, when it's Chris whom you respond to.

If you're so _desperate_ to discredit me simply because every fact I've
presented to you you've dismissed out of hand, then just give up Steve.

You're completely out of your league, Steve.
a. You have an EE degree... So do I.
b. You worked in EE for decades Steve, so did I.
c. You do NOT have a microbiology degree Steve - and yet I do.

What you prove is what I've said is my main point about this thread.
*Those, like Steve, most ignorant, are the ones who are most scared*
And that's fine, if this other point wasn't true about people like you:
*The more ignorant you are - the more you force others to do what you do*

Steve,
I fully get it that you _hate_ me because I show you are ignorant.
That's fine, as I don't expect you to love being shown up as an utter fool.

But stop claiming I don't know a bacterium from a virus.
Especially since it was Chris who claimed coronavirus RNA isn't large.

And yet, it is.
--
The ignorance of people like Chris & Steve seems to know no bounds.

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 10:02:26 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> You are dangerously misinformed and a risk to anyone around you spouting
> rubbish about stuff you don't understand

And yet, you and Steve have disputed _every_ fact that was presented, even
when I gave you the exact presentation and the exact page of that file.

All you and Steve have done is what the lemon-juice bank robber did.

You formed a strongly held assessment of Covid out of exactly zero facts,
and you will stick to that strongly held assessment to the death - even as
you based your strongly held assessment on exactly _zero_ proven facts.

*Such as the fact kids have a 99.9998% chance of _not_ dying from Covid*
--
People like Steve and Chris simply _deny_ that this CDC fact even exists.

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 08:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> I just think it is the wrong measure and also devalues the need to
> vaccinate kids.

It's the CDC who uses this measure, Chris - not me. The CDC.
It's also the typical measure used in all pandemics, Chris.

That's just a fact that _anyone_ who has even a week's worth of education in
the subject matter would inherently know, Chris.

The fact you don't like facts is clear to me.
But just because you don't like facts, Chris, doesn't mean they're wrong.

In fact, it means you are wrong.
And yet, you _still_ don't get that fact yet.

Neither does Steve.
At least you accepted the fact when it was shoved in your face for days.
Steve _still_ hasn't accepted this simple yet very revealing fact, Chris:

*The fact is the chance of a kid _not_ dying from Covid is 99.9998% Chris*
> Now let's see what you dispute and disregard out of hand:
> 1. the COVID genome is "universally small"

Chris,

Anyone with even one hour of education on the Coronavirus would know what
you keep disputing about the size of the RNA in the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rw8V0jfj/books10.jpg> Index for coronaviridae

The fact you were shocked is normal because you are completely clueless.
Most people would be shocked, Chris, because most people are ignorant.

But stop it with being so desperate to dispute what only a fool would
disagree with Chris. It just proves you are not only ignorant, but a child.

> 2. COVID is one of the top killers of 5-11 yo children

Covid killed about the same number of kids as the flu & pneumonia combined.
*0.0002%*

> 3. 38% of children have COVID and are a source of infection

Once any person is infected, they're a "source" of infection, which nobody
is denying Chris. Why are you so desperate to find _one_ fact you can hang
your hat on when nobody is disputing that even asymptomatic people can
transmit the disease?

> 4. people can choose to vaccinate or not

Not if they're being _forced_ to be shot up with a shot they don't want.

> 5. you don't understand absolute vs relative risk

WTF?

Your entire belief system is based on fear and fear alone.
Not facts.

And then you say something as childish as that?
Are you _desperate_ Chris?

Grow up.

My beef is that people are forced to get a shot they don't want.
The force comes in many ways, not the least being their job.
That's force.

You can say it's not, but you'd be lying to me.
And I'd know it in a split second.

Also my observation is people like you and Steve base your entire belief
system on fear, and not facts, but that's not what I care about since a lot
of people base their entire belief system on fear and fear alone.

What I have observed is this propensity of ignorant people like Steve:
*The more ignorant they are, the more they force others to be like they*

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 08:43:10 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> I just think it is the wrong measure and also devalues the need to
>> vaccinate kids.
>
> It's the CDC who uses this measure, Chris - not me. The CDC.

In the document you desperately cling onto as your bible they use *all* the
different measures and show no preference. It *is you* who's ONLY focusing
on the crude mortality rate.

Health policy looks at all aspects, not a single simplistic metric.

>> Now let's see what you dispute and disregard out of hand:
>> 1. the COVID genome is "universally small"
>
> Chris,
>
> Anyone with even one hour of education

Yup, you dispute what a world-class virologist - a real one not a bedroom
one - has actually published.
>
>> 2. COVID is one of the top killers of 5-11 yo children
>
> Covid killed about the same number of kids as the flu & pneumonia combined.
> *0.0002%*

Right. it's as dangerous as flu. Thanks for confirming.

>> 3. 38% of children have COVID and are a source of infection
>
> Once any person is infected, they're a "source" of infection, which nobody
> is denying Chris.

At last.

>
>> 4. people can choose to vaccinate or not
>
> Not if they're being _forced_ to be shot up with a shot they don't want.

No-one is being forced. However, when we're in the middle of pandemic and
people are being dissuaded from vaccination by lies and distortions
something does need to be done.

At work, any employee who endangers themselves or their colleagues will be
fired. Not getting vaccinated is exactly the same.

>> 5. you don't understand absolute vs relative risk
>
> WTF?
>
> Your entire belief system is based on fear and fear alone.
> Not facts.

Thanks for confirming you lack of understanding. Makes sense.

> And then you say something as childish as that?
> Are you _desperate_ Chris?
>
> Grow up.
>
> My beef is that people are forced to get a shot they don't want.
> The force comes in many ways, not the least being their job.
> That's force.
>
> You can say it's not, but you'd be lying to me.
> And I'd know it in a split second.
>
> Also my observation is people like you and Steve base your entire belief
> system on fear, and not facts, but that's not what I care about since a lot
> of people base their entire belief system on fear and fear alone.
>
> What I have observed is this propensity of ignorant people like Steve:
> *The more ignorant they are, the more they force others to be like they*
>

On 09/02/2022 03:41, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 17:41:14 +0000, Chris wrote:
>
>>> 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
>>
>> You probably mean acquired immunity (from being exposed to the virus).
>> Almost everyone has an innate immunity which works well most of the
>> time. The rest of the time it requires help from clinical medicine.
>
> Therefore I'll accept your well thought out criticism that I don't know for
> sure whether the immunity to symptoms most people have is innate or not.

Well done.

>>> 2. Children, in particularly, have basically negligible risks of dying
>>
>> ...from anything. Relatively speaking, however, some things cause more
>> deaths in kids than others.
>
> Oooh. Again, Chris, you pointed out something that shows that you have an
> innate intelligence that belies many of your prior denials of facts.
>
> I appreciate an intelligent discourse, Chris. I really do.
>
> I _agree_ with your clarification that kids basically don't die of a lot of
> the things that adults often die of (e.g., heart disease, obesity, etc.).

+1

>>> 3. Children are _different_ from adults in many medically important ways
>>
>> Yes and no. There are many differences and many similarities. What do
>> you actually mean?
>
> Well, clearly the children are _different_ than the adults in terms of
> response to Covid, right? That we don't need to belabor, right?

But what the real question is what is the difference that results in the
difference in mortality? It's not helpful to simply say children are
different. And it's poor inference to then question the utility of
vaccinating kids.

One theory could be that it's simply the fact that children rarely have
any comorbidities. Other than age that's one of the biggest contributors
to serious illness.

> Now, let's look at history, where the _opposite_ occurred, with the original
> 1918 "Spanish Flu" (which is a misnomer, but let's just pinpoint it at that.

COVID isn't flu.

>>> 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?
>>
>> Nope
>
> Ah, but I can make a case that we are.

Go on then. You haven't made a case. You've simple stated an open question.

The facts are that COVID has killed millions of people and the vaccines
have saved hundreds of thousands.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/who-ecdc-nearly-half-million-lives-saved-covid-19-vaccination

There's no evidence currently or historically that vaccines are harmful
when properly administered.

>>> B. Are we _harming_ our precious children who have no risk to speak of
>>
>> Nice bit of inflammatory language there ('precious'), but still nope.
>
> Well, for the same reasons that we're harming adults, Chris, we're harming
> the kids (IMHO),

That's your opinion. There's no evidence to support it.

>> We have decades of research into vaccine safety and it is
>> incontrovertibly true that vaccines do not harm children - not even very
>> young children.
>
> The fact you said that belies the fact you entirely misunderstand how this
> new shot is completely different from any "vaccine" we've ever given kids.

Vaccines aren't a monoculture. They encompasses a whole range of
different modalities to raise an immune response and protect from
infection of the actual disease.

mRNA/adenovirus vaccines are just the next step in vaccine advancement.
There's no evidence to show their side-effects are any different to
existing vaccine types. There's some vague theories about ADE, but
that's not unique to the vaccine nor to COVID.

So, go on then, make your case - in detail - how we are harming adults
and kids with vaccines. Please avoid the standard antivax tropes.

> In summary, even as you absolutely zero education in this topic

Irony overload!

On 2/9/2022 12:53 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> One theory could be that it's simply the fact that children rarely have
> any comorbidities. Other than age that's one of the biggest contributors
> to serious illness.

Yes, but it's more than just a theory. And of course comorbidities
increase with age.

The whole "children are less likely to die from Covid than adults so
vaccinations are unnecessary" has so many language of argument errors
that it's tough to know where to start.

I would suggest that Arlen/Harry/Andy acquire a copy of the text "The
Language of Argument" so he can improve his writing and critical
thinking skills. It's out of print but it was widely used as a college
textbook so a lot of used copies are available. Any edition is fine, the
examples differ but the core principles are the same.
<https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?kn=The%20Language%20of%20Argument>.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 07:59:13 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> In the document you desperately cling onto as your bible they use *all* the
> different measures and show no preference. It *is you* who's ONLY focusing
> on the crude mortality rate.

Chris,

This is a very _adult_ conversation I'm attempting to have with you.

I get it that you're _desperate_ to dispute all fact you don't like.
Lot's of people whose belief systems are based on fear do that Chris.

You have to understand what my point is, Chris, and you still don't get it.
1. Let's get this fact out that _I_ got the shot (and the boosters)
2. So did my immediate & extended family (most of them, anyway)
3. But I didn't make _my_ choice on fear as I'm not in the least afraid

Some people make their decisions based on solid facts.
Others, like you and Steve, make all your decisions solely on abject fear.

What I do that you don't appear to do is this one _adult_ thing, Chris:
*I ask them why*

Yup. Let me say it again.
*I ask them why*

Guess what I get as answers, Chris?
a. The people who got the shot gave me their answers as to why
b. The people who didn't get the shot gave me their answers why
c. And even a few were _forced_ to get the shot and they told me why

The difference between ignorant people like Steve and me is...
*I _understand_ them*

Fundamentally:
A. Those who get the shot are scared out of their wits
B. Those who don't want the shot are not

It's really that simple (although, trust me, they gave me an earful).
*People are allowed to make their own medical decisions, Chris*

What I find about people like you and Steve is you don't understand them.
Worse, you have to demonize them to understand they're not scared, Chris.

You are scared out of your mind, Chris.
They are not.
Neither am I.

You can't comprehend that observation Chris.
Because you are scared to the point that your mind stopped working on facts.
(if it ever did)

Interestingly, those who don't want the shot understand people like you.
You don't understand them.

It's _you_ who is ignorant.
Not them.

In fact, you don't understand _anything_ Chris (and Steve).
Nothing.

You don't know virology.
You don't know genetics.
You don't know immunology.

It's a shocker to you even the simplest of the most basic things about the
genome (genetics) and it's a shocker to you the simplest thing about the
shot (immunology) and you have no idea how the disease progresse (virology).

You're _completely_ and utterly ignorant, Chris and Steve.
All you can do is google for clickbait, Chris.

The fact is clear that you're both unfathomably ignorant Steve and Chris.
And that's OK.

You're _allowed_ to be ignorant, Steve and Chris.
You're even allowed to base all _your_ personal decisions only on fear.

The problem with ignorant people like you and Steve isn't that you base all
your decisions on pure mind-numbing abject fear, but that you insist that
everyone, even kids who stand almost no chance whatsoever of dying from
Covid, to also make all their decisions based on _your_ abject fear.

In summary, my beef isn't that you and Steve are utterly ignorant.
*My beef is you want to _force_ people to get a shot they don't want.*
Because _you_ are scared out of your minds.

They're not scared.
You are.

Deal with your unfathomable fear because Covid is with us forever (IMHO).
--
The most ignorant people are the ones forcing others to do what they do.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 08:26:04 -0800, sms wrote:

> On 2/9/2022 12:53 AM, Chris wrote:
> Yes, but it's more than just a theory. And of course comorbidities
> increase with age.

Those most ignorant are most driven by fear, and they're also the ones who
are trying to _force_ everyone else to do what _they_ do (out of fear).

The fact remains a fact that the risk is lopsided between young & old.
*The young have essentially almost zero chance of dying from Covid*
*For the whole population, it's still less than half of one percent*

Steve and Chris base their entire belief system purely on fear.
Fear and fear alone.
Not on facts.

Steve _still_ doesn't acknowledge the fact that took Chris days and days.

Chris _still_ disagrees with what no epidemiologist would disagree with.
*Choosing the right COVID-19 indicator*
crude mortality, case fatality, and infection fatality rates
influence policy preferences, behaviour, and understanding
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-01032-0>
"In times of pandemic, media alternate the usage of different COVID-19
indicators, ranging from the more typical crude mortality rate
to the case fatality rate, and the infection fatality rate"

Why is Steve oblivious to all facts he simply doesn't like?
And why does Chris dispute all facts he simply doesn't like.

I know why.
Do you?
--
Those most ignorant are most driven by fear, and they're also the ones who
are trying to _force_ everyone else to do what _they_ do (out of fear).

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 07:59:13 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> In the document you desperately cling onto as your bible they use *all* the
>> different measures and show no preference. It *is you* who's ONLY focusing
>> on the crude mortality rate.
>

[ massive snip of nonsense ]

I get it. You don't like being directly challenged. That's why you go on
these massive tangents.

Distract at all costs. Especially when you know you're in the wrong.

>
> What I do that you don't appear to do is this one _adult_ thing, Chris:
> *I ask them why*

[snip]

> Fundamentally:
> A. Those who get the shot are scared out of their wits
> B. Those who don't want the shot are not
>
> It's really that simple (although, trust me, they gave me an earful).
> *People are allowed to make their own medical decisions, Chris*

Is that it? Anecdotes?! You're basing your whole diatribe on anecdotes?

That's a new low for you. Congrats!

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 19:29:05 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> I get it. You don't like being directly challenged.

It was your entire belief system that was instantly destroyed by a single fact:
A kid doesn't have a 99.998% chance of not dying from covid, but 99.9998%

*It was _your_ belief system that was _destroyed_ by that fact; not mine.*

> Distract at all costs.
> Especially when you know you're in the wrong.

Was I wrong the virus genome is astoundingly huge for an RNA virus Chris?
*Or was it _you_ who had no clue about the size of RNA viruses*, Chris?

> You're basing your whole diatribe on anecdotes?

I stated my point, which people like you disagree with (& that's my point).
*Those most ignorant, are the ones like you who want to force others.*
--
The fact is that I have a degree in this stuff and you clearly do not.
*Uneducated people like you are completely out of your league*

On 2022-02-09 11:47 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 19:29:05 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> I get it. You don't like being directly challenged.
>
> It was your entire belief system that was instantly destroyed by a single fact:
> A kid doesn't have a 99.998% chance of not dying from covid, but 99.9998%
>
> *It was _your_ belief system that was _destroyed_ by that fact; not mine.*

Tell me: yes or no.

Is death the only serious adverse outcome associated with contracting
COVID-19?

That's a completely adult question, Arlen.

>
>> Distract at all costs.
>> Especially when you know you're in the wrong.
>
> Was I wrong the virus genome is astoundingly huge for an RNA virus Chris?
> *Or was it _you_ who had no clue about the size of RNA viruses*, Chris?

Did you initially state it was "huge FOR AN RNA VIRUS"...

....or just that it was "huge"?

On 2/8/2022 12:43 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> I just think it is the wrong measure and also devalues the need to
> vaccinate kids.
>
> Now let's see what you dispute and disregard out of hand:
> 1. the COVID genome is "universally small"
> 2. COVID is one of the top killers of 5-11 yo children
> 3. 38% of children have COVID and are a source of infection
> 4. people can choose to vaccinate or not
> 5. you don't understand absolute vs relative risk

The number of children that have died from Covid 19 is relatively small
around 20,000 or 0.35% of all Covid Deaths. About 0.07% of the world's
population has died from Covid so far.

But besides the low instance of comorbidity in children, it's also
because most countries took steps to prevent transmission by moving to
remote learning. Schools are the place where viruses like Covid are
transmitted the most.

Now that vaccines are available for children, schools can return to
in-person learning in most cases.

What's lengthening the pandemic is those people that intentionally take
steps to not prevent disease transmission. We'd be done with Covid by
now if not for the anti-science individuals. We have to find a way to
deprogram people that have been brainwashed by the anti-vaxers and have
fallen for the crazy conspiracy theories. The same tactics to rescue
people from cults need to be employed to combat the fear and anxiety
that is occurring.

<https://theconversation.com/anger-grievance-resentment-we-need-to-understand-how-anti-vaxxers-feel-to-make-sense-of-their-actions-169829>

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 13:44:40 -0800, sms wrote:

> We'd be done with Covid by
> now if not for the anti-science individuals.

The record will show Steve believes that this Covid thing will "go away".

And yet, 1/3rd of all recurring colds are caused by just 3 Coronaviruses.

It's yet another example where Steve's belief system is based on zero facts.

> We have to find a way to
> deprogram people that have been brainwashed by the anti-vaxers and have
> fallen for the crazy conspiracy theories. The same tactics to rescue
> people from cults need to be employed to combat the fear and anxiety
> that is occurring.

The _adults_ on this newsgroup will note Steve can't fathom anyone making a
decision that isn't based purely on abject mind-numbing uncontrollable fear.

I'm not afraid of Covid, for example, but Steve is petrified of the disease.

What's revealing is Steve must demonize people who aren't as filled with
abject uncontrollable mind-numbing fear, as Steve himself is filled with.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 08:44:40 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 2/8/2022 12:43 AM, Chris wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I just think it is the wrong measure and also devalues the need to
>> vaccinate kids.
>> Now let's see what you dispute and disregard out of hand:
>> 1. the COVID genome is "universally small"
>> 2. COVID is one of the top killers of 5-11 yo children
>> 3. 38% of children have COVID and are a source of infection
>> 4. people can choose to vaccinate or not
>> 5. you don't understand absolute vs relative risk
>
> The number of children that have died from Covid 19 is relatively small
> around 20,000 or 0.35% of all Covid Deaths. About 0.07% of the world's
> population has died from Covid so far.
>
> But besides the low instance of comorbidity in children, it's also
> because most countries took steps to prevent transmission by moving to
> remote learning.

No, it is actually because for some reason kids don't
get many symptoms at all when infected with covid.

> Schools are the place where viruses like Covid are transmitted the most.

That remains to be seen now that most have stopped remote learning for
kids.

> Now that vaccines are available for children, schools can return to
> in-person learning in most cases.

> What's lengthening the pandemic is those people that intentionally take
> steps to not prevent disease transmission. We'd be done with Covid by
> now if not for the anti-science individuals.

That is very arguable indeed given that the current vaccines aren't
that great at preventing infection. And in fact quite poor with omicron.

They are great at preventing severe disease and being killed
by covid, but nothing like as good at preventing infection.

> We have to find a way to deprogram people that have been brainwashed by
> the anti-vaxers and have fallen for the crazy conspiracy theories.

Not convinced that that is even possible given how politicized the entire
issue has become now.

> The same tactics to rescue people from cults need to be employed to
> combat the fear and anxiety that is occurring.

That hasn't stopped cults.

> <https://theconversation.com/anger-grievance-resentment-we-need-to-understand-how-anti-vaxxers-feel-to-make-sense-of-their-actions-169829>

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 08:55:04 +1100, Rex Jones wrote:

>> But besides the low instance of comorbidity in children, it's also
>> because most countries took steps to prevent transmission by moving to
>> remote learning.
>
> No, it is actually because for some reason kids don't
> get many symptoms at all when infected with covid.
>
>> Schools are the place where viruses like Covid are transmitted the most.
>
> That remains to be seen now that most have stopped remote learning for
> kids.
>
>> Now that vaccines are available for children, schools can return to
>> in-person learning in most cases.
>
>> What's lengthening the pandemic is those people that intentionally take
>> steps to not prevent disease transmission. We'd be done with Covid by
>> now if not for the anti-science individuals.
>
> That is very arguable indeed given that the current vaccines aren't
> that great at preventing infection. And in fact quite poor with omicron.
>
> They are great at preventing severe disease and being killed
> by covid, but nothing like as good at preventing infection.
>
>> We have to find a way to deprogram people that have been brainwashed by
>> the anti-vaxers and have fallen for the crazy conspiracy theories.
>
> Not convinced that that is even possible given how politicized the entire
> issue has become now.
>
>> The same tactics to rescue people from cults need to be employed to
>> combat the fear and anxiety that is occurring.

Steve is making it up since _nobody_ knows why kids don't die of Covid.

You brought up a good point that Steve completely fabricated _why_ kids
essentially have no risk, where Steve's belief system is completely made up.

Steve already _concluded_ why kids don't die of Covid.
*He made it up*

> That hasn't stopped cults.

Nobody knows _why_ kids are completely different with respect to Covid.

BUT: *Steve used exactly _zero_ facts to form his strongly held beliefs*

Just like the lemon-juice bank robber did.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 19:29:05 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> I get it. You don't like being directly challenged.
>
> It was your entire belief system that was instantly destroyed by a single fact:
> A kid doesn't have a 99.998% chance of not dying from covid, but 99.9998%

I never disputed that children have a very low absolute risk of death from
covid. I challenged you to back up your non-existent "fact".

> *It was _your_ belief system that was _destroyed_ by that fact; not mine.*

I have no "belief system". Whereas you have this massively overinflated
view of your own abilities. This gets in the way of you being able to
accept mistakes.

>> Distract at all costs.
>> Especially when you know you're in the wrong.
>
> Was I wrong the virus genome is astoundingly huge

Yes. [reformatted to restore original context]

> for an RNA virus Chris?

It's typically sized for a coronavirus. See how this works?

> *Or was it _you_ who had no clue about the size of RNA viruses*, Chris?

You have no clue about genome sizes.

>> You're basing your whole diatribe on anecdotes?
>
> I stated my point, which people like you disagree with (& that's my point).
> *Those most ignorant, are the ones like you who want to force others.*

You have no point.

Your endless snipping to avoid context is tedious.