Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 01:16:36 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>> asymptomatic is not the same as immune. anyone who claims that has no
>> understanding at all.
>
> Idiot.
>
> I already explained that (multiple times) nospam,

No you haven't. You've simply couched your words differently at different
times. Yet you've used "immune" to mean asymptomatic several times. They
are not the same thing.

An infection spreads poorly through an immune population yet it does (very
effectively with COVID) in an asymptomatic population.

> which again proves you
> don't own even the most basic of adult comprehensive skills.
>
>> someone who is asymptomatic *is* infected and *can* transmit it to
>> others.
>
> Jesus Christ nospam.
>
> What grade are you in?
>
> If the only way you can process facts that you happen to hate is to create
> your own imaginary strawman of what you "think" I said, and then you attack
> that lifeless strawman of your own fabrication

Exactly what strawman do you think nospam has created?

On 2022-02-01 16:37, sms wrote:
> On 2/1/2022 4:53 AM, Chris wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You cannot deal in absolutes in biology which is what makes it hard
>> explaining to people when the strongest words you can use are likely or
>> very likely. Or reduce significantly.
>>
>> We cannot say with certainty what will or won't happen. It's all
>> likelihoods based on multimodal variables.
>>
>> Also biological systems have emergent behaviours which means they
>> respond -
>> sometimes unpredictably - to interventions. This is not simple Newtonian
>> reactions. For example we know that COVID *will* mutate, but we don't
>> know
>> when or exactly how nor the impact.
>>
>> Physics can exquisitely calculate how an object will react to some
>> imparted
>> force. Only Biology can explain why, when that object is a tiger, it rips
>> your arm off.
>
> Well-stated.
>
> Part of what the anti-vaxers like to seize on is the evolving medical
> advice regarding Covid.
>
> When researchers discovered that their original determination of spread
> was not 100% accurate, for example spreading through touching surfaces
> is not as common as originally believed, Covid-deniers proclaimed that
> the medical experts were clueless.
>
> When the medical community wanted to reserve the limited N95 and KN95
> masks for hospital use and told people to wear surgical masks or cloth
> masks, then later, when sufficient N95 and KN95 masks became available
> and they modified their guidance, the Covid-deniers proclaimed that the
> medical experts were clueless.
>
> When breakthrough Omicron infections began in those that had been
> vaccinated, the anti-vaxers began proclaiming that "vaccines don't work."
>
> The most ridiculous proclamations from Covid-deniers was to deny that
> people who died as a result of Covid would have died soon anyway,
> because of other medical conditions. Yet all they would have to do is to
> compare the total annual death rate pre-pandemic and post-pandemic, by
> age, to learn that that was not the case. What is true, is that over the
> next five to ten years we will likely see a reduction in the annual
> death rate below pre-pandemic levels because so many people died sooner
> that they otherwise would have died.
>
> And of course we have the high-profile liars like Joe Rogan, Aaron
> Rodgers, etc., that really are smarter than they make themselves out to
> be, but do what they do for political reasons, not realizing that there
> are plenty of not-so-smart people out there that will believe them.
>
> I really applaud AT&T for withdrawing financial support to OAN even
> though they did it for business reasons.

Looking from outside the USA, it is amazing to me that all this is a
huge political issue for USAians. :-o

Also amazing that a country which I admired for its science and
engineering achievements can even debate whether to use masks or not,
whether to vaccinate or not.

Here, about 90% of the population that was asked to vaccinate just did
so (and it is not mandatory). Usage of masks is massive, and denialist
demonstrations are minimal. Probably because we had lots of deaths, lots
of infected people severely ill in hospitals, and many people with long
covid.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:28:29 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Let me highlight it for you:

Hi Cris,

I give you _adult_ credit, above all others in this thread, since you
actually _understood_ what I had written (people like Steve & nospam can't).

Then, to your credit, you disagreed with an assessment of the transmission
rate, and again to your credit you found that Singapore paper which showed
lower transmission rates than what I was assessing (although we're talking
under different conditions - but still - that paper _was_ interesting!).

I welcome an erudite discussion, but first be warned I've asked everyone I
know (and plenty I don't know) how _they_ think, and therefore I can "guess"
exactly why you think the CDC definition says something that it simply does
not say.

You can stammer and hem and haw and you can claim that there are imaginary
ink lines in there that do say what the CDC definition does not say, and you
likely will - but I'm already very familiar with that trick.

Listen to me Chris.
Listen closely.

The CDC definition does _NOT_ describe injection of "something" which then
causes your body to create the antigen. It just doesn't.

That's a fact.
What's a worse fact is _what_ that "something" is, but that's for later.

You can read and re-read the CDC definition a hundred times and the missing
lines just aren't going to show up (are they in disappearing ink perhaps?).

>> Here's the definition. <https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/terms/glossary.html>
>> "A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms
>> (e.g. bacteria or viruses) or
>
> "fractions thereof administered to induce immunity"
> RNA is a fraction of the SARS-CoV-2 virus so fits the definition perfectly.

Where is the completely missing part about your body making the antigen?
a. Do you think that's a _minor_ point? (If you do, then you're crazy.)
b. Do you think they just "forgot" to add it? (Again, you have to be crazy.)

*The CDC definition skips the MOST IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE of this shot* Chris.

You think that's by accident?

>> and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae.
>> Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide
>> of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B);
>> others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined
>> (e.g. Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses)."
>
> The CDC list is not exhaustive.

Chris,

I'm not going to call you an idiot outright because you _did_ find that
paper from Singapore which showed lower transmission rates than I was
claiming (although under different circumstances)...

But I have to point out the _obvious_ to you.
a. I said it doesn't meet the CDC definition. Right?
b. You said it did. Right?
c. I gave you the CDC definition.
d. Now you claim that the CDC definition is missing pieces.

Duh.
That's my entire point, Chris.

If you first disputed my claim that the CDC's definition is missing the most
important steps, and then when you realize the CDC definition is missing
huge important pieces, then you're _agreeing_ with me, not disagreeing.

Do you understand yourself?

BTW, I have to give you credit, as at least you, of all people, realized
instantly that the shot doesn't meet the CDC's own definition, since it's
completely missing the most important pieces (which is my entire point!).
>> Do you even have the comprehensive skills to notice what is missing, Chris?
>> HINT: You have absolutely no clue _how_ this shot works inside the body!
>
> I'll show you how you're the ignorant one.

Well, you agreed with me that the CDC definition is missing the most
important pieces, so I hope you thank me for edifying you on that point.
>>>> b. This "shot" is _clearly_ not needed by most people (more than 60%).
>>>
>>> No different to any other vaccine.
>>
>> Chris... the fact you can claim that means you have absolutely zero
>> comprehension whatsoever of _how_ this shot works once inside your body.
>>
>> What "other vaccine", for example, causes your cells to explode
>
> The COVID vaccines don't cause cells to explode.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8418359/
>
> Cells produce the spike protein and then via an MHC-mediated process
> *present* the antigens on the surface which then raises an immune response.
> No explosion reqiured.

Chris... I'm not going to call you an idiot because you have likely never
taken a class in immunology or biochemistry or genetics. As you know, I
don't bullshit. I have. The cell _always_ dies from being taken over.

It just does. Here are some of my iPads (look at the date) next to just
_some_ of my immunology text, OK?
<https://i.postimg.cc/cJD2dPnY/books03.jpg> Immunology, Biochem, Microbio

Note that I previously showed nospam my basic television books, so my
education spans the gamut from the biological sciences to engineering.
<https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzkq69w/books02.jpg>

When you have decades of education, Chris - you learn how things work.

Now, do you think that cell lives after its nucleus has been taken over?
You do?
Really?

Do you think the nucleus isn't an important component of prokaryotic cells?
Do you think working the ribosomes to death makes the cell live thereafter?

And, when "presenting" the foreign substances, what do you think the humoral
and innate immunologic recognition of "not self" is going to do to that cell
which appears foreign to your immune system.

>>>> c. Certainly for kids (whose immune systems are naive) it's even less!
>>>> d. The chance of any one person dying from Covid in the USA is 0.2%
>>>
>>> Which is why a treatment is required. That's a dangerous disease.
>>
>> The danger to children is 0.002% fatality, with a 100% infection rate.
>> The danger to adults is 0.2% fatality, with a 100% infection rate.
>> Most people are completely immune to the disease with respect to symptoms.
>
> You're completely missing the point and falling for the ageist and ableist
> propaganda pushed by antivaxxers that it doesn't harm me so it doesn't
> matter that a few old and infirm people die. That's subhuman thinking.

Chris,
You apparently haven't met anyone in your life that is logical.
Fact based.
Scientific based.

Sensible.
I get my facts from the CDC.

You don't _like_ the CDC's facts, Chris.
And that's fine.

But just because you _hate_ the facts from the CDC doesn't make me a wacko.
It makes _you_ the wacko, Chris.

The fact you think all facts you are completely unaware of (which come from
the CDC) are an anti-vaxxer crusade. What the hell is wrong with your brain?

I think your problem, if I may surmise, is that your belief system was based
purely on fear and not on any actual facts. That's fine, by the way.

Most people don't known one billionth of what I know about Covid, Chris.
But my facts are from the CDC.

So if you don't like the facts from the CDC, don't claim they come from
anti-vaxxers.

Unless your claim is the CDC is anti-vax, Chris?

> COVID has killed over 5 million people FFS.

5 million is too low. 5 million is only 0.06% of the world population.

I realize your belief system isn't based on facts, so I ask one question.
What's 0.2% of the world population, Chris?
>> I never once "avoided" the old and sick as in another post I gave the
>> percentages for those over 60, and that it essentially doubled for each
>> decade thereafter.
>>
>> Did you miss that statement?
>
> I was replying to this post only.

In my other posts I explained that the risk to any one individual varied
depending on that one individual's circumstances, which _each_ and every
person has to weigh for themselves since this shot is their decision alone.

If they have diabetes and kidney disease and liver disease and if they're
immunocompromised, etc., they _will_ have a higher percentage fatality risk.

It's the _overall_ percentage that the CDC claims is 0.2% that any one
_healthy_ individual has to assess (as their risk is vastly lower than even
that since they're healthy and the 0.2% took into account the very sick).

> See the reference I gave you below.

I read that paper. And more to the point, I _understood_ what it said.
It _was_ interesting and it implies the infection rate is pretty poor.
But it had limitations also (as do all papers).
Note: I have published papers so I know all about how they're done.

>> The article concluded with the normal list of inaccuracies and further
>> studies where their goal was to bolster support for contact tracing.
>
> Disappointing that you reject evidence so glibly.

On 2/1/2022 9:37 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> No you haven't. You've simply couched your words differently at different
> times. Yet you've used "immune" to mean asymptomatic several times. They
> are not the same thing.
>
> An infection spreads poorly through an immune population yet it does (very
> effectively with COVID) in an asymptomatic population.

In fact, one of the problems with the vaccine is that many people are
infected without knowing it because the vaccine has resulted in them
being asymptomatic. Those that are infected, but without symptoms, can
unknowingly spread the virus because they are not self-quarantining. In
some cases they become aware that they are infected when they are tested
in preparation for some kind of surgery, either out-patient or
in-patient, or when they are tested prior to traveling.

The extent to which anti-vaxers will go to delude themselves is incredible.

In article <stbnep$13jo$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> If the only way you can process facts that you happen to hate is to create
> your own imaginary strawman of what you "think" I said, and then you attack
> that lifeless strawman of your own fabrication, it again proves you don't
> own even the most rudimentary of adult comprehensive skills

....

> If the only way you can attack what people said is to ignore what they said
> and then fabricate your own lifeless strawman and then attack that, then it
> just proves you have no ability for an erudite adult conversation

....

> I explained all of this (many times) in this thread alone, nospam, where
> again, all you _can_ do is brazenly fabricate an imaginary strawman, and
> then you proceed to attack that lifeless strawman of your own creation.

....

> When you _hate_ a fact, the only way your brain can process that fact is for
> you to fabricate a position that nobody took - just so that you can then
> attack that imaginary position that never existed.

massive projection.

that's exactly what *you* do, no matter the topic.

> Interestingly, it's how I handle Apple facts that I hate.

ftfy

In article <stc2j0$10dj$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Note that I previously showed nospam my basic television books,

you have not.

> so my
> education spans the gamut from the biological sciences to engineering.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzkq69w/books02.jpg>

vacuum tubes/valves??

> When you have decades of education, Chris - you learn how things work.

in other words, you'll know the basics by 2060 or so. maybe 2070.

> I get my facts from the CDC.

you misspelled anus.

> I can't imagine you saying nobody needs hospitalization.

the person most in need of hospitalization is not who you think it is,
and it's an extended stay at a psychiatric hospital.

> Perhaps I missed something?

no perhaps about it. you very definitely did.

On Wed, 02 Feb 2022 06:49:18 +1100, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 2/1/2022 9:37 AM, Chris wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> No you haven't. You've simply couched your words differently at
>> different
>> times. Yet you've used "immune" to mean asymptomatic several times. They
>> are not the same thing.
>> An infection spreads poorly through an immune population yet it does
>> (very
>> effectively with COVID) in an asymptomatic population.
>
> In fact, one of the problems with the vaccine is that many people are
> infected without knowing it because the vaccine has resulted in them
> being asymptomatic. Those that are infected, but without symptoms, can
> unknowingly spread the virus because they are not self-quarantining. In
> some cases they become aware that they are infected when they are tested
> in preparation for some kind of surgery, either out-patient or
> in-patient, or when they are tested prior to traveling.
>
> The extent to which anti-vaxers will go to delude themselves is
> incredible.

I dont find it incredible, but it is certainly interesting how many
are so stupid. And surprising that it is far more than who refuse
to let their kids be vaccinated. Wonder why. Presumably because
it is such a political shit fight in the US.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 19:44:33 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:

> Do you think the nucleus isn't an important component of prokaryotic cells?

ooops. thinko. Eukaryotic. Duh.

On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 14:59:56 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Note that I previously showed nospam my basic television books,
>
> you have not.

Here'smore... taken today for Chris who complained about words used in
immunology about as much as you complain about Apple-specific battery
chemistry, nospam.

<https://i.postimg.cc/jjkVvNTQ/books01.jpg> Genetics, Instrumentation, TV
<https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzkq69w/books02.jpg> Vacuum tube technology
<https://i.postimg.cc/cJD2dPnY/books03.jpg> Immunology, Biochem, Microbio
<https://i.postimg.cc/CKKrrJQK/books04.jpg> Simulation Analog & Digital
<https://i.postimg.cc/RVQPMjrF/books05.jpg> Custom and digital design
<https://i.postimg.cc/tRFk5L45/books06.jpg> Layout, testing, SOC modeling
<https://i.postimg.cc/s2SGzC8H/books07.jpg> Biomedical instrument design
<https://i.postimg.cc/SN3cbGv0/books08.jpg> Micro, parasitology, immuno

On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 01:16:35 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> I notice you won't take me up on my offer because you know I don't bullshit.
>
> projection. you continue to avoid answering and instead are playing
> your usual games.

Hi nospam,

I assess that you don't even have a college degree, but if you do, show us
just _one_ of your textbooks next to your iOS device please. Like I did.
<https://i.postimg.cc/jjkVvNTQ/books01.jpg> Genetics, Instrumentation, TV
<https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzkq69w/books02.jpg> Vacuum tube technology
<https://i.postimg.cc/cJD2dPnY/books03.jpg> Immunology, Biochem, Microbio
<https://i.postimg.cc/CKKrrJQK/books04.jpg> Simulation Analog & Digital
<https://i.postimg.cc/RVQPMjrF/books05.jpg> Custom and digital design
<https://i.postimg.cc/tRFk5L45/books06.jpg> Layout, testing, SOC modeling
<https://i.postimg.cc/s2SGzC8H/books07.jpg> Biomedical instrument design
<https://i.postimg.cc/SN3cbGv0/books08.jpg> Micro, parasitology, immuno

Now, that doesn't cover a shit ton of other books (e.g., Fortran before
there was a Fortran IV, but I do see some of my assembly language books
lying about). Want photos of them next to the iPads?

My point nospam is you bullshit - I don't.

You have one purpose on Usenet and one purpose only.
Bullshit.

Mine is to edify.
And learn.

Yours is to bullshit.

I edify because I have a good heart.
I learn because I am intelligent.

You are a truly unprepossessing soul, nospam, devoid of meritorious value.
Luckily for you you're not at an IQ of 40 or 50 like Jolly Roger though.
You're more like 98 or so... maybe early 90s based on my assessment.

But back to the textbook challenge, nospam.

Show us just _one_ textbook of yours, nospam.
*Show just one*

On 2/1/2022 11:36 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

<snip>

> Looking from outside the USA, it is amazing to me that all this is a
> huge political issue for USAians. :-o

It's embarrassing. It used to be that ignorant people would not be vocal
about their ignorance, but then some people and some companies realized
that there was big money to be made from ignorance.

Isaac Asimov said in 1980: "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant
thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured
by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as
good as your knowledge." But it used to be that people didn't want to
display their ignorance in public. Now they want to.

> Also amazing that a country which I admired for its science and
> engineering achievements can even debate whether to use masks or not,
> whether to vaccinate or not.

There are a bunch of far-right Republican politicians that realize that
their path forward, if they want to run for higher office, requires
sucking up to dumb people in order to win primary elections. That's why
you've seen so many super-spreader events and venues in states with
Republican governors. Pro-Trump red states had a 52% higher average of
COVID-19 deaths per capita than blue states, but those governors don't
care. Governors like Florida's "Ron DeathSantis" (aka "Ron DeSatan")
realize that they can't win without the crazy vote.

> Here, about 90% of the population that was asked to vaccinate just did
> so (and it is not mandatory). Usage of masks is massive, and denialist
> demonstrations are minimal. Probably because we had lots of deaths, lots
> of infected people severely ill in hospitals, and many people with long
> covid.

Fortunately, the same thing is pretty much the case in the urban areas
of California. We're over 80% vaccinated in the county I live in, and
we've had very few people arguing about mask mandates. Our City Council
passed a mask mandate in 2020 and I signed it. My city has the lowest
infection and death rate in the county, and probably the state. We have
a highly educated population, that is very science based. One Saturday
two protesters showed up at the high school, holding signs against mask
mandates. It was very strange since the area around the school is
deserted on the weekend.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:00:03 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> What does that prove? That you can buy books? I've got rid most of my
> biology text books as they're no longer accurate.
>
> I have a copy the bible here. That doesn't make me a Christian.

While you bullshit, I provide facts, Chris.

What are your higher degrees in, Chris?

Name them.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 07:46:37 -0800, sms wrote:

> I still have some of my EE textbooks. But I don't think I'll take a
> photo of them and post it somewhere.

Steve,
Remember Building D?
Off of Lawrence Expy.

My point is that I don't bullshit.

You do have an EE degree (and your wife is a nurse, one of your kids is a
music teacher, etc.). We've been over this that I do not bullshit.

But this nospam?
He is a bullshitter.

For him to bullshit about Apple-specific battery chemistry is what he does.

On 2022-02-01 12:07 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 19:44:33 -0000 (UTC), Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
>> Do you think the nucleus isn't an important component of prokaryotic cells?
>
> ooops. thinko. Eukaryotic. Duh.

See what a little googling will get you?

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:53:51 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> That explains a lot. Come back when you have a degree in something
> biological.

Idiot.

I have _multiple_ higher degrees, Chris.
<https://i.postimg.cc/jjkVvNTQ/books01.jpg> Genetics, Medical Instrumentation
<https://i.postimg.cc/Dzzkq69w/books02.jpg> Starting with vacuum tubes
<https://i.postimg.cc/cJD2dPnY/books03.jpg> Immunology, Biochem, Microbio
<https://i.postimg.cc/CKKrrJQK/books04.jpg> Simulation Analog & Digital
<https://i.postimg.cc/RVQPMjrF/books05.jpg> Custom and digital design
<https://i.postimg.cc/tRFk5L45/books06.jpg> Layout, testing, SOC modeling
<https://i.postimg.cc/s2SGzC8H/books07.jpg> Biomedical instrument design
<https://i.postimg.cc/SN3cbGv0/books08.jpg> Micro, parasitology, immuno

What higher degrees do _you_ have, Chris?

> Much of biology, especially molecular biology, is probabilistic. Not
> deterministic like engineering.

Idiot.

I _know_ more about microbiology, virology, genetics, biochemistry,
parasitology, mycology, etc. than you'll ever know, you idiot.

> You cannot deal in absolutes in biology which is what makes it hard
> explaining to people when the strongest words you can use are likely or
> very likely. Or reduce significantly.

I have my name on published peer-reviewed biological papers, Chris.
(I wasn't the principle author though.)
> We cannot say with certainty what will or won't happen. It's all
> likelihoods based on multimodal variables.

The one thing I can do, Chris, that you can't do, is I can comprehend facts.
> Also biological systems have emergent behaviours which means they respond -
> sometimes unpredictably - to interventions. This is not simple Newtonian
> reactions. For example we know that COVID *will* mutate, but we don't know
> when or exactly how nor the impact.

On that topic of mutation, most people are ignorant like you are Chris, in
that they don't realize RNA viruses mutate. That's what they do.

For reason probably unknown to you, DNA mutations are less frequent than RNA
and this is an RNA virus (although the adenovirus used in the shots isn't).

I've read a few papers on the mutations, where my assessment is twofold:
a. The mutations that _matter_ are actually rather rare for SARC-CoV2
b. However the RNA ball is fantastically huge so mutations _will_ happen

> Physics can exquisitely calculate how an object will react to some imparted
> force. Only Biology can explain why, when that object is a tiger, it rips
> your arm off.

Do you want to see my Physics, Calculus, Trig & Stats books too?
(they're the underlying stuff).

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 18:20:07 +1300, Your Name wrote:
>
>> Yep, there was a man in the newspaper here in New Zealand yesterday who
>> has been waiting months for triple bypass heart surgery. He could die
>> at any minute if his heart decides to give out, but dealys caused by
>> Covid (lockdowns, etc.) have meant he and thousands of others have had
>> to wait. The only surgies taking place are those that emergency ones
>> that *have* to be done *right now*.
>
> Notice how all the people who are driven insane by fear take a single case.
> And then they turn that single instance into their entire belief system.
>
> Fear drives them. Not science. Not logic.
> Fear.

It's staggering that you can't see how this anecdote is symptomatic of the
reality.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/waiting-times-non-urgent-treatment

In article <stc4ip$1cf$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Now, that doesn't cover a shit ton of other books (e.g., Fortran before
> there was a Fortran IV,

those are completely worthless.

how about books about swift & kotlin and ios & android development?

>
> I have one purpose on Usenet and one purpose only.
> Bullshit.
>
> Mine is to troll.

ftfy

> And learn.

you've failed at that, mostly because it's not possible.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 07:37:53 -0800, sms wrote:

> Part of what the anti-vaxers like to seize on is the evolving medical
> advice regarding Covid.

Steve,

Do you even realize you have to demonize anyone speaking facts, just so that
your brain (which doesn't work off of facts) can _process_ what they say?

Given the facts come from the CDC, whom are you claiming is "anti vax" here?
Are you seriously claiming the CDC is anti vax?
If so, you're an idiot.

> When researchers discovered that their original determination of spread
> was not 100% accurate, for example spreading through touching surfaces
> is not as common as originally believed, Covid-deniers proclaimed that
> the medical experts were clueless.

OK. Rest assured I was trained decades ago where _everyone_ who is anyone
was taught inside Memorial Hall that sneezing on people did _not_ transmit
the common cold as much as touching did.

Every text in those days showed the picture (black and white of course) of
people sneezing and the spread of particles, and then people playing cards.

The ones playing cards had a _greater_ transmission than the ones being
sneezed on. The conventional wisdom of that day was that physical contact
was needed.

It turns out that, at least for Covid, and likely for many others, both are
far more equal than people _thought_ they were.

That's just a case of facts catching up via the need for further studies.

I find it interesting that you have to assume that science is perverted for
you to hold your claims that people changing their assessments based on new
data is a mark of "covid deniers".

Everything you say Steve, shows your brain doesn't work off of facts.

Do you even realize you have to demonize anyone speaking facts, just so that
your brain (which doesn't work off of facts) can _process_ what they say?

> When the medical community wanted to reserve the limited N95 and KN95
> masks for hospital use and told people to wear surgical masks or cloth
> masks, then later, when sufficient N95 and KN95 masks became available
> and they modified their guidance, the Covid-deniers proclaimed that the
> medical experts were clueless.

I was trained in virology many years ago, Steve, and _that_ was the common
wisdom, which, as it happens, has _changed_ due to more recent data.

For you to demonize all scientists just because _you_ were ignorant of these
recommendations from the past is what you do, Steve.

But it really means you're an idiot.
I _know_ what they taught decades ago, and you don't.

It changed.
And that's OK.

But don't demonize scientists for changing their recommendations based on
new facts.

> When breakthrough Omicron infections began in those that had been
> vaccinated, the anti-vaxers began proclaiming that "vaccines don't work."

Idiot.

The only way you can process anyone who thinks using CDC's own facts is to
demonize them.

It's _your_ brain that is wacko, Steve.
Not the CDC.

> The most ridiculous proclamations from Covid-deniers was to deny that
> people who died as a result of Covid would have died soon anyway,
> because of other medical conditions. Yet all they would have to do is to
> compare the total annual death rate pre-pandemic and post-pandemic, by
> age, to learn that that was not the case. What is true, is that over the
> next five to ten years we will likely see a reduction in the annual
> death rate below pre-pandemic levels because so many people died sooner
> that they otherwise would have died.

Idiot.

What are you claiming that _anyone_ here has "denied", Steve, that isn't a
fact.

Name just one thing.

Name just one.

> And of course we have the high-profile liars like Joe Rogan, Aaron
> Rodgers, etc., that really are smarter than they make themselves out to
> be, but do what they do for political reasons, not realizing that there
> are plenty of not-so-smart people out there that will believe them.
>
> I really applaud AT&T for withdrawing financial support to OAN even
> though they did it for business reasons.

You would.
You're a pinned-far-to-the-left die-hard Democrat.

All you die-hard Democrats ever wanted to do was take away people's rights.
To wit: You want to take away their right to "my body my choice" don't you.
--
I'm not defending the Republicans mind you; but Steve isn't one of them.

On 2022-02-01 19:36:13 +0000, Carlos E.R. said:
> On 2022-02-01 16:37, sms wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 4:53 AM, Chris wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> You cannot deal in absolutes in biology which is what makes it hard
>>> explaining to people when the strongest words you can use are likely or
>>> very likely. Or reduce significantly.
>>>
>>> We cannot say with certainty what will or won't happen. It's all
>>> likelihoods based on multimodal variables.
>>>
>>> Also biological systems have emergent behaviours which means they
>>> respond - sometimes unpredictably - to interventions. This is not
>>> simple Newtonian
>>> reactions. For example we know that COVID *will* mutate, but we don't know
>>> when or exactly how nor the impact.
>>>
>>> Physics can exquisitely calculate how an object will react to some
>>> imparted force. Only Biology can explain why, when that object is a
>>> tiger, it rips your arm off.
>>
>> Well-stated.
>>
>> Part of what the anti-vaxers like to seize on is the evolving medical
>> advice regarding Covid.
>>
>> When researchers discovered that their original determination of spread
>> was not 100% accurate, for example spreading through touching surfaces
>> is not as common as originally believed, Covid-deniers proclaimed that
>> the medical experts were clueless.
>>
>> When the medical community wanted to reserve the limited N95 and KN95
>> masks for hospital use and told people to wear surgical masks or cloth
>> masks, then later, when sufficient N95 and KN95 masks became available
>> and they modified their guidance, the Covid-deniers proclaimed that the
>> medical experts were clueless.
>>
>> When breakthrough Omicron infections began in those that had been
>> vaccinated, the anti-vaxers began proclaiming that "vaccines don't
>> work."
>>
>> The most ridiculous proclamations from Covid-deniers was to deny that
>> people who died as a result of Covid would have died soon anyway,
>> because of other medical conditions. Yet all they would have to do is
>> to compare the total annual death rate pre-pandemic and post-pandemic,
>> by age, to learn that that was not the case. What is true, is that over
>> the next five to ten years we will likely see a reduction in the annual
>> death rate below pre-pandemic levels because so many people died sooner
>> that they otherwise would have died.
>>
>> And of course we have the high-profile liars like Joe Rogan, Aaron
>> Rodgers, etc., that really are smarter than they make themselves out to
>> be, but do what they do for political reasons, not realizing that there
>> are plenty of not-so-smart people out there that will believe them.
>>
>> I really applaud AT&T for withdrawing financial support to OAN even
>> though they did it for business reasons.
>
> Looking from outside the USA, it is amazing to me that all this is a
> huge political issue for USAians. :-o
>
> Also amazing that a country which I admired for its science and
> engineering achievements can even debate whether to use masks or not,
> whether to vaccinate or not.
>
> Here, about 90% of the population that was asked to vaccinate just did
> so (and it is not mandatory). Usage of masks is massive, and denialist
> demonstrations are minimal. Probably because we had lots of deaths,
> lots of infected people severely ill in hospitals, and many people with
> long covid.

It's simple: Americans are stereotypically stubborn, stupid, selfish,
and egotistical. Just look at how many of them refuse to wear seatbelts
in their car, insist on letting every idiot have a gun, believe in
fantasies and conspiracy theories (UFOs, angles, religions), use their
own spellings and definitions for "English" words, sue anyone (if not
shoot them) for "breathing wrong", continue to use miles, gallons, and
inches, elect braindead morons to be President (Trump, Bush), stick
their noses and military into other country's personal business, etc.,
etc., etc.

But the reality is that, as with most places, it's just a minority of
loud-mouthed, brainless idiots who create a massively bad impression of
the entire country and ruiung it for everyone else. Most Americans are
just normal people trying to live their lives properly and obeying the
rules.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 17:11:52 +0000, Chris wrote:

> There may be some politics, but there's also a lot of money.

That's the _second_ time Chris has said something intelligent.

I applaud him for recognizing this is not only about science.

It's about money.

To give a shot, probably forever, to a population where most people don't
even need it (and for whom it dumbs down their immune system most likely),
is big business indeed.

I doubt a single one of you reading this can comprehend what I just said.
(e.g., you have no idea what the difference is between these two things)
a. Response from a person who has the shot who was already immune, versus
b. That same person without the shot (who was already immune).

*Do _any_ of you idiots have any inkling whatsoever of the difference?*
--
Sigh.
I thought so.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 20:36:13 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Also amazing that a country which I admired for its science and
> engineering achievements can even debate whether to use masks or not,
> whether to vaccinate or not.

It's because we have basic human rights.

One of those basic human rights can be summarized as:
My body, My choice

Do you know that most people are innately immune to Covid?
Do you know the fatality rate is 0.2% overall?
For kids, it's 0.002% overall.

No?
I didn't think so.

All of you are making all your decisions based on fear.
And that's OK.

Just keep away from taking away our basic human rights.
--
You'd be amazed to know whether I got the shot or not.

On 2/1/2022 12:45 PM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> It's staggering that you can't see how this anecdote is symptomatic of the
> reality.
> https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/waiting-times-non-urgent-treatment

It's not staggering at all when you understand that facts and logic are
an anathema to Andy.

It's not just a facility shortage that has resulted from Covid, it's
also a staffing shortage. "19 states have fewer than 15% of ICU beds
left as health care staffing shortages complicate care"
<https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/13/health/us-coronavirus-thursday/index.html>.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:18:47 -0800, sms wrote:

> It's embarrassing. It used to be that ignorant people would not be vocal
> about their ignorance, but then some people and some companies realized
> that there was big money to be made from ignorance.

Steve,
You are completely ignorant of everything about Covid.

You don't know it, but it's clear from everything you claim.

So stop saying others are ignorant when you don't know the first thing about
it.

> There are a bunch of far-right Republican politicians that realize that
> their path forward, if they want to run for higher office, requires
> sucking up to dumb people in order to win primary elections. That's why
> you've seen so many super-spreader events and venues in states with
> Republican governors. Pro-Trump red states had a 52% higher average of
> COVID-19 deaths per capita than blue states, but those governors don't
> care. Governors like Florida's "Ron DeathSantis" (aka "Ron DeSatan")
> realize that they can't win without the crazy vote.

I stay away from politics until someone like Steve blows his political horn.

I see the Republicans for what they are, but you're a die-hard
far-to-the-left Democrat, so I'll just speak of what you are, Steve.

Every chance you get you are trying to take away our basic human rights.

One of those basic human rights is summarized by your own slogan, Steve.
My body. My choice.

You want to revoke that basic human right because _you_ are afraid.
I'm not afraid. I'm a scientist. And an engineer. I know statistics.

The fatality rate is 0.2% overall whether you like that fact or not.
You are willing to destroy our basic human rights over something that has a
99.8% chance of not happening.

What's next Steve?
What is the next basic human right you want to revoke, Steve?

> Fortunately, the same thing is pretty much the case in the urban areas
> of California. We're over 80% vaccinated in the county I live in, and
> we've had very few people arguing about mask mandates. Our City Council
> passed a mask mandate in 2020 and I signed it. My city has the lowest
> infection and death rate in the county, and probably the state. We have
> a highly educated population, that is very science based. One Saturday
> two protesters showed up at the high school, holding signs against mask
> mandates. It was very strange since the area around the school is
> deserted on the weekend.

I have to admit that California has gone a long way toward making the
_tests_ (and the shot) available to everyone as easily as they can.

Kudos to the government for doing that fantastic deed of making those
_tests_ easily attainable.

My assessment is that testing is far more important than the shot itself
(which is _not_ a vaccine by the CDC's own definition), as the test result
is something that each person can use to make good decisions.
--
You'd be amazed if you know my stance on the shot for myself & family.

On 2/1/2022 1:54 PM, Your Name wrote:

> It's simple: Americans are stereotypically stubborn, stupid,
> selfish, and egotistical. Just look at how many of them refuse to
> wear seatbelts in their car, insist on letting every idiot have a
> gun, believe in fantasies and conspiracy theories (UFOs, angles,
> religions), use their own spellings and definitions for "English"
> words, sue anyone (if not shoot them) for "breathing wrong", continue
> to use miles, gallons, and inches, elect braindead morons to be
> President (Trump, Bush), stick their noses and military into other
> country's personal business, etc., etc., etc.

And yet my part of the country (USA) is overrun with illegals wanting to
live here. Strange, huh...

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 09:54:12 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> insist on letting every idiot have a gun

That's _another_ right, enshrined in the Constitution, that Steve wants to
take away from us.

In their "death of a thousand cuts" approach to Steve's die-hard Democrats
eliminating the rights enshrined in the 2nd amendment, did you see what San
Jose did just last week?