Alan wrote:
> On 2022-02-01 1:04 p.m., AJL wrote:
>> 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...
>>
>
> People living in abject poverty.
>
> How many Canadians do you think try to illegally emigrate to the US
> each year, huh?

Dunno. But we sure do have a lot of legal Canadian winter visitors (known
here as snowbirds) that don't seem all that worried about living several
months each year in our terrible awful dangerous country,,,

On 2022-02-01 8:51 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>> AJL wrote
>>> Your Name wrote
>
>>>> It's simple: Americans are stereotypically stubborn, stupid,
>>>> selfish, and egotistical. Just look at how many of them refuse to
>>>> wear seatbelts in their car, insist on letting every idiot have a
>>>> gun, believe in fantasies and conspiracy theories (UFOs, angles,
>>>> religions), use their own spellings and definitions for "English"
>>>> words, sue anyone (if not shoot them) for "breathing wrong", continue
>>>> to use miles, gallons, and inches, elect braindead morons to be
>>>> President (Trump, Bush), stick their noses and military into other
>>>> country's personal business, etc., etc., etc.
>>>  And yet my part of the country (USA) is overrun with illegals
>>> wanting to
>>> live here. Strange, huh...
>
>> People living in abject poverty.
>
> Plenty of them dont live in abject poverty and fly in to the USA

Really?

And your source for this alleged "knowledge" is... ...what?

On 2022-02-01 8:52 p.m., AJL wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-02-01 1:04 p.m., AJL wrote:
>>> 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...
>>>
>>
>> People living in abject poverty.
>>
>> How many Canadians do you think try to illegally emigrate to the US
>> each year, huh?
>
> Dunno. But we sure do have a lot of legal Canadian winter visitors (known
> here as snowbirds) that don't seem all that worried about living several
> months each year in our terrible awful dangerous country,,,

Yup.

Because they can retreat when they need trivial little things...

....like medical care.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 20:45:46 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> Chris,
>
> The reality is in the 0.2% fatality rate.
>
> Assuming the USA has 350M people, then 0.2% of that is 700K anecdotes.
>
> What's "staggering" is you can't comprehend a simple mathematical reality.

Like that the US doesn't 350M people?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

Numbers are hard, aren't they?

Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>> AJL wrote
>>>> Your Name wrote

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

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

>>> People living in abject poverty.

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

> Really?

Yep.

> And your source for this alleged "knowledge" is... ...what?

Those turned away at US airports when it is obvious they arent genuine
tourists.

On 01/02/2022 19:44, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:28:29 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> Let me highlight it for you:
>
> The CDC definition does _NOT_ describe injection of "something" which then
> causes your body to create the antigen. It just doesn't.

How else does it "induce immunity" then? It may not be explicit but it
is clear to all but the narrowest of interpretations.

However, this is all moot as definitions can and do change to *reflect
reality* not the other way around.

>>>>> 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.

Vaccines don't "take over" cells. Do you think they're the Borg or
soemthing...?

Also cells don't explode when they die. They have a very well defined
pathway called apoptosis or "programmed cell death".

The exceptions - there are always exceptions in biology - are cancer and
some viruses (not SARS-CoV-2).

>
> 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

Christ! How old are those books? They must be 40 years old, which is
massively out of date. They pre-date the human genome, epigenetics,
modern molecular genetics, transgenetics, PCR, both types of Sanger
sequencing, 2nd and 3rd generation DNA sequencing, cloning, pluripotent
stem cell reprogramming,etc, etc.

Plus all the viral molecular biology that is routine these days.

> 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>

Reading a text book is not an education. Certainly not one that is
closer in age to the discovery of the double helix in 1953 than to today.

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

I know. I got my PhD 20 years ago...

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

If you'd read the Italian review of COVID vaccines I posted above you'd
know that there's no "take over" of the nucleus.

> 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?

If they get tips, they'll be fine.

> 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.

Read the paper above. They raise an antibody response, plus T- and
B-cell mediated immunity. Likely it'll raise macrophages against the
presenting cells and phagocytosis.

>> COVID has killed over 5 million people FFS.
>
> 5 million is too low. 5 million is only 0.06% of the world population.

Do you want more people to die?

> I realize your belief system isn't based on facts, so I ask one question.
> What's 0.2% of the world population, Chris?

Why do you cling so hard to that single number? Where did you even get
it from? The current CDC data has 873,957 deaths from 72,874,041 which
gives a case fatality rate of 1.2%
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

If you daft enough to calculate a crude fatality rate against the whole
population (334m) when it's known not everyone has had COVID then you
get 0.26%. So where is your "fact" from?

As you well know these numbers are not fixed and are dependent on the
stage of the pandemic. They will continue to drop as more and more
people are vaccinated or get immunity via exposure or die from COVID.
At its worst the CFR was >6% in the US and >14% in Italy.
https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid

>> 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.

Cite? What's your h-index?

>>> 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.
>
> I summarized _accurately_ what the paper said.
> You _thought_ it said something else.

You claimed there were inaccuracies when in fact the authors listed
limitations. Not the same thing.

> Your problem is you _hate_ the facts from the CDC so you're trying to
> explain them away using your fear-based belief system. Stop that.

That's not my problem.

>>> To be sure, the shot causes our cells to explode creating one protein, which
>>> itself has been shown in studies to cause appreciable vascular damage in and
>>> of itself, but most people seem to weather that vascular damage quite well.
>>
>> Still wrong.
>
> How many of these textbooks were you trained on in cellular mechanics?
> <https://i.postimg.cc/SN3cbGv0/books08.jpg> Micro, parasitology, immuno

None, thankfully.

>> Who cares about the USA!? Get your blinkers off. This is a global pandemic
>> and requires a global response.
>
> The reason I care about the USA is you get _good_ statistics from the CDC.
> I've already explained why I think the WHO statistics are, um, unreliable.
> And certainly those from China and North Korea and other areas are also.

There are plenty of other sources good quality data. UK, eCDC,
Singapore, South Korea, etc.

>> There are many other vaccines:
>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine
>
> Chris,
> Don't play kindergarten games with me.
>
> There are only two _types_ that are approved...

....in the US. There you are again with your blinkers.

There are eight others approved in at least one country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_COVID-19_vaccine_authorizations

> If you don't know that, then you know even _less_ than most people do.

We have three in the UK.

>>>>> n. That causes your cells to explode after making tons of one spike protein.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. That's what the virus does.
>>>
>>> Chris,
>>> What do you _think_ happens
>>
>> I don't need to think at all. The research has *shown* how the vaccines
>> work and it's not via cytotoxicity.
>
> While I never said that the risk of dying from the shot is high enough to
> worry about, I have read the papers that you apparently have not read.

Such as...?

> The fact is that the spike protein, in and of itself, is toxic to cells.
> You don't _like_ that fact; but it's _still_ a fact nonetheless.

You're at it again. Spouting "facts" with no evidence whatsoever.

> The second fact is that the cells die which I know from _lots_ of education
> in this where I've almost never seen a cell _not_ die once you take over its
> machinery (and yes, I grew tissue cells in my day).

Tissues aren't cells. And for the third time there is no "take over".

> My degrees span the biological and electrical engineering sciences, Chris.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/s2SGzC8H/books07.jpg> Biomedical instrument design

A book is not a degree.

> The cell dies.
> If you can find an article that claims the cell does _not_ die, let me know
> as it's not something people know who aren't trained in tissue cultures.

Cultured cells can die for all sorts of reasons, none of it has anything
to do with vaccines.

>> See my reference above.
>>
>> The virus on the other hand does self-replicate causing the targetted
>> (lung) cells to lyse. This is what causes the viral symptoms of the
>> disease.
>
> WTF?
> What virus?
> No virus known to man can "self replicate" Chris.

On 01/02/2022 20:20, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> 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.

The only fact you've shown is that you own some books. Nothing else you
claim around your education, knowledge or experience is based in fact.

> What are your higher degrees in, Chris?
>
> Name them.

See my other response. Not that it matters as we could all be lying...

On 02/02/2022 03:21, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 17:06:21 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> On 2/1/2022 4:18 PM, joe wrote:
>>> On 2/1/2022 3:04 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>>>   I'm a scientist. And an engineer. I know statistics.
>>>>
>>>> The fatality rate is 0.2% overall whether you like that fact or not.
>>>
>>> Yet, currently 0.27% of the US population has died from Covid-19.  This
>>> would imply your 0.2% is wrong or cherry picked.
>>>
>>> How do you explain this contradiction?
>>
>> Correct. To be more precise 0.2695% of the U.S. population has
>> officially died from Covid (888,000/329,500,000).
>>
>> However 888,000 is almost certainly an undercount. There have been about
>> 950,000 excess deaths in the U.S. since the pandemic began and there is
>> no explanation, other than Covid, for the difference between 888,000 and
>> 950,000, so the actual percentage should be around 0.288%.
>>
>> As to where he got 0.2%, where do you think? He made it up. He's not a
>> big fan of factual data!
>
> What I find revealing is that Steve _agrees_ with the figures I quoted, and
> yet, Steve is _desperate_ to find some hidden unseen hole because he hates
> what the facts revealed to him when he, himself, ran the math.
>
> Realistically, while Steve doesn't even realize he's agreeing with the
> figures, any given set of numbers will differ in multiple ways, but if
> they're quoting similar figures, they won't differ significantly if they're
> accurately compiled.
>
> For example, this is dated January 26, 2022 and the number is "close" to
> Steve's number of the total deaths in the USA due to Covid.
> <https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/>
> "Between the beginning of January 2020 and January 26, 2022
> 864,261 deaths were caused by COVID-19 in the United States."
>
> Certainly I wouldn't claim what both Steve and the moron "joe" claimed given
> the difference between Steve's 888,000 & that 864,261 is in the noise level.
>
> Likewise with Steve's estimate of the US population at 329,500,000, where
> this US Census government clock shows 332,473,380 as of this very moment.
> <https://www.census.gov/popclock/>
>
> Using _those_ numbers, we get 0.26%, which simply means that the chance of
> _not_ dying from Covid for any one person in the USA is over 99%.
>
> For those who believe in false significant figures, that's 99.74%
> (versus the 99.8% that I previously quoted, the difference being nothing).
>
> For children, aged 5-11, between October & October 2020 & 2021 it's two
> orders of magnitude _lower_ at a 99.998% chance of _not_ dying from Covid.
>
> <https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-Covid-Jefferson-508.pdf>

That's a very interesting slidedeck. Thanks for sharing it. Although,
I've no idea where you get the 99.998% percent survival rate from...?

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

The harm of COVID is almost the same as flu historically in children
5-11. 66 deaths with a crude rate of 0.2/100,000 compared to 0.3/100,000
for flu. COVID constitutes 1.7% of all deaths in US children aged 5-11.

The ICU admission and invasive ventilation is worse for COVID than flu.

So given that we routinely vaccinate kids for flu, there is an argument
to do the same for COVID.

Claiming a 99.998% survival rate is just naive.

> If new numbers come in next month and that figure from the CDC moves from
> 0.002% to 0.0027% are you going to claim that that's a _big_ difference too?
>
> The risk of not dying would go from 99.998% to 99.997% for heavens sake.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
[...]

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

Please do not call him 'Andy'. Please use his full nym, so that he's
not confused with the other Andy(s?).

Thanks.

On 2/2/2022 1:52 AM, Chris wrote:
> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 20:45:46 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> The reality is in the 0.2% fatality rate.
>>
>> Assuming the USA has 350M people, then 0.2% of that is 700K anecdotes.
>>
>> What's "staggering" is you can't comprehend a simple mathematical reality.
>
> Like that the US doesn't 350M people?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
>
> Numbers are hard, aren't they?
>
That would be a claimed fact he got wrong.

A proper degree in cheery picking might suggest avoiding fake numbers
that are easily fact checked.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:01 +0000, Chris wrote:

> The only fact you've shown is that you own some books. Nothing else you
> claim around your education, knowledge or experience is based in fact.

Again I ask you Chris a _simple_ question which you have not answered.

*What higher degrees do _you_ have, Chris, and in what?*

Simple question that, if you can't answer, tells me you have none.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:24:49 +0000, Chris wrote:

> That's a very interesting slidedeck. Thanks for sharing it. Although,
> I've no idea where you get the 99.998% percent survival rate from...?

Chris,

I would call you an idiot, but, unlike the other iKooks, you at least
_looked_ at the document, although you comprehended absolutely nothing.

And that's my point.
You're not qualified.

You don't have the knowledge.
And you don't have the brains.

The fact you can't comprehend anything even summarized for the hoi polloi
that is scientific proves what I've been saying about you & the others.
a. You know absolutely nothing
b. Worse, you read the entire slidedeck, and you learned nothing
b. Yet you feel so confident that you actually know something
c. You even feel you know enough to *tell others* what to do

That. That. That.

That is the problem I'm trying to get you to comprehend.
*You're too ignorant to be telling other people what to do.*
--
HINT: It's there. Keep looking. It's right in front of your face.

On 2022-02-02 1:14 a.m., Rod Speed wrote:
> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Alan <nope@nope.com> wrote
>>>> AJL wrote
>>>>> Your Name wrote
>
>>>>>> It's simple: Americans are stereotypically stubborn, stupid,
>>>>>> selfish, and egotistical. Just look at how many of them refuse to
>>>>>> wear seatbelts in their car, insist on letting every idiot have a
>>>>>> gun, believe in fantasies and conspiracy theories (UFOs, angles,
>>>>>> religions), use their own spellings and definitions for "English"
>>>>>> words, sue anyone (if not shoot them) for "breathing wrong", continue
>>>>>> to use miles, gallons, and inches, elect braindead morons to be
>>>>>> President (Trump, Bush), stick their noses and military into other
>>>>>> country's personal business, etc., etc., etc.
>
>>>>>  And yet my part of the country (USA) is overrun with illegals
>>>>> wanting to
>>>>> live here. Strange, huh...
>
>>>> People living in abject poverty.
>
>>>  Plenty of them dont live in abject poverty and fly in to the USA
>
>> Really?
>
> Yep.
>
>> And your source for this alleged "knowledge" is... ...what?
>
> Those turned away at US airports when it is obvious they arent genuine
> tourists.

That's not a source.

Show me a source complete with numbers.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 07:52:38 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Like that the US doesn't 350M people?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
>
> Numbers are hard, aren't they?

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 07:52:38 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Like that the US doesn't 350M people?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

Chris,

I'm not going to call you an idiot even as that was a stupid statement.

You, of all people, at least did two things _none_ of the iKooks did.
a. You at least _looked_ at the CDC slideset (they never do)
b. You quoted a Singapore paper on the transmission rate (they can't)

Hence I give you credit for not being as stupid as the iKooks are.

However, my point remains and you prove it which is:
A. The people most ignorant about Covid (and also most fearful)
B. Are the ones who want to force others make decisions based on fear

> Numbers are hard, aren't they?

More to the point of your idiotic comment above, my point is:
1. People like you _hate_ the actual facts about Covid
2. Because those facts don't engender the intense fear that they feel

Steve ran the math using slightly different numbers, and did "joe" (whom I
suspect is Alan Baker) and now you run them, and guess what?

All of you are _desperate_ to find a hole that doesn't exist.
<https://www.census.gov/popclock/>
At this very moment, that says the US population is 332,474,775

And it changes every second, Chris.

So does the number of people in the USA killed by Covid, Chris.
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/>
"Between the beginning of January 2020 and January 26, 2022
864,261 deaths were caused by COVID-19 in the United States."

I suggest _you_ run the math Chris (this is grade school math Chris):
864K is what percentage of 332M?

The chance of _not_ dying from Covid, from _those_ numbers, is >99%.

That. That. That.
That is the percentage that matters to any one individual for risk assesment.
--
If the most clever thing you can find is a slightly different overall
population of the USA, then it just proves me right that you people don't
have the intelligence and education that I have (you're way below me).

On 2/1/2022 8:52 PM, AJL wrote:

<snip>

> Dunno. But we sure do have a lot of legal Canadian winter visitors (known
> here as snowbirds) that don't seem all that worried about living several
> months each year in our terrible awful dangerous country,,,

I grew up in a city in Florida that is one of the primary winter
destinations for Canadians from Quebec. They aren't going to Chicago or
Philadelphia for the winter, they're going to relatively safe towns with
warm weather and nice beaches.

On 2/2/2022 3:23 AM, Chris wrote:
> On 01/02/2022 19:44, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:28:29 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>
>>> Let me highlight it for you:
>>
>> The CDC definition does _NOT_ describe injection of "something" which
>> then
>> causes your body to create the antigen. It just doesn't.
>
> How else does it "induce immunity" then? It may not be explicit but it
> is clear to all but the narrowest of interpretations.

Of course that's exactly what the vaccinations do. It's also true that
having Covid generates immunity for a short period of time, but not as
long as a vaccination's effects last.

On 2/2/2022 8:14 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> It's not staggering at all when you understand that facts and logic are
>> an anathema to Andy.
>
> Please do not call him 'Andy'. Please use his full nym, so that he's
> not confused with the other Andy(s?).

Whatever. I have "Andy Burnelli" and his other collection of nyms in my
filter list. The odd thing is that he's probably not really as clueless
as his posts make him appear. He does what he does to get a reaction.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:49:33 -0600, joe wrote:

> That would be a claimed fact he got wrong.

What's interesting is everyone who ran the numbers not only got the _same_
results as I was claiming, but they can't even figure out that they did.

They're that crazed with fear that they can't comprehend this simple fact:
*The chance of _not_ dying from Covid is >99% (and >99.998% for kids!)*

They are _desperate_ to find a flaw in that fact that they can't comprehend.
(Because their brains are driven crazy by fear; not facts... only fear.)
> A proper degree in cheery picking might suggest avoiding fake numbers
> that are easily fact checked.

This proves my point.
a. Most people don't have the education and intelligence that I have
b. Which is fine - but then they are trying to find holes that don't exist

It's not gonna happen.
Because even when _they_ run the math, they get the _same_ result.
*The chance of _not_ dying from Covid is >99%*
And that is a key risk assessment for any one individual that matters.

While I suspect this "joe" is Alan Baker because of his grade-school logic,
anyone can run the simple math given it only takes two numbers.
a. How many people died of Covid
b. The population of the USA
Note: It's more complex than that of course (e.g., the dead people subtract
from the total number, but let's stick with the gross overall estimate).

All of you are _desperate_ to find a hole that doesn't exist.
<https://www.census.gov/popclock/>
At this very moment, that says the US population is 332,474,775
And it changes all the time.

So does the number of people in the USA killed by Covid.
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/>
"Between the beginning of January 2020 and January 26, 2022
864,261 deaths were caused by COVID-19 in the United States."

I suggest _you_ run the simple grade school math & tell us what it says:
864K is what percentage of 332M?

The chance of _not_ dying from Covid, from _those_ numbers, is >99%.

That. That. That.
That is a percentage that matters to any one individual for risk assesment.
--
If the most clever thing you can find is a slightly different overall
population of the USA, then it just proves me right that you people don't
have the intelligence and education that I have (you're way below me).

On 2 Feb 2022 16:14:25 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Please do not call him 'Andy'. Please use his full nym, so that he's
> not confused with the other Andy(s?).

Moron.

If it takes you five seconds to figure out my posts, you're an idiot.
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>

(Yes, I saw your post to VanguardLH where you belatedly figured it out, and
then you gleefully exclaimed like the moron you are how smart you felt you
were to have finally, after hundreds of my posts, to have figured it out!)

That's how I know you are an utter moron Frank.
You don't even realize that it took you forever to figure out what wasn't
even hidden.

I can't fathom people as _stupid_ as you are Frank.
I've never met one in person.

To be clear, the headers are changed to hide from robots; not from humans
like you.

You're an idiot if you don't understand something even that obvious, Frank.

Especially given the screenshots never change, year to year (which is a
testament to my abilities to migrate phones almost perfectly so).
<https://i.postimg.cc/Hn05bQwG/wifi02.jpg>

However, if you're still confused, you can use my academic title, of Doctor.
They can never take that away.
--
Morons like Frank care more about the pretty wrapping paper outide the
package than the inherent technical value found once you open the box.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 09:50:44 -0800, sms wrote:

>>> The CDC definition does _NOT_ describe injection of "something" which
>>> then
>>> causes your body to create the antigen. It just doesn't.
>>
>> How else does it "induce immunity" then? It may not be explicit but it
>> is clear to all but the narrowest of interpretations.
>
> Of course that's exactly what the vaccinations do. It's also true that
> having Covid generates immunity for a short period of time, but not as
> long as a vaccination's effects last.

Idiot.

The problem is that the more ignorant & unqualified these people are, the
more they feel the _desperation_ to force others to do what they do.

I realize Steve at least has an EE degree so he "can" process details.
But what Steve is exhibiting is a complete and utter lack of comprehension
of what's _missing_ in the details when you compare two simple things:
a. What the CDC definition is of _how_ a vaccine works
b. Versus _how_ this shot works.

People like Steve & Chris can't even see something _that_ obvious.
(The world is _filled_ with people as ignorant as those two are!)

Notice Steve concocted an imaginary strawman (as did Chris before him) that
they "think" I said (somehow????) that the shot doesn't "induce immunity" or
"generate immunity").

Do any of you utter idiots realize that I _never_ once said that?
None of you?

Really?
Are you _all_ utter morons?

What this points out is what I'm trying to get into your thick skulls.

a. People like Chris & Steve are driven purely by fear, not by facts.
b. Hence, when they see facts, they _hate_ those facts.
c. The only way they can combat those facts, is to fabricate what I said.
THEN!
d. Then, like nospam did, they beat that lifeless strawman to death.

Is it only me or do none of you have _any_ intelligence whatsoever?
Do any of you realize I never said the shot doesn't induce immunity.

What's shocking to me is not so much how _ignorant_ Steve & Chris are.
But that they _feel qualified_ to force others to do what they to.

That.
That.
That.

That is the problem I'm addressing here.
a. They're incapable of even _comprehending_ the facts, and yet,
b. They're _desperate_ to build a strawman to beat to death
c. Just so that they can warrant their abject insane fears.
--
The problem is that the more ignorant & unqualified these people are, the
more they feel the _desperation_ to force others to do what they do.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 2/2/2022 8:14 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> It's not staggering at all when you understand that facts and logic are
> >> an anathema to Andy.
> >
> > Please do not call him 'Andy'. Please use his full nym, so that he's
> > not confused with the other Andy(s?).
>
> Whatever. I have "Andy Burnelli" and his other collection of nyms in my
> filter list. The odd thing is that he's probably not really as clueless
> as his posts make him appear. He does what he does to get a reaction.

I/we know all [1] that. My point is that - IMO - it's unfair on the
legit/sane/<whatever> Andy(s?). Common courtesy and all that.

We've had the same problem with his earlier 'paul' nym. Some
respondents referenced him as 'Paul', while Paul is a very respected
poster.

[1] With the exception that he *is* "really ...".

On 02/02/2022 17:24, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:11:01 +0000, Chris wrote:
>
>> The only fact you've shown is that you own some books. Nothing else you
>> claim around your education, knowledge or experience is based in fact.
>
> Again I ask you Chris a _simple_ question which you have not answered.
>
> *What higher degrees do _you_ have, Chris, and in what?*
>
> Simple question that, if you can't answer, tells me you have none.

A simple question which I've answered, twice.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 09:53:16 -0800, sms wrote:

> Whatever. I have "Andy Burnelli" and his other collection of nyms in my
> filter list. The odd thing is that he's probably not really as clueless
> as his posts make him appear. He does what he does to get a reaction.

Steve,

Here's the problem with fools like Steve who _hate_ a simple fact below:
*864K deaths is what percentage of 332M people?*

a. Fools like Steve have a _strong opinion_ based on exactly _zero_ facts.
b. And, fools filter out _all facts_ that show their opinion to be baseless

But worse... *after stating openly they are filtering out all facts*...
c. Fools still feel qualified to force others to think the way they think!

That.
That.
That.

That is my point about ignorant poorly qualified people like Steve.
*The more ignorant these fools are, the more they want to force others*

On 02/02/2022 17:31, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 12:24:49 +0000, Chris wrote:
>
>> That's a very interesting slidedeck. Thanks for sharing it. Although,
>> I've no idea where you get the 99.998% percent survival rate from...?
>
> Chris,
>
> I would call you an idiot, but, unlike the other iKooks, you at least
> _looked_ at the document, although you comprehended absolutely nothing.

Given your (lack of) answer I take it that you made it up, then.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 18:55:47 +0000, Chris wrote:

> A simple question which I've answered, twice.

Chris,

What are you higher degrees in?
Immunology?
Virology?
Microbiology?
Bacteriology?
Genetics?
Physiology?
Biochemistry?
Mycology?
Parasitology?

Hell, Chris, did you ever even take a _single_ college class of the above?
I've taken _every_ one of those classes, Chris (and lots more).

What are your higher degrees, Chris?
--
The less qualified these people are, the more they feel desperate to force
others to think the strange way that they do (based purely upon their fears)