Gaetan
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 5,186
Ed Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories....
- Thread starter dudalb
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus diseases
- Status
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
e.t.a. just in case of ambiguity, I am referring to the link posted in #1181.
Beware of falling ******** [what you get when bulls fly over].
If you're on Gaetan's wave length, go ahead and rip off that freedom hating mask, climb up out of your rabbit hole, kiss your neighbor and howl at the moon!
Others, however, might want to give his anti-vax, anti LGBT, anti civil rights, conspiracy-laden site a miss. Just note that the Stanford folks referenced are signatories of the infamous "Great Barrington Declaration." If you don't know what that is it's your job to find out. Just hold your nose.
They also include petitions to support Hawley's stand for "election integrity" and to fire Fauci and investigate his role in the origin of the Corona Pandemic!
This is one of those sites you cite if you want the world to know exactly what kind of right wing conspiracy nut you are. It tells the world how you feel about science and truth, in much the same way as a Confederate flag tells the world how you feel about civil rights.
Beware of falling ******** [what you get when bulls fly over].
If you're on Gaetan's wave length, go ahead and rip off that freedom hating mask, climb up out of your rabbit hole, kiss your neighbor and howl at the moon!
Others, however, might want to give his anti-vax, anti LGBT, anti civil rights, conspiracy-laden site a miss. Just note that the Stanford folks referenced are signatories of the infamous "Great Barrington Declaration." If you don't know what that is it's your job to find out. Just hold your nose.
They also include petitions to support Hawley's stand for "election integrity" and to fire Fauci and investigate his role in the origin of the Corona Pandemic!
This is one of those sites you cite if you want the world to know exactly what kind of right wing conspiracy nut you are. It tells the world how you feel about science and truth, in much the same way as a Confederate flag tells the world how you feel about civil rights.
Last edited:
Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,214
Yeah beat me to it - the Great Barrington Declaration is a sciolist attempt at putting lipstick on the pig of 'herd immunity'.
Gaetan
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 5,186
Medias are full of ****, you can't find a study that back up the use of mask or lockdown, their benefit comes from the imagination of idiots. The studies show that more lockdown and more mask or sanitary mesures, more people will die and if peopple die it is because of the corruption of the medical corps, for them any plants or vitamins are useless because they can't be under the patent of pharmas.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,137
Maybe you can't. But then you never really looked, did you?
I just found a lot of them.
We can't all be geniuses who imagine extraterrestrial angels.
Do they, now. I'm sure you can show us these studies.
Yeah, modern medical science is useless! Why, it's cut the average lifespan in half since we stopped relying on magic spells and bleeding.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Quite apart from the fact that the allegations made are a salad of garbage topped with stupidity and saturated with ignorance......
If, as you say, the "medias are full of ****" why do you refer us to more media nonsense? Unless you were hanging around Division Street last year with a tape recorder, the only knowledge you have even that there is such a thing as the Great Barrington Declaration, much less what's in it, much much less what its scientific basis might have been, is from the damned media.
The only difference is that you choose media that echo your point of view, which also, in this case, happens to be the point of view that vaccines are a hoax, that Fauci is a criminal, that Trump won the election, that transgender children should be banned from sports, that gay rights should be abolished, that abortion should be outlawed, and various other symptoms of the far right sectarian agenda that has made the lives of many intolerable, and led, among other things, to the near overthrow of the United States government.
So yeah, say all you want that "the medias are full of ****" but unless you want to be on record as a hate-filled hypocrite, the next step after saying that should be to stop linking to them.
Gaetan
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 5,186
Off course agree, Trump won the election but i am glad that the cia brought trucks of illegal votes to get rid of him.
I am left wing, i don't agree with such things
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,137
Gee... I thought it was the DNC. Supposedly they were stupid enough to pull up in a van labeled as such, which is a bit like naming your dry cleaning business 'Mafia Front'. Or maybe it was alien reptiles, or Mole Men?
Well the site you cite does. So why are you presenting them as an authoritative source? Could it be that you went Google trawling and presented the first bloated carcass of an article you found in your net that supported your views?
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Then you should beware of the sites you refer to. It is telling that it seems the only sites you can find which support your (extremist) view on Trump and your (nutty) conspiracy theory on the cia and illegal votes, and your (fringe) opinions on Covid are radically right-wing. Find a source that touts your theory without tying it to right wing conspiracies and opinions, and you'll get some credibility. Until then, not.
Gaetan
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 5,186
The university of Stanford can't be called left or right wing, they made a study and what it says is that lockdown or sanitary mesures are useless against a flue virus, it is only a logic conclusion, take as lockdown it can't be usefull as people are being locked there is more people at the same place at the same time then more spread of the virus, and you can't find a decent study of the mask being usefull, it spread more the infection the virus being trapped by the mask and also spread bacterias and more virus, the conclusion of the study just make common sense.
Last edited:
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
To weigh in a bit here, I took a quick look for an article from a publication with a bit less crazy associated with it about a Stanford study that suggested that lockdowns aren't so useful. I found one at Newsweek.
COVID Lockdowns May Have No Clear Benefit vs Other Voluntary Measures, International Study Shows
Newsweek isn't exactly a paragon of factuality, of course, but it's mostly factual and paints a very notably different picture than what you are claiming. Either way, though, given that it's not a paragon of factuality, it's worth taking a look at the cited study for verification.
Assessing mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID‐19
I took a peek at it and, well, something very quickly popped out.
Err... It's *technically* true that they didn't do such, sure.
Either way, nothing there seems to indicate that lockdowns (or masks) are ineffective, rather than not uniquely more effective than any and all other methods.
Also, more directly under Stanford's name, there's this of relevance -
Lives saved: An examination of lockdown policies
Last edited:
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Australian COVID cases: almost zero for the last couple of weeks.
Australian approach: strict lockdown and masking.
Same for NZ.
Something must be working!
Australian approach: strict lockdown and masking.
Same for NZ.
Something must be working!
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Wrong. Stanford University did not make the study. Certain persons on their faculty - notable for being the sort of fringe scientists who signed the Great Barrington Declaration - did. Or they say they did. They "compiled" it. Most of what is said in that article refers to severe lockdowns. Though one might consider the term "NPI," for non-pharmaceutical intervention, ambiguous, nowhere do I see condemnation of sanitary measures, as you assert. In their study of border closures, it's interesting that they omitted countries, such as New Zealand, which implemented severe border closures, and remained almost entirely Covid free.
It's also really stupid to bundle the United States into one category, more so to characterize it as a country which has implemented severe NPI's, since most such measures are done state by state, and the difference in rates between states is dramatic. And, of course, whatever measures have been done in the last year were half-hearted at best, and managed by one of the most corrupt, stupid and incompetent leaders around, a person who obstinately denied the seriousness of the pandemic, denied scientific finding, touted nonsense, and lied over and over to the public.
Compare Vermont and Hawaii, for example, with Texas or the Dakotas. Then figure out which states had more effective and restrictive policies.
In any case, though, if you think this study was done by the institution of Stanford University, you are just plain WRONG.
Of course if you continue to call Covid 19 a "flue" virus ( at least please try not to be such an obstinate and obvious ignoramus and try to pound it into whatever you use for a brain that the disease you mistakenly identify with Covid-19 is "flu," the short version of "influenza," and a "flue" is a ventilation passage, such as you'd find in a chimney) you ought, I think, to be disqualified from discussing Covid-19.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
The point of lockdowns is to minimise interactions outside your home. The number of people you are locked down with is immaterial, provided everyone in your bubble is covid 19 free when they enter it (ensured using quarantine periods and testing). There have been bubbles of dozens of people (e.g. to enable TV shows like the Great British Bake Off to be made) which were kept isolated successfully.
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
Why do none of you lot know how the industry works?
Ever think who makes all the vitamins and supplements? For money?
And there are plenty of drugs derived from plants (I'm taking at least one). However, someone needs to synthesise digoxin of a consistent dosage, purity, absence of contaminants and the like, rather than me just eating foxgloves from the back garden, which would either do nowt or kill me.
Gaetan
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 5,186
When there is lockdown there is more spread of the virus because there is more people at the same place at the same moment like groceries, then these method are useless and has no effect. That's just common sense, that's what the study said these methods have the opposite effect.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Why would there be more people in a grocery store at the same time during a lockdown? Not only will people most people do bigger, less frequent grocery shops than they normally do, most supermarkets limit the number allowed in at once.
There are certainly fewer people most places people normally congregate, on account of those places being closed.
There are certainly fewer people most places people normally congregate, on account of those places being closed.
Gaetan
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 5,186
They get the virus when they line up
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
No, because they are (a) outside (where infection is much less likely) and (b) socially distanced.
It's mixing indoors for prolonged periods that gets you the virus, and lockdowns reduce those opportunities to a minimum.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,137
Your claim makes no sense. And I mean it literally doesn't parse as a logically consistent statement.
Do you have the slightest understanding of how pathogens spread? You could have a gathering of 100,000 people, and if none of them has the virus, and you prevent them from coming into contact with anyone from outside the group, then none of them will contract it, even if they all share the same toothbrush. You seem to be possessed of the misapprehension that gathering in groups somehow causes COVID19 to spontaneously generate.
You live with a certain number of people. I happen to have a family of four. By strictly minimizing the contact that we have with people from outside our household group, we minimize the chance that the virus will be introduced into our "cell" of four people. We also minimize the chance that we will introduce others to the virus should our "cell" become exposed without our knowledge. We haven't had our friends or family over to our home in nearly a year, and we haven't been to any of their houses either. That sucks. We miss their company. But we're all protecting our individual family groups from transmission between groups.
Our friends are raising their granddaughter. They were very nervous about letting her spend two weeks with her mother over Christmas per the custody agreement, because they know that her mother's family are a bunch of ignorant hillbillies from one of the more banjo infested counties in South Carolina. Said family had a big Christmas gathering with people from several individual households. And then several of them became ill the following week, all testing positive for COVID19, including our friends' granddaughter. Fortunately, everyone seems to have since recovered.
Without a lockdown, I'd still be living with my wife and children. Lockdown doesn't change that in the slightest. Lockdown doesn't concentrate us as a group any more than we already are. But it does reduce the chances for transmission between my family and others.
Saying that we are more exposed because we are living in a house with the same people we've always lived with is ludicrous.
- Status