The journey that COVID-19 will take us on

[george formby]

Did anybody catch which website the Merckan heckler worked for?

The ranty one who shouted over the press questions in Kawakawa yesterday.

[MarkH]

Let me ask you a direct question: Does the Vaccine work? Yes or No?

If Yes - then your statement of 'Thousands of New Zealanders could die' is False
If No - then your whole 'The Science backs it well' is False

I've previously answered this and as much as I could explain it to you, I don't have the ability to understand it for you.
TBH I don't really see much point in answering your questions as you are clearly immune to learning anything. If I said something what was in keeping with what you wanted to believe then sure, you would totally agree and accept it. Anything I reply which isn't what you want to believe, you will just dismiss as 'fake news' or scientists lying or whatever. There really isn't any point trying to convince the wilfully ignorant of anything.

[TheDemonLord]

Ii's difficult to understand why this is news. When the Pfizer vaccine first came out, one of their scientists said vaccinated people will still need to wear masks. "The vaccine does not sterilise your nostrils." A vaccinated person with non-symptomatic COVID could potentially still be spreading the virus.

Perhaps it's news because those that are taking a moment to think about it are realising that what is being said:

"Get vaccinated to get back to what we love doing"
"Stop the spread"
"90% for Herd Immunity"
etc.

And what is scientific fact are not adding up.

From this thread - we see someone saying that they think it's wrong for the [s]jew[/s] I mean [s]blacks[/s], I mean [s]Land Owners[/s], I mean 'Unvaccinated' to be serving hundreds of people in a crowded bar, potentially infecting them all - when the science shows as you put it: "A vaccinated person with non-symptomatic COVID could potentially still be spreading the virus."

Which rather puts several holes in the messaging we are being given about getting Vaccinated and ending of Lockdowns.

[husaberg]

I've previously answered this and as much as I could explain it to you, I don't have the ability to understand it for you.
TBH I don't really see much point in answering your questions as you are clearly immune to learning anything. If I said something what was in keeping with what you wanted to believe then sure, you would totally agree and accept it. Anything I reply which isn't what you want to believe, you will just dismiss as 'fake news' or scientists lying or whatever. There really isn't any point trying to convince the wilfully ignorant of anything.

odd what some people defend.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54487154
White House hosted Covid 'superspreader' event, says Dr Fauci

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/31/coro...chers-say.html
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/don...PEY6LLF3OLK7M/
https://www.voanews.com/a/covid-19-p...s/6196697.html

[TheDemonLord]

I've previously answered this and as much as I could explain it to you, I don't have the ability to understand it for you.
TBH I don't really see much point in answering your questions as you are clearly immune to learning anything. If I said something what was in keeping with what you wanted to believe then sure, you would totally agree and accept it. Anything I reply which isn't what you want to believe, you will just dismiss as 'fake news' or scientists lying or whatever. There really isn't any point trying to convince the wilfully ignorant of anything.

You answered it, then you contradicted yourself later on.

Just like how you say you're for freedom of choice whilst simultaneously asking for consequences for those who 'make the wrong choice'.

I've not said 'Fake news' to anything you've posted - the irony of you accusing me of dismissing what you say as a justification to dismiss my points should surely not be lost... even on you...

That's before we get to the repeated attempts to mischaracterize what I say.

As for the Scientists lying - What is your take when the estimated case models are wrong by either double or quadruple? Should anyone blindly trust groups that get it consistently wrong by such a large margin?
Would you use a Contractor who gave you a Quote for some work that was double or quadruple the quote from anyone else?

These are the questions, the 'following the Science' - that you have no answer for.

[TheDemonLord]

odd what some people defend.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/31/coro...chers-say.html
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/don...PEY6LLF3OLK7M/
https://www.voanews.com/a/covid-19-p...s/6196697.html

I mean, do I need to post the BLM riots?

Isn't it funny how they aren't 'superspreader events', yet Conservative political rallies are. It's almost like there's an In-group/Out-group preference....

[pete376403]

As for the Scientists lying - What is your take when the estimated case models are wrong by either double or quadruple? Should anyone blindly trust groups that get it consistently wrong by such a large margin?
Would you use a Contractor who gave you a Quote for some work that was double or quadruple the quote from anyone else?

These are the questions, the 'following the Science' - that you have no answer for.

Well a contractor should know exactly what he is dealing with, the work to be done, the materials required. When there are unknowns the contractor will quote high, plus they will negotiate variances as the job proceeds. Also the contract is between two parties who both are in favour of a mutually successful outcome. The scientists, however, not knowing exactly what they are dealing with other than being aware the circumstances are evolving and who are doing the work for a customer who is openly hostile, Naturally they will go high, and be happy when it comes in lower. Unlike the contractor, there is no additional profit for them.

[F5 Dave]

I expect this article refers to the same study that Professor McLean is referring to – in the link I posted before Jim Mora asks him specifically about the stuff article with the 20x figure at around 2 minutes 29 seconds, whereupon he starts talking about the Lancet study and how the vaccine stacks up over there preventing transmission etc. Bear in mind it's all generalised for a radio audience (me!) of course.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...study-suggests

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...648-4/fulltext

I guess the UK are also a lot further down the vaccine road than we are, so another way it might not be directly comparable (yet).

Ahh. So household contacts. Long close repeated exposure with no masks and shared eating. That makes sense huh?

[F5 Dave]

My question is; why does anyone not have TDL on ignore?

[husaberg]

My question is; why does anyone not have TDL on ignore?

I suspect it's a primal response like watching a car crash.
https://www.nbcnews.com/better/healt...ers-ncna804966

"This data from our perceptual system then stimulates the amygdala (the part of the brain responsible for emotions, survival tactics and memory). The amygdala then sends signals to the regions of the frontal cortex that are involved in analyzing and interpreting data. Next, the brain evaluates whether this data (awareness of the disaster) is a threat to you, thus judgment gets involved. As a result, the 'fight or flight' response is evoked." Ever see a car accident happen and find yourself compelled to Google what happened? Dr. Mayer says this is also our survival instincts at work. "This acts as a preventive mechanism to give us information on the dangers to avoid and to flee from," he says.

Every time i actually i am tempted to look see his response or see it in a reply quoted by another i am reminded quickly why he's on ignore.
I only have two on Ignore both have a habit of replying to points that were never made 'and are generally quite irrational.

[mcshaz]

My question is; why does anyone not have TDL on ignore?

This quote helped me come to a much greater understanding of conspiracy theories:

Forgive some of the jargon, but this is from a presentation I just gave to a group of fellow psychotherapists last week about the three core appeals of Conspiracism:

• Makes sense of an otherwise confusing and unpredictable world. Wars, poverty, disease, etc. are all due to a small group of evil humans/aliens/lizards – so they are within human control. [Projection]
  
• Offers an appealingly simple worldview of good people vs. evil forces with sharp moral certainty and paths of righteous action. [Splitting]
  
• Gives a sense of specialness – the masses are brainwashed and deluded “sheeple”, while they possess secret knowledge and can congratulate themselves on having seen through the deception. [Narcissism]

That specialness/narcissism factor is particularly problematic - and those smug grins are a bit of a tell for it.

When a conspiracy becomes more widespread and popular (and QAnon is definitely that), the more shame-prone conspiracists tend to adopt increasingly fringe and extreme conspiracies to keep their sense of personal specialness. That's what makes them vulnerable to further radicalisation....

It certainly helps understand comments like "the vaccine either works or it doesn't" - It has a variable effect, declining over time and with the evolution of new variants of the virus which are being selected in a Darwinian fashion to be more resistant (delta being the current one to reduce vaccine effectiveness). Some individuals will have minimal protection from the vaccine because of reduced immunity. However, we are clearly less likely to get the virus, less likely to transmit it, less likely to contribute to overwhelming of the health system because even if we contract the virus post vaccination, we are less likely to need hospital, ICU or die (each stage matched against unvaccinated cases who have reached the same stage of illness). The complexity of a non absolute or dichotomous reduction in risk, let alone statistical error terms, is simply too complex.

Further complexity is added by the concept that, by definition, science accumulates evidence and with that accumulating evidence alters and refines theories and predictions. We begin by extrapolating outside known data points (initially we hadn't seen COVID before, but SARS-CoV-1 and MERS and generally massive systemic inflammatory syndromes (SIRS) guided our understanding that there would be significant longer term debilitation in a significant number of survivors). As information evolves, the theories do as well. This is the hallmark of science. With such changes, we have more than halved the need for ventilation (induced coma) and mortality rate for people admitted to ICU, as compared to early in the pandemic. This is still far more deaths than one would wish and roughly 10 fold the number of deaths from influenza and a much, much higher rate of hospitalisation.

However theories which were important as evidence at the beginning are used as evidence against us by conspiracy theorists long after the usefulness of the theory has waned (in science all theories are wrong, but some are useful).

There are 2 more quotes to leave you with:

Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.

(in more modern language - we cannot use logic to move someone from a position they did not use logic to arrive at)

Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one's prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.

The entire essay, smuggled out of a Nazi concentration camp by a camp guard (he was interned for being anti-Nazi rather than for religion, ethnicity or disability) is worth a read and can be read here.

[TheDemonLord]

The scientists, however, not knowing exactly what they are dealing with other than being aware the circumstances are evolving and who are doing the work for a customer who is openly hostile, Naturally they will go high, and be happy when it comes in lower. Unlike the contractor, there is no additional profit for them.

See, I don't disagree - because what you've said here is essentially the same as:

Not only that, but as someone who just so happens to dabble a fair bit in Data and Data manipulation - I can personally assure you that the mathematical modelling that is published and presented to the Public is done in such a manner as to suit the objectives of the one presenting it.

Yet, pointing this out has somehow gotten several feathers ruffled....

[TheDemonLord]

My question is; why does anyone not have TDL on ignore?

I think the more interesting question is:

Why do a large number of those who supposedly have me on Ignore feel the need to constantly remind everyone that they do.

As if I'm somehow the great Kiwibiker Satan who must have catechisms of detestation posted every other post, lest my creeping influence corrupt their souls....

(well, I AM a DemonLord afterall....)

But it may surprise you - some people agree with me, some don't, some find that what I post (even if they don't agree with it) is interesting, some couldn't give two shits about what I post.

[TheDemonLord]

Every time i actually i am tempted to look see his response or see it in a reply quoted by another i am reminded quickly why he's on ignore.
I only have two on Ignore both have a habit of replying to points that were never made 'and are generally quite irrational.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuure. Keep saying that out loud, people might believe you... the problem is that you seem to be rather up-to-date with some of the things I post...

Just like everyone else that has me on so-called 'ignore'

[husaberg]

Ahh. So household contacts. Long close repeated exposure with no masks and shared eating. That makes sense huh?

What that first one ignores is that as vaccinated you are 20x less likely to pass on covid.

"People who are fully vaccinated against Covid yet catch the virus are just as infectious to others in their household as infected unvaccinated people, research suggests.
but these same vaccinated people are additionally far less likely to catch covid in the first place. so the point is rather mute.

Recent reports from the Victorian Department of Health find that unvaccinated people are 10 times more likely to contract Covid than vaccinated people.
We also know that vaccinated people are less likely to transmit the disease even if they become infected. The Doherty modelling from August puts the reduction at around 65 per cent, although more recent research has suggested a lower estimate for AstraZeneca. Hence for this thought experiment, we’ll take a lower value of 50 per cent.
If I were spending time with an unvaccinated person, then there’s some probability they’re infected and will infect me. However, if they were vaccinated, they’re 10 times less likely to be infected and half as likely to infect me, following the numbers above.

Hence, we arrive at a 20-fold reduction in risk when hanging out with a vaccinated person compared to someone who’s not vaccinated.

The exact number depends on a range of factors, including the type of vaccine and time since vaccination. But, Australians can expect a large risk reduction when mixing with fully vaccinated people.

"The vaccines protect for around 60 to 80+% against infection with SARS-CoV-2 but for over 90% against hospitalisation with COVID-19. In my country, protection is 95% against hospitalisation and 97% against ICU admission," she explains.
"This means that while the protection against infection is a bit lower - for Delta compared to Alpha and possibly with more time since vaccination - these vaccine breakthrough infections tend to be milder and not require hospitalisation." Brechje de Gier, who led the study at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands.