It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

there has to be consequences

page: 14
76
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: ScepticScot

You called me someone who's never seen the sniffles. Shot, stabbed, and dead must not count. Those are bold words, sir.


No i didn't.

The comment wasn't directed at you but the posters who refuse to believe covid is real because they personally haven't seen someone ill with it.

The obvious point it was making is personal anecdotes are both in most cases irrelevant and unverifiable.



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

I didnt mean to get worked up. I have no right to pass judgment. But I nursed my wife through it after I infected her. It wasn't too bad for either of us. That personal anecdote means more to me than some dick doctor that can't keep his story straight.



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: ScepticScot

I didnt mean to get worked up. I have no right to pass judgment. But I nursed my wife through it after I infected her. It wasn't too bad for either of us. That personal anecdote means more to me than some dick doctor that can't keep his story straight.


Glad she is OK now.

Thats kind of my point that personal experience is a really poor indicator of how serious or not the virus is.

Peoples experience of it will vary considerably and that will prejudice their view of the situation.



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Thank you.

All I'm saying is the virus on its own seems to be quite mild. I mean, the common cold can kill. We don't change social interactions because of it. We don't stop business and all that.

It just seems like an overreaction.



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: ScepticScot

Thank you.

All I'm saying is the virus on its own seems to be quite mild. I mean, the common cold can kill. We don't change social interactions because of it. We don't stop business and all that.

It just seems like an overreaction.


It may or may not be an overreaction, that is a subjective opinion and a worthwhile discussion.

However the discussion should be based on real data anfd facts. Not nonsense claims like 99.99% survival rate as claimed by one poster in this thread.



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

But the survival rate is incredibly high. And nurses/doctors have an incentive to report deaths as covid deaths for monetary gain. This is undeniable.

(At least in the US. I can't speak internationally)
edit on 9-6-2021 by sine.nomine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: ScepticScot

But the survival rate is incredibly high. And nurses/doctors have an incentive to report deaths as covid deaths for monetary gain. This is undeniable.


What incentive for monetary gain? Who gets paid more for certifying deaths from covid? From memory I believe it is true that hospitals (not doctors/nurses ) got more money for treating covid, but even if they did falsely increase diagnosis rates that would increase the survivability rate.

That also only covers the US , what about the rest of the developed world that has universal healthcare?

ETA i see your edit that covered my second point already thanks. Crossed in posting.
edit on 9-6-2021 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes, the monetary gains go to hospitals through government funding. As employees of hospitals, the doctors/nurses are encouraged to report deaths as covid deaths.

Again, I can't speak for countries outside the US. I'm just not seeing any real signs of a deadly pandemic. Are you? I'm just trying to think of this honestly, and it seems political.

ETA I see your ETA lol. My point doesn't change much, I'll leave it.

edit on 9-6-2021 by sine.nomine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes, the monetary gains go to hospitals through government funding. As employees of hospitals, the doctors/nurses are encouraged to report deaths as covid deaths.

Again, I can't speak for countries outside the US. I'm just not seeing any real signs of a deadly pandemic. Are you? I'm just trying to think of this honestly, and it seems political.

ETA I see your ETA lol. My point doesn't change much, I'll leave it.


UK has 100k covid deaths, much of mainland Europe has similar numbers.



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

I admit I'm not too knowledgeable on the European rates. But in the US, I just don't see it. And its here. Is it possible the European rates are skewed as well? They must be. Again, in my opinion. It seems off.



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

I mean, it's on par for pneumonia death numbers. Businesses still ran.
edit on 9-6-2021 by sine.nomine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: inosomthingudontno

The first rule of science in general, you can't prove a negative. I could show you study after study that fails to find HCQ is an effective treatment for COVID.

Does that mean it doesn't work? No. It just means we don't have evidence that shows it works. For all we know all those studies just happened to use participants where that didn't react to HCQ the same way as the rest of the population. Or maybe there's a lurking variable that wasn't accounted for.

That said, we can't start prescribing a drug as a treatment when there's insufficient evidence to suggest it works.


HCQ had success against sars covid 1, so thats why it was initially used. There are plenty of RCTs that show HCQ works if given early to stop viral load, not effective once hospitalized. - c19hcq.com...

IVM has been shown to work at all stages of the illness. - c19ivermectin.com...

These data points are not low, over 70%+ improvement. And are cheap drugs, there is no competing interest in getting them to work, no one is profiting, why would all these studies be lying?

Lots of reasons why this data might be ignored however
“I Don’t Know of a Bigger Story in the World” Right Now Than Ivermectin: NY Times Best-Selling Author - LI NK1
Round table discussion of doctors on HCQ and IVM

FLCCC Alliance Statement on the Irregular Actions of Public Health Agencies and the Widespread Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin - LINK2

Round table discussion with Canada focus(they are in sad shape) (Video) - 39:00 is a good spot, all good though. In US, 120,000+ treated with 12ish deaths, real world numbers. - Video

Covid, Ivermectin and the Crime of the Century - Video1


edit on 9-6-2021 by 111DPKING111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: GFBufCA
a reply to: ScepticScot

Definition of bad faith....

- I explain up front why I have no interest in a voluntary pull at the Russian roulette wheel.

- You ask why - literally to answer given up front. This ain't jeopardy, and you're not here for honest reasons.



-Sceptic apparently virtually always ignores proof of anything not on the approved list from the masters.


We need a new meme from the FF pool of memes, "Tools created from willing Fools" Made up of those who didn't understand Stalin's "Useful Idiots" rule of a measure of ones actual worth to the "cause".


(post by GFBufCA removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jun, 12 2021 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: GFBufCA

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: GFBufCA

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: GFBufCA
a reply to: ScepticScot

Definition of bad faith....

- I explain up front why I have no interest in a voluntary pull at the Russian roulette wheel.

- You ask why - literally to answer given up front. This ain't jeopardy, and you're not here for honest reasons.



The data shows risk is higher not being vaccinated.

To borrow your analogy you are deliberately picking the gun with more bullets.



Last time I'll engage with your BS attempts to manipulate your narrative. Responding to this mostly for anyone else reading it.

Steps required for POSSIBLE negative scenario.....

Covid:

Step 1 - YOU HAVE TO GET IT FIRST. Odds of that happening EXTREMELY low.

Step 2 - EVEN IF YOU GET IT - ODDS OF NOT DYING ARE 99.99%

Conclusion: TWO EXTREMELY UNLIKELY THINGS HAVE TO HAPPEN FOR SOMETHING BAD TO HAPPEN.

Vaccine: Even WITH vaccine - Step 1 and 2 above CAN STILL HAPPEN, odds are simply reduced farther, how much lower can 99% going wrong TWICE, get? Not much.

Enter a new risk that isn't a part of the first scenario - adverse reaction, miniscule yes, less than the odds of TWO 99% scenarios NOT happening? Absolutely not.

Conclusion: I'll take my chances with TWO extremely rare scenarios BOTH having to play out in order for something bad to happen versus VOLUNTARILY taking a minuscule chance ONE bad thing happens.

Projection: you'll spitefully argue against this straight forward non conspiracy oriented logic because it's your job to do so. Now congrats on being the first member here I'm blocking.




You are literally making up numbers while accusing others of dishonesty.

Good luck with that blocking functionality...


Well seeing as I can't block you I'll just keep letting you walk right into embarrassing yourself.

There is ONE number/stat in my post. 99.99% survival rate. You're saying that's made up now huh?

Or are you trying to argue two small percentage items occurring is more likely than one small percentage item occurring?

You might be the most blatantly obvious bad faith actor I've ever come across.

None of what I said is speculation or conspiracy. Vaccine is ONE voluntary chance of something bad happening, ASIDE from the actual disease itself.

While the disease takes TWO long shots for something bad to happen. Getting it = LONG SHOT. Dying from it = REALLY long shot.

Clearly you don't understand statistics, odds or gambling. I'm a professional gambler, so yeah I like my odds without taking a VOLUNTARY risk.


If the survival rate was 99.99% then the population of the US would need to be about 5 billion. You might want to look that one up.

That's only the most obvious thing you got wrong.



I'm pretty sure the 99% number is based on the global population, not just the US. Basic math should show that.

Obviously the survivability changes from one region to another due to many factors.


Don't forget demographic and he knows damn well I was answering his specific question about why I have no interest in a voluntary single small risk that MIGHT stop TWO small risks from BOTH happening.

He thinks he's the smartest person in the room and believes condescension and ambiguity is all he needs to sow doubt.

He's not even good at his job.



posted on Jun, 12 2021 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: GFBufCA

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: GFBufCA

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: GFBufCA
a reply to: ScepticScot

Definition of bad faith....

- I explain up front why I have no interest in a voluntary pull at the Russian roulette wheel.

- You ask why - literally to answer given up front. This ain't jeopardy, and you're not here for honest reasons.



The data shows risk is higher not being vaccinated.

To borrow your analogy you are deliberately picking the gun with more bullets.



Last time I'll engage with your BS attempts to manipulate your narrative. Responding to this mostly for anyone else reading it.

Steps required for POSSIBLE negative scenario.....

Covid:

Step 1 - YOU HAVE TO GET IT FIRST. Odds of that happening EXTREMELY low.

Step 2 - EVEN IF YOU GET IT - ODDS OF NOT DYING ARE 99.99%

Conclusion: TWO EXTREMELY UNLIKELY THINGS HAVE TO HAPPEN FOR SOMETHING BAD TO HAPPEN.

Vaccine: Even WITH vaccine - Step 1 and 2 above CAN STILL HAPPEN, odds are simply reduced farther, how much lower can 99% going wrong TWICE, get? Not much.

Enter a new risk that isn't a part of the first scenario - adverse reaction, miniscule yes, less than the odds of TWO 99% scenarios NOT happening? Absolutely not.

Conclusion: I'll take my chances with TWO extremely rare scenarios BOTH having to play out in order for something bad to happen versus VOLUNTARILY taking a minuscule chance ONE bad thing happens.

Projection: you'll spitefully argue against this straight forward non conspiracy oriented logic because it's your job to do so. Now congrats on being the first member here I'm blocking.




You are literally making up numbers while accusing others of dishonesty.

Good luck with that blocking functionality...


Well seeing as I can't block you I'll just keep letting you walk right into embarrassing yourself.

There is ONE number/stat in my post. 99.99% survival rate. You're saying that's made up now huh?

Or are you trying to argue two small percentage items occurring is more likely than one small percentage item occurring?

You might be the most blatantly obvious bad faith actor I've ever come across.

None of what I said is speculation or conspiracy. Vaccine is ONE voluntary chance of something bad happening, ASIDE from the actual disease itself.

While the disease takes TWO long shots for something bad to happen. Getting it = LONG SHOT. Dying from it = REALLY long shot.

Clearly you don't understand statistics, odds or gambling. I'm a professional gambler, so yeah I like my odds without taking a VOLUNTARY risk.


If the survival rate was 99.99% then the population of the US would need to be about 5 billion. You might want to look that one up.

That's only the most obvious thing you got wrong.



I'm pretty sure the 99% number is based on the global population, not just the US. Basic math should show that.

Obviously the survivability changes from one region to another due to many factors.


Survival rate should be based on people who have had the virus.

The point about the population was just to show how absurdly wrong the 99.99% number was.


Assuming the testing is actually accurate for these numbers...

3,750,000 (dead)/174,000,000(infected)*100 = 2.15%

So, it's 97.85% survivable and not 99.99%

Still pretty survivable. Again, that's assuming the testing to create those numbers in the first place is even remotely accurate. This is the TOTAL deaths...so over 1 years worth.

A pretty simple Google search will show you these numbers, which are from the WHO.


And that's overall, number goes up to as high as NINETY NINE POINT NINE NINE for the youngest and healthiest demographics.

You know the ones that are suddenly seeing enough heart issues for their unnecessary vaccine that the CDC has acknowledged a concern.

2 long shots occurring, versus one long shot occurring will always be better odds.


(post by GFBufCA removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)
(post by GFBufCA removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jun, 12 2021 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: ScepticScot

But the survival rate is incredibly high. And nurses/doctors have an incentive to report deaths as covid deaths for monetary gain. This is undeniable.


What incentive for monetary gain? Who gets paid more for certifying deaths from covid? From memory I believe it is true that hospitals (not doctors/nurses ) got more money for treating covid, but even if they did falsely increase diagnosis rates that would increase the survivability rate.

That also only covers the US , what about the rest of the developed world that has universal healthcare?

ETA i see your edit that covered my second point already thanks. Crossed in posting.


I wonder what an overall survive rate of 97%+ (your stat) would get up to with those kind of adjustments, most likely 99%+....?

Keep arguing semantics, it's always the position of the most informed.



posted on Jun, 12 2021 @ 02:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
76
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join