Support NeoGAF

[Rentahamster]

What is my position and how does it differ from yours?

I feel like the media has brainwashed people into viewing a complex problem as an Us vs Them issue. A binary issue. I'm not suggesting we throw caution to the wind. I'm not anti vax. My position, which I'm almost certain you agree with on some level, is that as the threat of Covid wanes, we start opening back up.

Every nation on the planet reacted to Covid differently with varying results.

You're moving the goalposts. What is your position and how does it differ from mine? Go back to the beginning.

You:

In the 3 years prior to Covid an average of 40k people died from the flu each year.

Our current 7 day rolling average is 607 deaths per week...which extrapolates to 32k deaths per year.

Why did no one care about flu deaths in 2016-2019, but now we need to live in a state of fear? At what point do you say "Everyone who wanted the vaccine got it. Everyone else sleeps in the bed they made. Play ball"?

Me:

Infectiousness of COVID is higher than the flu.

Lethality of COVID is higher than the flu.

Long term side effects of COVID are worse than the flu.

People cared about flu deaths in 2016 to 2019, but the flu wasn't putting people in the hospital to the extent where we have to shut down elective surgeries as much as COVID is. Especially bad flu seasons in the past caused a few hospitals to set up tents and cancel elective surgeries, but it's happening a lot more often due to COVID.

Are you still convinced that the COVID is the same as the flu in terms of threat or are you rethinking that opinion?

 

[ntropy]

 

[Jaysen]

Yes you posted that stupid shit yesterday too. When only one side has thousands of scientists and experts on their side, and the other has conspiracy nuts, they’re not equal.

 

[Razorback]

Wow, Sean Penn the actor said that?

Damn, I guess I'll see you in the gulags soon my friends.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You're moving the goalposts. What is your position and how does it differ from mine? Go back to the beginning.

You:




Me:



Are you still convinced that the COVID is the same as the flu in terms of threat or are you rethinking that opinion?

No one here ever said it was the same as the flu. I said that fewer people are dying of Covid today than people died of the flu in years past. Which is irrefutable.

Yes you posted that stupid shit yesterday too. When only one side has thousands of scientists and experts on their side, and the other has conspiracy nuts, they’re not equal.

You don't even know what "side" I'm on.

 

[Razorback]

No one here ever said it was the same as the flu. I said that fewer people are dying of Covid today than people died of the flu in years past. Which is irrefutable.

You're going to act like it wasn't transparent what point you were trying to make?
If downplaying the danger of covid wasn't your intent then why even make such an irrelevant comparison?

 

[funkygunther]

You don't even know what "side" I'm on.

Is there a metric, where you personally believe we can get back to relative normalcy or do you need Fauci / CNN to tell you?

I can guess

 

[Rentahamster]

No one here ever said it was the same as the flu. I said that fewer people are dying of Covid today than people died of the flu in years past. Which is irrefutable.

Same difference with respect to your point about living in fear.

You said that fewer people are dying of COVID today than people died of the flu in the past. I showed you how that is wrong. Do you accept my argument or do you still think that COVID causes less deaths than the flu?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You're going to act like it wasn't transparent what point you were trying to make?
If downplaying the danger of covid wasn't your intent then why even make such an irrelevant comparison?

Because the danger of covid doesn't match the hysteria enflamed by media.

Same difference with respect to your point about living in fear.

You said that fewer people are dying of COVID today than people died of the flu in the past. I showed you how that is wrong. Do you accept my argument or do you still think that COVID causes less deaths than the flu?

How many people died of Covid in the month of July 2021?

 

[Rentahamster]

How many people died of Covid in the month of July 2021?

According to provisional data, 8,527

Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

National Center for Health Statistics

www.cdc.gov

Don't answer my question with another question.

You said that fewer people are dying of COVID today than people died of the flu in the past. I showed you how that is wrong. Do you accept my argument or do you still think that COVID causes less deaths than the flu?

 

[Nobody_Important]

Because the danger of covid doesn't match the hysteria enflamed by media.

Over 500k deaths in the US alone in a little over a year. But hey lets not worry about it right?

 

[Jaysen]

No one here ever said it was the same as the flu. I said that fewer people are dying of Covid today than people died of the flu in years past. Which is irrefutable.



You don't even know what "side" I'm on.

You’re on the wrong side of intelligence.

 

[poppabk]

No one here ever said it was the same as the flu. I said that fewer people are dying of Covid today than people died of the flu in years past. Which is irrefutable.



You don't even know what "side" I'm on.

Err I refuted it because you don't know what a 7 day moving average is.
Or do you mean it is irrefutable that you said that in which case yes you did say that, you were just wrong.

 

[Keihart]

Because the danger of covid doesn't match the hysteria enflamed by media.



How many people died of Covid in the month of July 2021?

couple of replies back i posted a video about "excess mortality", it's a really good explanation of how you can get a real and more accurate view of the scope of this and why the reported deaths with confirmed diagnostic are gonna always be behind and have different meaning by country just by virtue of how is measured.

TLDR, is a whole fucking lot of extra deaths.

Edit: i'll link it again

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

According to provisional data, 8,527

Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

National Center for Health Statistics

www.cdc.gov

Don't answer my question with another question.

You said that fewer people are dying of COVID today than people died of the flu in the past. I showed you how that is wrong. Do you accept my argument or do you still think that COVID causes less deaths than the flu?

So 8.5 thousand deaths in July.

45 thousand flu deaths in 2018.

And how many of those people were under the age of 60? And how many of those people were vaccinated?

Over 500k deaths in the US alone in a little over a year. But hey lets not worry about it right?

What percentage of those deaths came before mass vaccinations, mass natural immunity, and the traction of alternative treatments?

Being afraid of a bear makes sense in the woods. It doesn't make sense when you're driving home.

 

[Rentahamster]

So 8.5 thousand deaths in July.

45 thousand flu deaths in 2018.

And how many of those people were under the age of 60? And how many of those people were vaccinated?

I don't know, it's provisional data.

If you want to see comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated, look to Utah's dashboard.

https://coronavirus-dashboard.utah.gov/risk.html

You're also not addressing this:

Err I refuted it because you don't know what a 7 day moving average is.
Or do you mean it is irrefutable that you said that in which case yes you did say that, you were just wrong.

I'm going to ask you again:

You said that fewer people are dying of COVID today than people died of the flu in the past. I showed you how that is wrong. Do you accept my argument or do you still think that COVID causes less deaths than the flu?

 

[Rentahamster]

Men_in_Boxes

Look back at the provisional data I linked to you. I screenshot it and highlighted it to point out the relevant parts.

Flu vs COVID deaths in the same year. See the difference?

 

[Nobody_Important]

What percentage of those deaths came before mass vaccinations, mass natural immunity, and the traction of alternative treatments?

Being afraid of a bear makes sense in the woods. It doesn't make sense when you're driving home.

Are bears contagious?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Men_in_Boxes

Look back at the provisional data I linked to you. I screenshot it and highlighted it to point out the relevant parts.

Flu vs COVID deaths in the same year. See the difference?

Your data is wrong because you don't under what I'm saying.

I'm interested in Covid deaths post mass vaccinations, mass natural immunity, and the proliferation of alternative treatments. Aka, where we're at now with precautions and treatments in place.

You did show me that Covid right now, kills more than the regular flu ever has. I admit I was wrong and I thank you.

Again, you're not talking to the cartoon image leftwing bubbles present of the other side.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Are bears contagious?

When you're confronted with a bear, you don't care about its contagious status, only the fact that it can kill you.

 

[Nobody_Important]

When you're confronted with a bear, you don't care about its contagious status, only the fact that it can kill you.

Hey so then we agree on Covid then. Good talk man.

 

[SF Kosmo]

And how many of those people were under the age of 60?

Explain to me why you are asking this.

 

[Punished Miku]

Explain to me why you are asking this.

So what if life expectancy lowers overnight. Old people, amirite? They're old (not as old as they used to be, but old!).

 

[Rentahamster]

You did show me that Covid right now, kills more than the regular flu ever has. I admit I was wrong and I thank you.

Thank you. Now we can move on.

Your data is wrong because you don't under what I'm saying.

The data is not wrong. I was using multiple arguments to demonstrate to you the relative threats of flu vs COVID. Now that we go that out of the way, we can move on.

I also do know what you're saying. Before, you thought that since flu and COVID were the same threat, you concluded that it was irrational to have so much restrictions on life because we didn't do that for the flu.

However, we now understand that COVID was more deadly than the flu, and so increased restrictions made sense, at least in 2020.

Now, you are wondering that because we do have vaccinations, we do have more reliable treatments, and we do have an increase in natural immunity among the population, do we still need to be so strict in our restrictions? Does the same level of restrictions make sense if COVID in 2021 is not as serious as COVID in 2020?

The answer to that is complicated and depends on a lot of variables that we aren't completely sure about yet.

If we didn't have the delta variant, I would be fine with mostly "back to normal" rules and regulations as long as 70%+ of the population were fully vaccinated. The herd immunity threshold of the classic version of COVID was around 60 to 70% of the population vaccinated because classic COVID wasn't as infectious as delta COVID. You can see in the data where places like Israel and Iceland and the UK where with even a 50% vaccination rate of at least one dose, the case rate goes down by quite a lot. However, once the delta variant starts to be more prevalent in these areas, case rates start to go back up because of the greater ability of the delta variant to infect both vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

Since the vaccines are less effective against the delta variant at preventing infection, I guess that a much higher rate of vaccination is necessary for me to be comfortable with mostly "back to normal" rules. Maybe 90% or more. If we look at Gibraltar, their population is almost 100% vaccinated, yet they still are being cautious with contact tracing, self isolation, and masking, because their case rates are starting to rise. However, in general, they are doing very well. In a population of 30K or so, they've only had one death in the last several months. The rest of us could learn a thing or two from Gibraltar.

For the USA, now that Delta is here, if we had vaccination rates of over 90% nationwide, I'd be comfortable with easing certain restrictions. But we don't. And it doesn't look like that's going to happen anytime soon. As long as so many people still refuse to get vaccinated, we're going to have to implement other measures like masking recommendations, travel limitations, increased testing, gathering limitations, and others.

You also need to keep in mind the exponential nature of this disease. What looks "fine" now can potentially explode without proper countermeasures. This mathematical property is why it's great for your savings account, and bad for viral pandemics.

Again, you're not talking to the cartoon image leftwing bubbles present of the other side.

Don't presume that I'm assuming these things about you, as if that's a common pattern in how I've been addressing you in the past.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Explain to me why you are asking this.

Because levels of protection should differ between groups based on risk.

 

[JumpMan1981]

Yes you posted that stupid shit yesterday too. When only one side has thousands of scientists and experts on their side, and the other has conspiracy nuts, they’re not equal.

I would be careful with this line of thinking, to be honest. A lot of experts and scientists have been on the wrong side of history before, if you know what I mean.

A better approach is really to just show objectively that the vaccines are working. Situation in the UK, for example.
Then allow people to make their own decision based on demonstrable facts.

Scientists and experts are not infallible and they never have been. People do need to be careful with that.

Obviously people saying covid is fake or doesn't exist or whatever can simply be ignored.
Better to just look at the actual data and make choices based on that.

 

[JumpMan1981]

None of which is an argument for not taking the vaccine, which only has benefits and no known risks.

Which vaccine is this that has "no known risks"?

My understanding was that there were a couple of different risks associated with some of the vaccines.
So much so that certain vaccines are only given to certain age groups to mitigate the risks.

Wasn't the use of Astra Zeneca halted for people under 40 due to risks and wasn't Pfizer halted for younger people due to some potential heart problems? Or am I misremembering?

Maybe your arguments would be more effective if you didn't say things like "no known risks" when that's not actually true?

Any response to this SF Kosmo ?

 

[Rentahamster]

I would be careful with this line of thinking, to be honest. A lot of experts and scientists have been on the wrong side of history before, if you know what I mean.

A better approach is really to just show objectively that the vaccines are working. Situation in the UK, for example.
Then allow people to make their own decision based on demonstrable facts.

Scientists and experts are not infallible and they never have been. People do need to be careful with that.

You are overgeneralizing and making this a black and white issue. Just because scientists and experts are not infallible, doesn't put them on equal credibility footing with laymen.

A better approach is really to just show objectively that the vaccines are working. Situation in the UK, for example.

Better to just look at the actual data and make choices based on that.

Um, this is what the scientists and experts are using to show their work when they say, "and it is for these reasons that I conclude in my expert opinion that the vaccines work and it is better for you to take it than to not take it".

 

[JumpMan1981]

You are overgeneralizing and making this a black and white issue. Just because scientists and experts are not infallible, doesn't put them on equal credibility footing with laymen.

Um, this is what the scientists and experts are using to show their work when they say, "and it is for these reasons that I conclude in my expert opinion that the vaccines work and it is better for you to take it than to not take it".

I agree with you but at the same time I would recommend caution.
It's not going to be good for anyone if the end result after covid is dealt with is "trust scientists always, no matter what".
There's a bigger picture there.

 

[ArgleBargleFooferah]

This whole argument boils down to a bunch of spoiled, entitled, narcicisstic megalomanical children who are used to getting whatever they want and mummy and daddy jumping whenever they snap their fingers suddenly finding out that not everyone is going to do what they say - and this is a fact they can't handle.

If they can't control people and lock them down so they feel safe, they'll get the government to do it, who they view as defacto mummy and daddy for everyone. This entire argument is because a bunch of paranoid delusionals who genuinely need therapy can't go outside without everyone who disagrees with them being locked up so they feel "safe".

It'd be sad if it weren't so dangerous.

 

[Keihart]

I agree with you but at the same time I would recommend caution.
It's not going to be good for anyone if the end result after covid is dealt with is "trust scientists always, no matter what".
There's a bigger picture there.

Even when science is wrong, it's better to take that chance then the las vegas experience with peoples lives.
I mean, the regret is the same if you are wrong, the difference is that at least one of those decisions has some real justification.

People could do a lot worse than following the status quo of science, and lots of people actually do, regrettably.

 

[Keihart]

This whole argument boils down to a bunch of spoiled, entitled, narcicisstic megalomanical children who are used to getting whatever they want and mummy and daddy jumping whenever they snap their fingers suddenly finding out that not everyone is going to do what they say - and this is a fact they can't handle.

If they can't control people and lock them down so they feel safe, they'll get the government to do it, who they view as defacto mummy and daddy for everyone. This entire argument is because a bunch of paranoid delusionals who genuinely need therapy can't go outside without everyone who disagrees with them being locked up so they feel "safe".

It'd be sad if it weren't so dangerous.

Are you ok with getting fucked raw by strangers? that's what you are asking by "but mah freedom" when arguing against cautionary restrictions like masks, no unvaccinated people on crowded places and so on.
Protecting everyone's freedoms comes at the cost of giving some of your freedoms to your peers, if not, well, that's just mad max.

 

[ArgleBargleFooferah]

Protecting everyone's freedoms comes at the cost of giving some of your freedoms to your peers, if not, well, that's just mad max.

Like locking me in my house until I do what you say? No. Fuck that. No it doesn't. That's delusional.

 

[ArgleBargleFooferah]

Even when science is wrong, it's better to take that chance then the las vegas experience with peoples lives.

People could do a lot worse than following the status quo of science, and lots of people actually do, regrettably.

This was the status quo once. Were they better to follow doctor's orders?

Cigarettes were once ‘physician’ tested, approved

Hemonc Today | In the grand scope of the history of medicine, the relationship between doctors and patients has changed quite a bit in recent years. The internet and direct-to-consumer advertising have empowered patients to become active participants in their health care. However, it was...

www.healio.com

 

[Nobody_Important]

This whole argument boils down to a bunch of spoiled, entitled, narcicisstic megalomanical children who are used to getting whatever they want and mummy and daddy jumping whenever they snap their fingers suddenly finding out that not everyone is going to do what they say - and this is a fact they can't handle.

Well you are half right. This whole situation does boil down to "a bunch of spoiled, entitled, narcicisstic megalomanical children".


Just not in the way you think.

 

[Keihart]

Like locking me in my house until I do what you say? No. Fuck that. No it doesn't. That's delusional.

Talk about delusional, where you ever LOCKED in your house? you were actually arguing against prudent inconveniences and not literal quarantine and lockdown.
Dial it back, you are sounding awfully entitled.

 

[ArgleBargleFooferah]

Talk about delusional, where you ever LOCKED in your house? you were actually arguing against prudent inconveniences and not literal quarantine and lockdown.
Dial it back, you are sounding awfully entitled.

I never said I was, so don't put fucking words in my mouth, motherfucker.

I said "anyone who needs people to be locked up so they can feel safe when they go out is entitled, narcicistic, entitled, delusional and needs therapy".

That includes you. Not wanting to be locked up by lunatics isn't entitled, it's a survival instinct.

 

[Keihart]

I never said I was, so don't put fucking words in my mouth, motherfucker.

I said "anyone who needs people to be locked up so they can feel safe when they go out is entitled, narcicistic, entitled, delusional and needs therapy".

That includes you. Not wanting to be locked up by lunatics isn't entitled, it's a survival instinct.

First of all, i would never fuck your mother, watch your tone.

Second, if you read your statement and pretend that you didn't write it, you would notice how hyperbolic you sound.

Thirdly, last i checked, the cautionary measures are being guided by scientists and health professionals guidance and not lunatics.

If you feel that it is within your rights to fuck with your neighbors liberties, than you are the delusional one.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Because levels of protection should differ between groups based on risk.

Except protection, like masking, is usually more about protecting others than one's self so that doesn't make much sense...

 

[Rentahamster]

I agree with you but at the same time I would recommend caution.
It's not going to be good for anyone if the end result after covid is dealt with is "trust scientists always, no matter what".
There's a bigger picture there.

I'm not proceeding as if I'm throwing caution to the wind.

That we're somehow heading towards a society of unthinking obedient sheeple who "trusts scientists always, no matter what" is an exaggerated boogeyman. Listen to a variety of opinions, use your critical thinking to see who has the most credibility, and increase your own understanding of the topic in order to double check. This is always the case, now and in the future.

If you lump up "scientists" as if they're one giant cabal, you lose the ability to identify nuance and differences that could shape a more precise understanding.

Of course there's been "bad science" in the past. But what is the solution to "bad science"? It's not randos on Facebook. It's other qualified people who know what they're talking about using facts and data to empirically show why the "bad science" is bad.

The solution to bad science is more science, and you're not going to get there by blanketing all scientists as untrustworthy or compromised. That is an overly simplistic view of the world, and the world is very complicated.

 

[ArgleBargleFooferah]

First of all, i would never fuck your mother, watch your tone.

Second, if you read your statement and pretend that you didn't write it, you would notice how hyperbolic you sound.

Thirdly, last i checked, the cautionary measures are being guided by scientists and health professionals guidance and not lunatics.

If you feel that it is within your rights to fuck with your neighbors liberties, than you are the delusional one.

First of all, you're not the boss of me.

Second, you think it's hyperbolic, not my problem if you can't handle the truth.

Third, scientists are not always right. They also stand to make a lot of money and gain a lot of power from this situation. It is lunatics on places like here and twitter petitioning the government to lock people up. You seem unable to ascertain the difference.

Not letting myself be locked up by lunatics is not fucking with anyone else's liberties. Again, delusional.

 

[Kilau]

I never said I was, so don't put fucking words in my mouth, motherfucker.

I said "anyone who needs people to be locked up so they can feel safe when they go out is entitled, narcicistic, entitled, delusional and needs therapy".

That includes you. Not wanting to be locked up by lunatics isn't entitled, it's a survival instinct.

We can’t have nice things.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Any response to this SF Kosmo ?

The argument that because they investigated risks (and ultimately deemed them safe) that they are risky is not very compelling, is it?

It would be more accurate to say astronomically insignificant risks. Of the billions of doses given we may have had 3 or 4 who died and maybe 1 in a million with serious (but short term) side effects. You're more likely to win the lottery.

 

[Keihart]

First of all, you're not the boss of me.

Second, you think it's hyperbolic, not my problem if you can't handle the truth.

Third, scientists are not always right. They also stand to make a lot of money and gain a lot of power from this situation. It is lunatics on places like here and twitter petitioning the government to lock people up. You seem unable to ascertain the difference.

Not letting myself be locked up by lunatics is not fucking with anyone else's liberties. Again, delusional.

we got a badass over here, watch how i tremble while writing this because of your tone. I had no idea i was not your boss, how illuminating.
Can you be any more dense?

 

[FunkMiller]

Not letting myself be locked up by lunatics is not fucking with anyone else's liberties. Again, delusional.

Who do you think wants to lock you up? Seriously… where have you seen anyone anywhere say that this could be a thing?

 

[ArgleBargleFooferah]

Who do you think wants to lock you up? Seriously… where have you seen anyone anywhere say that this could be a thing?

I see people on here, Reddit and Twitter every day saying that anyone not vaxxed "shouldn't be allowed to participate in society", "should be locked down until they grow up" "should be locked down until they stop being selfish" etc etc.

 

[Rentahamster]

Who do you think wants to lock you up? Seriously… where have you seen anyone anywhere say that this could be a thing?

I'm going to guess that he is equating being told to stay at home or self isolate is the equivalent of being locked up.

 

[Nester99]

I see people on here, Reddit and Twitter every day saying that anyone not vaxxed "shouldn't be allowed to participate in society", "should be locked down until they grow up" "should be locked down until they stop being selfish" etc etc.

Sorry to hear about your emotional problems caused by Twitter and reddit.

 

[ArgleBargleFooferah]

Sorry to hear about your emotional problems caused by Twitter and reddit.

I'm not the one so emotionally stunted that I need other people locked up so I can feel safe when I go outside.

 

[FunkMiller]

I see people on here, Reddit and Twitter every day saying that anyone not vaxxed "shouldn't be allowed to participate in society", "should be locked down until they grow up" "should be locked down until they stop being selfish" etc etc.

Do you? Well, I can’t speak for Reddit or Twitter, but I don’t see people here asking for that.

Excluding unvaccinated from certain public spaces, yes… but locking them down, I guess in their houses? Nope. Not seen that.