jcc

patchythepirate said:

anonymouse said:

JWSC said:

DaRev said:

patchythepirate said:

How are people just blindly accepting these vaccine passports? How is it that so few even question something that is so obviously absurd? The fact that they don't accommodate for natural immunity, which is *superior* to the vaccine 'immunity,' should be a clear indication that we're being manipulated. Not to mention the fact that they make no sense, since people 'vaccinated' with these gene modifying agents can still catch and spread covid. It's shocking how many people are accepting these 'passports' as somehow justifiable.

Listen to the science, science is absolute and no longer open to opposing views of the facts.

Hard to tell if this post is blindly serious or slyly sarcastic.  It is such an absurd statement that no credible scientist would ever say it with a straight face.  It’s emblematic of the self assured and over-confident “science believer.”

Those who have been paying attention know that the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant.  We can find lots of opinions out there from scientists and virologists and their views are by no means homogenous.  And why would they be, since precious little data exists on vaccine efficacy on the delta variant.  Yet here we are with the peanut galley jumping ahead and making claims one way or another.  It’s noise.

Automatically labeling others who do not share your views as anti-science is at best disingenuous.  At worst it is arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-science itself.

Not responding to you George.  Hugs and kisses. 🤪

I think it's obviously sarcastic, or perhaps their idea of a parody of the idea that we should trust science. As to "labelling" others "who do not share your views" as anti-science, there is certainly no problem with saying people who express anti-science views are anti-science; let's not lump all differing views together or pretend that all opinions are equally valid. Telling someone they are wrong and/or that they don't know what they are talking about when they clearly are and/or don't is not arrogant, hypocritical or anti-science, it's simply refusing to accept their ignorance as equally valid with knowledge.

That being said, I can't imagine what you mean when you say that, "the science is still out when it comes to the delta variant." Quite a lot is known about it: it's more contagious, it appears to be more virulent, it has a higher rate of breakthrough infections compared to other variants, it seems to result in more severe illness in younger people and children than other variants. I'm sure there are some questions about it that are still unanswered, or at least not thoroughly understood — such as exactly what makes it more infectious — but, in the big picture, exactly what is "still out there"?

There's a difference between scientific certainty and scientific uncertainty on the one hand, and belief and ignorance on the other. I know the anti-science crowd like to try to create false equivalencies around these things, but they are just that, false. And let's not pretend that all knowledge that can be collected under the heading of science has the same level of uncertainty. This is also a favorite, but specious, idea that the anti-science crowd attempts to promote: "it's just a theory!". They also like to ignore the fact that they are using 'theory' in an ordinary language sense, while scientists use 'theory' in a very special sense. There are varying degrees of confirmation that apply to things that fall into any specific theory, from as near certainty as is possible for anything to highly conjectural — i.e., some things in science are "known" with essentially 100% certainty, while other things are less well confirmed and may have lesser levels of certainty. (There's also, of course the conflation of 'theory' and 'hypothesis' which are not really the same thing.)

Take evolution, a perennial favorite target of a certain faction of the anti-science crowd. That evolution occurs through the process of natural selection is so well confirmed at this point to make it a practical certainty. There is simply no scientific question about this "theory" any longer. That humans are descended from a common ancestor of other primates — apes, moneys, lemurs, bush babies — is established science, so well confirmed that there is no scientific question about it. That humans evolved somewhere in Africa, no question. Where there may be questions is in details such as, exactly what selection pressures are most likely to have caused humans to evolve to exactly the form we see ourselves in today, or which came first, tool use or language. So when one says that Evolution, with a capital 'E' is a theory, yes it is in the sense that it's a body of knowledge that in its broad strokes is so highly confirmed that there is no question of whether those broad strokes are 100% true or not, they are.

So it is with Covid-19, its variants, and vaccines. There are certain things we know, confirmed through multiple studies, that are not in question: they are known facts. There are other things we "know" that are less well confirmed, but for which we have sufficient confirmation to posit that they are very likely true. There are things we think may be true but need additional studies for confirmation. There are things that at this time are best guesses based on what we do know about Covid-19 and what we know about viruses generally, as well as other viruses similar to Covid-19 and about vaccines. And then there are things that are conjectural, or speculative.

Critics of the science on Covid-19 like to lump all the knowledge we have about Covid-19, variants and vaccines into the latter category of speculation. Largely because this supports their agenda of science denial, but it also demonstrates a profound ignorance of what scientific knowledge is and how science works.

There is no question that Covid-19 is a dangerous and often deadly disease (615K+ people in the U.S. alone dead from it). There is no question that vaccines protect those vaccinated from the risks of the disease to a very high degree. There is no question that masks are highly effective in limiting spread. There is no question that vaccines are safe and effective, and that the risk of severe side-effects from vaccines are orders of magnitude smaller than the risk of severe side-effects (including death) from infection. There is no question that the longer it takes to get everyone vaccinated, globally, the greater the risk that a new variant or strain will bypass vaccine-induced and natural immunities. And so on...

Anyone suggesting that we not listen to the scientific and medical experts, or follow their advice, on Covid-19 is speaking from either a position of ignorance or malignancy.

Incorrect.

crowley said:

JWSC said:

Your biggest error was bringing up masks.  Decades of extensive studies have shown that regular masks are not effective against airborne viruses.  Only in the last 18 months did this become politicized.  It is truly rich that the people who point fingers at supposed anti-science people also claim that regular cloth masks have any efficacy with regard to airborne particles which pass right through them.  If you want to go ahead and wear a tight fitting N-95, then yes, it’s going to be reasonably effective.  But the masks everybody else is wearing is pure theater not backed up by decades of research and data.  That the government continues to push regular masks severely undermines their credibility  and suggests they have a serious messaging problem.

Decades of extensive studies have shown that regular masks are not 100% effective against airborne viruses.  That does not mean they are not effective at all.  Actually, even N95 masks are not 100% effective.  Even the vaccine is not 100% effective.  We have an imperfect situation and imperfect solutions and a bunch of asshats shouting at people making an effort because their efforts aren't perfect.

Wearing a mask is not theatre.  Grandstanding and accusing it of being theatre is the fucking theatre.

patchythepirate said:

anonymouse said:

patchythepirate said:

I agree that 'gene modifying' was an imprecise term for me to use, but otherwise you don't do anything to disprove my points.

That's because you don't have any points, your posts are just word salad.

It's hilarious how proud people are of themselves and their on opinions. The amount of hubris on this thread is incredible.

Buddy, if you have an actual point to make, let's hear it. Or you can just deflect with some feeble excuse again.