@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @slovborg

What are you on about?

@slovborg @Dianathy @Syberia
Where the fuck did I say that?

Get out with your strawman.

@LukeAlmighty @Dianathy @Syberia >When you control from above, and cause 1 000 000 deaths, you shrug and try again.

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Dianathy

Yes, and in this world there is people that exist, that have the power, means and desire to do so. It is just a fact and one as the people we need to be aware of and make a decision on what we need/should do about it.

@LukeAlmighty @slovborg @Syberia

He’s confused I added him to this conversation

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia

Wrong, original models suggesting millions of deaths were off by a factor of 10 and continuing to base responses on faulty modeling has resulted in tons of excess deaths not directly related to COVID but the responses instead. Keep living in fear of you want but you really should keep it to yourself if you don’t want to sound like a douche

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia Because original models assumed 100% will get infected. Guess where we are now & why we aren't there yet?

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia

I’d say well over 90% of the population either jabbed or naturally immune

And just a warning, anything you say about not being able to survive without an mRNA shot will be immediately dismissed

https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/one-three-americans-already-had-covid-19-end-2020

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia I'm going to dispute findings of this study which only "infers" real infection rates based on data churning, by comparing to a figure that actually measured acquired immunity and arrived at "only" 20% by May 2021.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784013

The cumulative death toll until then was certainly over 600k, so the numbers assuming 80% infected (a reasonable attack rate when no measures are being taken, as demonstrated by say the outbreak in Iquitos) – imply at least 2.4 million dead.

The initial report from March 2020 which we are disputing as having overestimated assumed 2.2 million dead in US, while explicitly stating this is in the assumption of "the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour".
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

Verdict: the initial reports were, in fact, right on mark.

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia

Thank you for providing links to all the propaganda used to orchestrate this charade. You are incapable of being non-objective and therefor no longer interesting. Natural immunity provides better and longer protection which comes with additional benefits. The models were wrong and sadly we’ll never know the lives that could have been spared if we focused on protecting in the vulnerable, developing therapeutics and treating the symptoms correctly

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia Ah I see – if the data doesn't conform to your priors, it is "propaganda". Noted.

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia

Judgement calls are not science and trying to defend them as if they were with claims that can not be proven indicates fraud. How about this, if there truly were a global disaster at hand, no one would have made billions from helping, Douche

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia Wrong on both counts.
One of the key steps in scientific method is building a model that lets you call a prediction of event outcome BEFORE it transpires – this allows for backchecking and confirming or rejecting the hypothesis. Given the data we have, the hypothesis has been confirmed.
And no, something being a disaster does not, in any way, mean it is impossible to profit from it. In fact, those subscribing to Keynesian school of economics will point out that, quite contrary, it is exactly disasters that allow one to profit.

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia

You can make yourself sound as much of a douche as you wish but you are wrong, guessing isn’t science and when money gets involved there is always deception. You act like you have faith in human nature all while claiming to know how government office is the catapult to the deep state elitism 🙄

Pick a slant and stick with it please

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia "guessing", as you call it, is quite literally a step in scientific method.
It is important that it is testable & falsifiable, though.

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia

Ok douche, but it is not a scientific FACT until ALL parts of the process are complete including the full non emergency non rushed clinical trials, but go ahead talk about the judgement call they made to save lives based on faulty computer modeling you call science

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia Another thing: there's no such thing as a scientific "FACT" – dealing with absolute facts is the domain of philosophy, not science
It is not possible to "confirm" something via scientific method, there is only failure to refute assumptions

that said, the computer modeling eventually proven correct, as I have demonstrated, so it was a good call & kudos to everyone who heeded

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia

Scientific Law or fact is that which can be proven by recreating conditions and producing the same results

Philosophy is part of the Arts not science

All of the models were wrong by a factor of 10

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia I have demonstrated that the model you claim was wrong (by a factor of 10) was actually very much correct, as to what would happen assuming not 20% but 80% would be infected (and the paper included an assumption that there would be no mitigation of spread).
And no, "scientific law" is another thing you're imagining. Probably due to how atrocious American education is.

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia

Go ask a physicist if there are no scientific laws
🙄

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia I literally have a degree in physics, idiot

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia

That explains a lot

Let me guess, you specialize in quantum states 🤣

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia Funny, now you've gone from "hurr durr go ask a physicist" to "hurr durr physicists are dumb" 🤣
When will you stop contradicting yourself?

It's a no, btw

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia

And as the article demonstrates very clearly from my first response it is highly possible more than 80% were infected but did not get tested or require hospitalization

You have no reliable data to suggest otherwise

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia Not possible, since only 20% have developed natural immunity to the virus.
Unless you're also implying that majority of people do not develop immunity after infection?
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784013

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia

There you go, my study from Columbia is dismissed for you independent jamanetwork source

We can be done now

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia Do you even read the methodology section? Or are you limited to reading the abstract & either agreeing with it or claiming the article is biased if you don't like it?

Your study "from Columbia" says:
>we use a county-resolved metapopulation model to simulate the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 within and between the 3,142 counties of the United States. The model depicts both documented and undocumented infections and is coupled with an iterative Bayesian inference algorithm—the ensemble adjustment Kalman filter—which assimilates observations of daily cases in each county, as well as population movement between counties
It is literally a guesstimate of real numbers of infection based on some advanced statistics. No real metric is being measured.

My "independent jamanetwork source" says:
>samples of approximately 2000 specimens from allogeneic donors were compiled monthly from blood donor regions in each blood organization’s catchment area using pseudorandom or convenience sampling strategies
>Specimens were tested for antibodies against the S-1 portion of the spike (S) protein using the VITROS chemiluminescent S1 total Ig assay (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics). Specimens with S antibodies were tested for nucleocapsid (N) antibodies using the chemiluminescent Roche Elecsys Total Ig Assay (Roche Diagnostics).
It actually measures a real metric (immunoprevalence). Under assumption that everyone who caught the virus develops immunity, that number will also be a measure of real infection rates. But if you want the real infection rate to be higher (and if you have a reason to believe so), this means you have falsified the assumption that catching the virus will make you develop immunity!

You see where I'm getting? You need to either believe the 20% real attack rate number, or accept that infection does not grant immune response to the virus (but, given much higher immunoprevalence developed after vaccination, the vaccine, on contrary, does).
Your pick. Personally, I find it much more likely that the real attack rate is indeed close to 20%.

@Dianathy @slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia empiricism can never be proven, it is just never disproven

facts really are a philosophical (or more accurately metaphysical) matter

@DrunkPoastrian @LukeAlmighty @slovborg @Syberia

Such as they would try and have us believe but the wavelength of blue light does not change unless you use a different measurement or change the name completely. It’s still blue first

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @slovborg @Syberia explanations that are empirical do change though, i.e. gravity

physics cannot prove their models, so they need to verify empirically, which is how u end up with newton being wrong and einstein being right, but einstein maybe being wrong in the future

@DrunkPoastrian @LukeAlmighty @slovborg @Syberia

That’s kinda where I’m going with the scientific laws argument. It’s a Law until proven otherwise

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @slovborg @Syberia which makes it neither fact, nor true, just a best guess, sometimes not even the best guess, just a consensus guess

@Dianathy @DrunkPoastrian @LukeAlmighty @Syberia as a matter of fact, no (the same visible colour as seen by human trichromatic eyes can be composed from different spectra)
purple for example can be achieved both by shortening wavelength from blue, or by adding some extra red

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia @DrunkPoastrian

I’m not talking about your interpretation of the color but the wavelength assigned to the spectrum

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia @DrunkPoastrian no, "blue" (and colours in general) are quite explicitly about describing perception

also "wavelength assigned to the spectrum" is a nonsense phrase
spectrum is a distribution of wavelength

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia @slovborg which makes u (physicist) big gay @slovborg because you have to be an empiricist, while economics is a purely metaphysical endeavour

@Dianathy @Syberia
Problem is that Slovborg is an academic idiot. A perfect product of educational system. If you put in front of him 8 feathers and 2 guns, he will proudly say that there are 4 feathers per gun, thinking that by inserting numbers into formula, he solved an issue, while completelly missing the fact, that there's a dead pidgeon with hole in its chest on the floor.

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Dianathy

And if it does not conform to your idea of reality you wish to dismiss it. How does anyone make any progress?

@Syberia @LukeAlmighty @Dianathy The core of scientific method is the idea of falsifiability. That for any claim, there should be a way to dismiss it, & build trust through successive failed attempts to do so by cross-checking. If a claim is dismissed by cross-checking too easily, it cannot be considered a valid claim. Progress is made through successive dismissal of information noise until a nicely self-consistent map is unveiled, consisting of data that just keeps holding against scrutiny.

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia

Pretty words

All bologna

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia

Sounds like a bunch of excuses why you might be wrong

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia also thanks for informing me that the life-saving treatment with cheap generic drug called dexamethasone, apparently, was never used, it was all a lie fed to us

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia

And I will only do this once but I said

If we had FOCUSED on protecting the vulnerable, developing new or testing available therapeutics and treating the symptoms early instead of rushing and mandating a leaky non-vaccine

Since you need it all spelled out

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia
>protecting the vulnerable
check, public use of masks, lockdowns to slow down the spread, &c.
>developing new or testing available therapeutics
check, literally dozens of trials, including the very effective dexamethasone, & the new drugs by the exact same big pharma that also brought you the vaccines (ritonavir/paxlovid), as well as monoclonal antibody therapy
>treating the symptoms early
check, aspirin (also proven effective) is available and has been advised as first go-to drug in most countries
>instead of rushing and mandating a leaky non-vaccine
it is not rushed, it is not leaky, and it is a vaccine

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia

Last line

Wrong, wrong, REALLY FUCKING WRONG

Can’t change the definition of what a product is supposed to do in order to receive marketing approval

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia Oh, you want to stick to a "definition"? Why not stick to the original definition of vaccine (vacca = cow) and insist that if it is not made out of diseased tissue of a cow, it is not really a vaccine?

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia

The definition to which I refer is that for “immunity” which now included medical intervention and provides only protection not actual resistance to infection

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia You are imagining a definition that never existed. At no point has vaccination made a person impervious to disease; it only ever taught the body adaptive immune response to a pathogen.

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia

Re read that again. Check the changes in September (I think) that the CDC made to “immunity” and ask yourself when advertised what the regular consumer would expect from vaccination

@Dianathy @LukeAlmighty @Syberia I don't care about what "CDC" or any other bureaucratic organisation says is the working definition. It is also not my fault that regular consumers in America have prior apparently regularly been lied to that vaccination makes them impervious to a pathogen.

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Dianathy @Syberia

Are you niggers arguing details and semantics of a topic of personal choice?

@Dianathy @slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Syberia if you still want to make this about saving lives u have fallen for the watchmakers

gg

@slovborg @LukeAlmighty @Dianathy
Does no one else see that disputing whatever you feel, dismissing so much is a part of the issue in the first place? I am simple minded but I also understand that if I close my eyes that does not mean you can't see me.