Anybody buying this media fueled COVID-19 bull schitt?

[Burkey]

Bucky, it must be painful to be as naive as as you are. But, garbage in = garbage out I guess.

Good response. Well reasoned.

Sponsored

 

[Rinzler]

Good response. Well reasoned.

IKR? As if they're some main character in a fantastical mystery that THEY themselves can only uncover.

 

[Briebee72]

 

[Briebee72]

Yall watch these then get back to arguing. Literally the smartest guy on the planet as far as pointing out the truth.

 

[Weather Man]

Good response. Well reasoned.

No Bucky, I am skeptical whether the destruction of countless lives and businesses was worth the cost. NY did everything wrong and still didn't max the resources, although they came close. I guess we will have to wait and see how deaths from other causes like suicide and cancer play out. They knew it effected the elderly the most, yet resources were not deployed to protect them and many D governors did the exact opposite by putting covid patients in elder care facilities. Why? I suppose since the left and right have grabbed onto covid for political reasons, we may never know, and that is just pathetic.

I have an awful feeling that studies are going to show that covid was gonna do what covid was gonna do and everyone did a lot of expensive pissing in the wind for nothing.

Death rates in the United States have been going down, not up, since the beginning of the year. If you pay attention to the news, you might assume that record numbers of people are dying. The opposite is true. Not only has overall mortality for the United States been going steadily downward since January, but mortality has been substantially lower this year than last year. These are weekly mortality statistics for the United States from the Centers for Disease Control:

Week Number of Deaths 2019 Number of Deaths 2020

1 58,291 59,087
2 58,351 59,151
3 58,194 57,616
4 57,837 57,000
5 58,128 56,426
6 58,492 56,962
7 57,917 55,981
8 57,858 55,494
9 57,920 54,834
10 58,490 54,157
11 57,872 52,198
12 57,087 51,602
13 56,672 52,285
14 56,595 49,292
15 55,477 47,574
TOTAL 865,181 819,659

 

[Burkey]

No Bucky, I am skeptical whether the destruction of countless lives and businesses was worth the cost. NY did everything wrong and still didn't max the resources, although they came close. I guess we will have to wait and see how deaths from other causes like suicide and cancer play out. They knew it effected the elderly the most, yet resources were not deployed to protect them and many D governors did the exact opposite by putting covid patients in elder care facilities. Why? I suppose since the left and right have grabbed onto covid for political reasons, we may never know, and that is just pathetic.

I have an awful feeling that studies are going to show that covid was gonna do what covid was gonna do and everyone did a lot of expensive pissing in the wind for nothing.

Death rates in the United States have been going down, not up, since the beginning of the year. If you pay attention to the news, you might assume that record numbers of people are dying. The opposite is true. Not only has overall mortality for the United States been going steadily downward since January, but mortality has been substantially lower this year than last year. These are weekly mortality statistics for the United States from the Centers for Disease Control:

Week Number of Deaths 2019 Number of Deaths 2020

1 58,291 59,087
2 58,351 59,151
3 58,194 57,616
4 57,837 57,000
5 58,128 56,426
6 58,492 56,962
7 57,917 55,981
8 57,858 55,494
9 57,920 54,834
10 58,490 54,157
11 57,872 52,198
12 57,087 51,602
13 56,672 52,285
14 56,595 49,292
15 55,477 47,574
TOTAL 865,181 819,659

lol. Classic Tony Heller tactic.
Find numbers that suit the conclusion without asking questions as to WHY the numbers are what they are.
Why does the data stop at week 15 given that we’re in week 30+?
Week 15 accounts for up to early April. What happened around April and beyond?

Here’s a few more for your edification.

 

[Rinzler]

lol. Classic Tony Heller tactic.
Find numbers that suit the conclusion without asking questions as to WHY the numbers are what they are.
It could be argued that shutdowns have actually prevented more deaths than usual.
That’s not MY argument, but it’s just as valid if we’re going to spit-ball.
Here’s a few more for your edification.

I tried to point out that context matters, but they don't want to listen. They want to find opinions and statistics that suit their narrative, ignore the details, spew them like the gospel, then accuse everyone else of not knowing anything. It's really a classic series of logical fallacies. I think most of the arguments qualify as ad hominem and red herring arguments. Textbook stuff really if I remember correctly from school. I should dust off my psychology books now that I think about it...

 

[Weather Man]

Excellent question Bucky, it stopped being updated on the site. I can think of a few reasons why.

"Why does the data stop at week 15 given that we’re in week 30+?"

 

[Weather Man]

Hey! That mask vents!

 

[raptor17GT]

Hey! That mask vents!

just no.

 

[Briebee72]

Hey! That mask vents!

you know that was in someones spaghetti or chili mom what you add to the beef? oh a little ass air.

 

[Burkey]

Your underhanded comments prove my point. We should question everything. Do vaccines cause autism? Well we can’t talk about it so how the hell do we know? The studies funded by the makers of the drug that doesn't show anything? Surprising. BTW the American pharmaceutical lobby gives more money to politicians than any other entity. They also spend more as a sector on advertising than any other. I am not an antivaxxer and could care less if people do or don’t but making it settle science is not a good policy.

Hydroxychloroquine Is another good example. When a group of doctors with zero to gain and everything to lose comes out and say it works, I wonder why they would do that? Then I started looking at the studies or lack of. Many where started and few where completed. The reason- the drug is to dangerous. Why is it a drug that is sold over the counter in many counties, been around for decades, is all the sudden deadly and prohibited? Would it have something to do with it being generic and not profitable? Btw how did the media treat these doctors? Instead of talking about the message they used the tried and truth method of digging though their past and bringing up everything they have done that would discredit them. No talk about the actual message though. This is standard operating procedure in our sound bite culture. Almost all the doctors have been fired. Nothing to see here.

It’s all about the money. The sooner you realize who is getting rich the faster you can see the lies.

My comments weren’t intended to be “underhanded” but rather “provocative”.
I absolutely support the notion that we should question EVERYTHING that is asserted to be fact. However, the time to start asking questions in the case of the vaccine/autism link, is when a correlation is found and not before.
What point is there to researching the link between autism and vaccines when after already doing at least a dozen studies, we’ve yet to find a correlation? At what point do you simply concede that a lack of evidence of correlation might in fact result from the absence of causality?
Here’s what the CDC have to say on it:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html
Do I really need to launch a scientific study to conclude that there isn’t an invisible pink dragon living in my garage?
I’m not suggesting for one moment that it’s impossible that (in this instance) some vaccines (or contents therein) might possibly contribute to functional changes in the brain that might be observed as being consistent with what the current DSM attempts to define as “autism”, but, the time to believe it to be possible/plausible/likely is when we’ve established a correlation,
Until then, we can speculate all we like and as such, I’m free to speculate that there is in fact an invisible pink dragon in my garage.

As to HCQ.
1. Its not controversial that the drug can cause cardiac complications.
2. In this instance, we are NOT talking specifically about otherwise healthy people.
3 It’s NOT prohibited, it’s a prescription drug. The FDA have warned against its use for Covid19, which makes sense after some dumbass and his wife drank fish tank cleaner after taking medical advice from their president. Unfortunately, the FDA also need to cater to the lowest common denominator for reasons aforementioned.

In fact, here’s what the FDA have to say on the topic.

“FDA cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems
Does not affect FDA-approved uses for malaria, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis

June 15, 2020 Update: Based on ongoing analysis and emerging scientific data, FDA has revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19 in certain hospitalized patients when a clinical trial is unavailable or participation is not feasible. We made this determination based on recent results from a large, randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients that found these medicines showed no benefit for decreasing the likelihood of death or speeding recovery. This outcome was consistent with other new data, including those showing the suggested dosing for these medicines are unlikely to kill or inhibit the virus that causes COVID-19. As a result, we determined that the legal criteria for the EUA are no longer met. Please refer to the Revocation of the EUA Letter and FAQs on the Revocation of the EUA for Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate and Chloroquine Phosphate for more information.“

Easily googled here: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safe...oroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or

Or, if you have further questions, you could even refer to the FAQ section to get some answers that might not be so readily available elsewhere:
https://www.fda.gov/media/136784/download

You can even get yourself listed on a trial if you meet the selection criteria. Seems somewhat inconsistent with “suppressing the truth for profit”.

C’mon man, you’re MUCH better than this!

 

[Burkey]

Excellent question Bucky, it stopped being updated on the site. I can think of a few reasons why.

"Why does the data stop at week 15 given that we’re in week 30+?"

I can’t find the original source of the data, but, I have seen the data reported beyond the 15th week.
It seems possible that the data you’ve shared was current at the time of publication.
If so, that means that the last 2-8 weeks of data isn’t likely to be accurate (ask the CDC why).

 

[Weather Man]

I can’t find the original source of the data, but, I have seen the data reported beyond the 15th week.
It seems possible that the data you’ve shared was current at the time of publication.
If so, that means that the last 2-8 weeks of data isn’t likely to be accurate (ask the CDC why).

It was on the CDC website, they haven't updated.

 

[Burkey]

My point is we can believe about anything and have the data to back it up. This virus has been worldwide for 6 months and saying anything works or doesn’t is very premature. Even testing vaccine is a 2 year process.

I agree completely. Positive claims require positive evidence. You even said it yourself, we need to be sceptical of ALL claims. Well, here’s what scepticism reveals when you look at that particular trial....
The main problem with the study you’re citing is the METHODOLOGY they used to get the data. The peers aren’t happy with it.
Put more simply, the drug wasn’t administered to all patients equally. It was in fact NOT administered to those who were potentially most likely to die anyway.
You simply won’t get compelling data if you skew the selection criteria like that, whether it be by choice or by accident.
One of the authors even says as much himself:

“Dr. Zervos also pointed out, as does the paper, that the study results should be interpreted with some caution, should not be applied to patients treated outside of hospital settings and require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19.”

And here’s some objections to the study:
“The study that sparked the latest controversy was anything but randomized. Not only was it not randomized, outside experts noted, but patients who received hydroxychloroquine were also more likely to get steroids, which appear to help very sick patients with Covid-19. That is likely to have influenced the central finding of the Henry Ford study: that death rates were 50% lower among patients in hospitals treated with hydroxychloroquine.”

Or you could go here for further legitimate concerns about the validity of the study:
https://wdet.org/posts/2020/07/15/8...roxychloroquine-study-methodology-conclusion/

Or, better yet, you can go here and see watch them try and defend the study as they simultaneously explain exactly why the study isn’t as compelling as a traditional trial.
https://www.beckershospitalreview.c...ine-study-slam-politics-surrounding-drug.html

Sponsored