Orlando Buffalo Posted 7 hours ago Posted 7 hours ago 23 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: it was the correct thing to do based on the science available. it saved millions of lives. how much is that worth to you? Locking kids down saved no lives, and you know that. There was no"science" available at the time that said to lock down the school, except for politically motivated "experts". 1 1 1
Doc Posted 7 hours ago Posted 7 hours ago "We didn't have time to find out if lockdowns and vaccines for kids were appropriate..."
Orlando Buffalo Posted 6 hours ago Posted 6 hours ago 55 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: it was the correct thing to do based on the science available. it saved millions of lives. how much is that worth to you? https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/03/us/fauci-schools-reopening-coronavirus What science was that? Fauci in June 2020 says there was not any science to support that, can you tell me what science you are referencing? I get that I was much more on top of it than you were since I have kids who were in school and I am a teacher but your statements about locking down children is factually incorrect. Recognizing how much the Dems lied does not make you responsible for their actions, it should though piss you off.
Roundybout Posted 6 hours ago Posted 6 hours ago 2 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Why do you think the words "moral crusader" are appropriate here? No one I have ever met believes Trump is some pure guy but you believed Biden administration was moral as it lied about 90% of stuff for 4 years. He ran on releasing all these government secrets to appease the conspiracy nuts that make up a healthy part of the MAGA base. There is a whole thread here on PPP about it!
Orlando Buffalo Posted 6 hours ago Posted 6 hours ago 20 minutes ago, Roundybout said: He ran on releasing all these government secrets to appease the conspiracy nuts that make up a healthy part of the MAGA base. There is a whole thread here on PPP about it! Trump is more politician than I like, so I am disappointed in the lack of info but his worst traits are the same as Biden.
BillsFanNC Posted 6 hours ago Posted 6 hours ago (edited) Quack often likes the appeal to authority, referencing science from elite institutions as supporting his science as being the only science that should be followed. Funny that appeal didn't apply with the Quack cult when scientists from Stanford, Harvard and Oxford in OCTOBER OF 2020, released the Great Barrington Declaration and they were met with censorship on Twitter and elsewhere and had the Fauci and Collins working behind the scenes to undermine their message. Signed by 940,000+ scientists worldwide to date. The organizers of the Great Barrington Declaration were absolutely correct, and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford is now NIH director. They were right. Quack and his deranged ilk were wrong. Suck it. https://gbdeclaration.org/ The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed. Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity. On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by: Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations. Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations. Edited 6 hours ago by BillsFanNC
Taro T Posted 6 hours ago Posted 6 hours ago 1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: it was the correct thing to do based on the science available. it saved millions of lives. how much is that worth to you? NYS was STILL forcing university students to get double boostered to enroll/attend classes in the summer of 2022. Queen Hochul rescinded that order about a week after classes started. THAT BS didn't save a SINGLE life but instead may have taken several. What was done to kids in the name of "science" is absolutely reprehensible. 1 1
Doc Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 28 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Quack often likes the appeal to authority, referencing science from elite institutions as supporting his science as being the only science that should be followed. Funny that appeal didn't apply with the Quack cult when scientists from Stanford, Harvard and Oxford in OCTOBER OF 2020, released the Great Barrington Declaration and they were met with censorship on Twitter and elsewhere and had the Fauci and Collins working behind the scenes to undermine their message. Signed by 940,000+ scientists worldwide to date. The organizers of the Great Barrington Declaration were absolutely correct, and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford is now NIH director. They were right. Quack and his deranged ilk were wrong. Suck it. https://gbdeclaration.org/ The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed. Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity. On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by: Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations. Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations. It's amazing how much personal feelings can override logic.
Albwan Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 3 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I will add on separately that the most morally repugnant thing done by government over the past 5 years is DEFINITELY the lock down and forced shots on children. Your side destroyed the lives of children with lies and cowardice. One thing is for sure, the left despises children. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago (edited) 3 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: often likes the appeal to authority, Appeal to authority is not fallacious when the authorities are widely respected experts. When is appeal to authority legitimate? An appeal to authority is not always a fallacy. Citing the informed opinion of an expert is legitimate in an argument when certain criteria is met: The authority is an expert in the specific subject area under discussion. Citing your cousin who is a law student in a discussion about a legal issue is therefore fallacious. However, citing your lawyer, who is qualified to give advice, is legitimate. The statement of the authority falls within their area of expertise. If someone is an expert in one area, it does not automatically mean they are an expert in all areas. A medical doctor, for instance, is qualified to speak about diseases, but not about the stock market. There is agreement among experts about the topic under discussion. Although disputes among experts are part and parcel of the advancement of knowledge, there are certain domains where there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute. For example, for every qualified economist arguing for a certain position or theory, there is another one arguing for an entirely different position. You appeal to false authority every time you cite trump. he's only expert in deception. Edited 3 hours ago by Joe Ferguson forever 1
Recommended Posts