And we hit Godwin's law. I'm shocked lol.

Ah. Yes I did. He posted several times that that's what he was doing. I stand by it.


I know you guys hate the basic rules of logic (which is not a thing I've just made up here, this is 2,500 years old), but 'X is justified because Y' requires consistency to be logical. If I say "Cutting off that driver is okay because he was speeding", for my statement to be logical it must be okay to do that when Y is true. When another driver is also speeding, cutting him off is justified because that's my rational basis I gave.

If it is acceptable to coerce people because they are left with a choice to suffer the consequences, then whenever the victim can choose to suffer the consequences the use of coercion is acceptable. I cannot think of a single acton this logic doesn't justify.

It's a terrible argument. I'm sure your side can do better, and has done better with basically every other justification used. A terrible argument doesn't make the root idea wrong; it means a better argument should be found.


I stand by the transcript. I have never said there was a state or federal law to take the shot. Where did I say this? False construction indeed!


There's nothing to add here on either side, this was already done above.


I eagerly await the evidence that taking the vaccine provides a large or significant, rather than minuscule, absolute risk improvement for most people. Not even the state or the CDC argue are seriously arguing this. It seems to make a significant, though I wouldn't call it large, improvement in people of advanced age or with numerous commorbidities. Most people have such a tiny tiny risk of covid that the small difference creates a statistically minuscule gap. Healthy 30 year olds are not seeing marked improvement in survival rates after vaccination. Nobody is even arguing that they are, unless you would like to.


See above. If Y (the ability to choose to just suffer the consequences) is the justification for X (coercion), it must consistently be the justification for X. Otherwise it's meaningless illogical babble.

Strong coercive measure is the trademark of totalitarianism. A world run by the logic presented, that authorities with power may coerce because the victim of the coercion may choose to suffer the consequences is very literally the most extreme example of totalitarianism. No such society, to this extent presented by the argument, has ever actually existed, or at least I cannot think of one. I have said this several times. I understand that what you want to argue against is that the US is not totalitarian, but nobody has said it is. In actual fact the exact opposite has been said, repeatedly, because you seem to struggle to get this.

And here we go with the Nazi's, like clockwork. Hopefully upon viewing you realize that such a choice is not really a free choice, and not how people who are not the ones whose 'side' is doing the coercion want to live.

LOL, at least I admit many of my posts are trolling in this WAY beyond silly thread.

Had to google this. Have to agree with you on this.

I have to look up most of the "buzz phrases" used, especially all the political ones.

Nice deflection. I'm glad that you're willing to stand by something that we both agree about. But, this is the what you said that we were discussing, "What name were you called? Were(sic)?" This you completely ignored. But I get it. You were wrong and instead of admitting it, you deflect. Did you learn that at logic school?



This is getting comical. You keep arguing against something nobody has said. I asked you before and I'll ask you again, "Where did Ben very directly, right here, on this same page, in the transcript say the action is justified if there is a possible choice to break the law or accept the consequences of pressure." Or in other words, when did Ben or I say "whenever the victim can choose to suffer the consequences the use of coercion is acceptable?"


Wow, more comedy ensues. A link was posted earlier in this thread and Post #1377 was your response to the link. I realize the math needed to understand the numbers is probably above third-grade level, but I'll see if I can explain it to you. You said, "the link reports 89% of the province has taken a shot." What does that mean? Out of 100 people, 89 have gotten a shot. That means 11 have not. That means 8 people have gotten the shot for every person who has not gotten the shot. You further state that there are "3X-4X as many vaccinated patients as unvaccinated." Let's conservatively use the 4X number. That means 4 people in the hospital with covid have gotten the shot for every person in the hospital with covid who has not gotten the shot. See where I'm going? If the shot risk reduction was miniscule, as you claim, there would be 8 people in the hospital with covid for every person who has not had the shot. But there are only 4. That is a 50% reduction in the risk of being hospitalized by getting the shot. Is 50% miniscule? I think not.


Again, arguing something nobody else is.

Again, arguing something nobody else is.


At least you end on a high note. Comedy is almost always a high note.

I see you invoked Goodwin's Law elsewhere. Do you even know what Goodwin's Law states? If so, then please point out where I made any comparison to Hitler or Nazis. There are none. But, I guess it is my fault. I overestimated your level of intelligence. Although in my defense I did try to help you. See how I mentioned Ben's argument about the word choice is when I entered. I talked about the horrible options the woman was given. I put the word "Choice" in the title in bold. I pointed out there were no complaints about the title. This shows that even though the woman wasn't given any good options, the word "Choice" was still used in the title. Contrary to your definition of the word "choice." To further illustrate your denseness, if you really think what I did was reason to invoke Goodwin's Law, consider this. If we're talking about human resiliency in the face of adversity, I couldn't bring up Anne Frank because Nazis are involved in her story. If we're taking about people courageously putting their life on the line for others, I couldn't bring up Schindler's List because Nazis are involved in his life. Are you really that dense or are you just deflecting again?

Based on your constant deflections, arguing points only you are talking about, and utter denseness, I'm done with you. Have fun spewing you mental diarrhea.

Troll on.

Its GODwins law, evidently you don't have a clue

LOL, so all you have is a spelling error.:rolleyes::D:D:D

I looked up Goodwin’s law, it has to do with arrogant self-opinionated climate change cult members who are always warning that disaster is ten years away, so I can see how he got the two mixed up.

Must be autocorrect...

(Vehemently typing away a response before even understanding the concept)


Arrggghj!

I do like it when people try to call out grammar mistakes and make them while doing it. Its versus it’s.

Sorry, I was playing with my kids

That is OK Ted have fun with the little ones. I don't take too much in this thread serious and try to bring in some humor when possible.

Same

I admit it. I misunderstood your intent to claim victimhood status for yourself, not for the troll. I misinterpreted. I stand by my comment labeling him a troll, which he just again said he has been doing.



This was already pointed too; page 36. He is defending the policies and use of economic leverage as coercion, because one has the choice to not comply and suffer the consequences. I disagree with this philosophy for the obvious reasons. This has already been done. Is there anything new? I see you still don't understand how the logic of a claim works.


Do you know what absolute risk is? I gather not. I eagerly await ANY evidence that the absolute risk is greatly impacted by the 'vaccine' for people under 70 or with less than 3 commorbidities. None has been presented, and the authorities have generally shied away from even trying to make this claim. It appears to provide some benefit for people who get it and are at high risk. I though it a good move for my grandfather to take it.


It would appear obvious the only reason for you to bring the topic to Nazi's and the Holocaust at the end of your post was to make a rhetorical point. I apologize if you were just merely confused and thought this thread was for sharing film recommendations.

Yes, I am stupid and any dissent with your party is trolling, I know. Any liberal philosophy of the right of the individual over the right of his neighbors to dictate to him is dense diarrhea. You cannot lay out a logical defense, understand the key terms you are bitching about, and just rage and screech (which is progress, your last tantrum was completely off-topic and weeks late!). Which is fine, as a liberal I support your right to do what you like over any right of your neighbors to dictate how you must live and to coerce you into doing what they want or silence you. Screech on.

Yes, absolute risk is not greatly reduced by the vaccine. But you are using the wrong metric. Vaccine efficacy is usually measured by relative risk.

"Referring to a “peer reviewed study” published in medical journal The Lancet, users on social media have erroneously claimed that the reported efficacy rates for the available COVID-19 vaccines are “deceiving” and that the real rate of protection from immunization is much lower. This stems from a misinterpretation of two different measurements, the relative risk reduction (RRR) and the absolute risk reduction (ARR).

The posts feature a tweet that reads, “@TheLancet peer reviewed study confirms vaccine efficacy, not as 95% stated by the vaccine companies, but as: Astra Zeneca 1.3%, Moderna 1.2%, J&J 1.2% and Pfizer 0.84%. They deceived everyone by reporting Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) rather than Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR).”....

A similar narrative is replicated in a TikTok video here . “Receiving the COVID-19 vaccine reduces your risk at most 1.3%”, the women says to the camera around timestamp 00:33. “Why have we been hearing this vaccine has a 95% efficacy rate? Simple, they lied to you.”

The posts erroneously claim the article was a “peer reviewed study”, when it was actually a commentary by Piero Olliaro, Els Torreele and Michel Vaillant on April 20, featured in the Lancet Microbe here .

When asked about the claim, Olliaro, professor of poverty related infectious diseases at the Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health of Oxford University ( here ) told Reuters via email it was “extremely disappointing to see how information can be twisted.” He also said, “Bottom line: these vaccines are good public health interventions,” and added that in the commentary, “We do not say vaccines do not work.”

STATISTICAL CONFUSION
Posts refer to two statistical values in relation to how a vaccine impacts a population: Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) and Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR), which are calculated differently.

As explained by the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools of McMaster University in Canada youtu.be/QPXXTE8N4PY?t=260 , these statistics “present the effects of an intervention in different ways and all provide useful information and together give a more complete understanding” of it.

According to medical experts at Meeden’s Health Desk, the RRR tells us how much the risk of infection is “reduced in the test vaccine group, compared to a control group who did not receive the test vaccine.” The RRR, or efficacy, tells us "how well the vaccine protects clinical trial participants from getting sick or getting very sick.”

This is what is usually presented as vaccine efficacy. For Pfizer BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine this is 95% ( here ), for Moderna’s 94.1% ( here ) and 66.3% for the J&J/Janssen vaccine ( here ).

The Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) is the arithmetic difference between event rates (the percentage of people who, for example, got infected) within the two groups ( here ).

The Lancet commentary by Olliaro, Torreele and Vaillant shows here the numbers for ARR, misleadingly referenced in social media posts, were obtained.

Meedan Health Desk exemplifies how the ARR “will always appear low” as it depends on the event rate.

“Let’s say a study enrolled 20,000 patients into the control group and 20,000 in the vaccine group. In that study, 200 people in the control group got sick and 0 people in the vaccine group got sick. Even though the vaccine efficacy would be a whopping 100%, the ARR would show that vaccines reduce the absolute risk by just 1% (200/20,000= 1%). For the ARR to increase to 20% in our example study with a vaccine with 100% efficacy, 4,000 of the 20,000 people in the control group would have to get sick (4,000/20,000= 20%).”

WHY RRR IS USED FOR VACCINE EFFICACY
Natalie E. Dean, assistant professor of Biostatistics at the University of Florida, understood why the ARR numbers might have confused users on social media and explained why the RRR is the “usual scale” considered by the medical community when talking about vaccine efficacy.

“Because (the ARR) is a much lower number, it feels like it is saying that the other number (RRR) isn’t true,” but this is not accurate, “they are both capturing some aspect of reality, just measuring it in a different way,” she told Reuters via telephone.

Vaccine efficacy, expressed as the RRR means the vaccine will reduce the risk of infection by that reported percentage irrespective of the transmission setting. “It is more meaningful,” she said.

WHAT STUDIES SAY
Real world studies have already shown how the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, for example, are highly effective.

Paul Offit, an infectious disease expert at the University of Pennsylvania who is also a member of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory panel, pointed to two studies. A study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that found the risk of infection fell 90% two weeks after full vaccination with Pfizer or Moderna vaccines ( here)

The other piece of real-world evidence highlighted by Offit was a Cleveland Clinic study, released in mid-May that showed 99.75% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Jan 1 and April 13, 2021 were not fully vaccinated, reported by Axios here. “You significantly decrease the chances of hospitalization by being vaccinated. That’s a better way to look at it,” Offit noted.

Reuters has previously debunked posts on social media that push vaccine hesitancy here , here , here , here

VERDICT
Misleading. The Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) and the Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) are two measurements that are calculated differently. In terms of measuring how a vaccine impacts a population, they are complementary and not contradictory.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our work to fact-check social media posts here.

https://www.reuters.com/article/fact...-idUSL2N2NK1XA

Does the polio vaccine ensure you dont get polio.. "that severe"


Asking for a friend

I'm here too Ben, messing up a proper name and not using an apostrophe are surely the same "spelling error". I'm trying to educate the youth and keep them OFF the screens!

When I joined, and asked for this user name it was in jest. Being from Massachusetts and being told I have to be a Democrat, I bucked the trend. Amusingly among business owners, many
Mass-holes I met claimed the be democrats, but were fiscally conservative! Shocking I know! I'll just say in the last few years I've been stereotyped by my usrname more times than I cant count. You can blame trump for "polarizing" the country, but it isn't just along party lines. The art of debate has been lost to finger pointing and name calling and peoples outright refusal to hear other arguements. Time to out the 2 party system to rest!

No kidding. Right now I agree with the policies of one party 60% and the other 40%. Elections, for me, always come down to voting against what policies I fear the most. Years ago there were a couple of centrists who considered running as a ticket, one of each party. I would've loved something like that.

What frustrates me is people who look at it as joining a team. Like sports. You root for your team, regardless. If you win a game on a terrible call, that's fine. If a guy on your team injures another player with a cheap shot, it's justified and forgotten...

IMO not enough people think for themselves. Neither party is always right or always wrong, and there are (or should be) differing opinions within each party. If something is wrong, and prosecutable on one side, the same standard should be applied to the other side.

The 2 party system dumbs down the country, and creates unnecessary acrimony. If people who think they are on "different sides" sat down over a beer or two, more often than not, they'd find a lot of common ground.

right easy to say that but unfortunately most of the media and culture already biases one party so there is less pushback on those polices...the other party will at least receive big pushback if theres an issue, even when the issue may be proven to be ok there is initial pushback like tik tok for example.. the problem is when there is no media or any push back and one party can do things more unchecked then the other party..it should be equal both ways..

Absolute risk is the risk of the event occurring under specific conditions. Relative risk is the likelihood of an event occurring in one group compared to another group.

Let us assume the vaccine is 99% effective (even its staunchest advocates wont go that far) and is in fact an actual vaccine instead of a pre-disease treatment that has some impact lessening the severity. If our risk is healthy younger people without lots of comorbidities, the absolute risk from Covid is minuscule. A 99% improvement (which it is nowhere near) still represents almost nothing. A 99% improvement on .0001% or whatever it is today is basically nothing, but a huge relative risk improvement. This huge leap is heavily misleading if you ignore absolute risk and don’t first realize the risk is almost zero in the first place.

99.75% of hospitalized people are not unvaccinated today. Wasn’t it recently admitted that they constitute the majority (there are more of them in the general population too)?

Really it would be ideal to look at both, for different purposes.

I still, years later, await the evidence that my life and the lives of billions like me are in any real danger from Covid and that this ‘vaccine’ does much of anything for a person not at high risk. I have declined to participate in the declining hysteria at all for the last three years not because I think the vaccine-that-does-not-function-as-a-vaccine-whatsoever is harmful but because I am able to do basic math and used the CDC’s own numbers (an institution all in on the panic narrative). There’s little to no risk to people not in certain easily identified categories. There is little to no gain to me to take this experimental ‘vaccine’. If I was obese, 90, had lung diseases, etc. it may be different. But I don’t, and most of us don’t.

The polio vaccine doesn’t affect spread or your ability to catch polio, although you were told it would. It wasn’t really tested and they didn’t know what it did (or stronger up lied, choose 1). It doesn’t make you immune. It seems to improve survival rates among those who catch polio while being in high risk groups. If you question this you are a vaccine denier and anti-science. Proper testing and the application of the scientific method need not occur. Your employer needs to fire you.

I believe this was how the polio vaccine went down.

Anyone remember this woman from the vid, "Safe and Effective" I posted quite a while ago whose husband, a perfectly healthy 32yr old Doctor, with a new born child, no less, died shortly after getting vaccinated and was told it was just a coincidence?
https://tube.oraclefilms.com/w/dnGpS...s8?start=6m47s
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-coroner-rules
https://news.sky.com/story/healthy-d...d-jab-12861032

For those still in denial or still believe the vaccines worked and didn't do more harm than good, you should watch the movie above in full if you haven't already, or already watched it but it still didn't sink in.

Conspiracy fact #376

Edit: The below Instagram link was censored/shut down as "False info" with no info available as to why even if you click "Why"
It is still up on youtube but it will also, more than likely, be censored/shut down soon too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTithMAUG5s

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cteu_...BiNWFlZA%3D%3D

TRUDEAU - He loved Covid restrictions & emergency powers so much he’s about to apply them to every area of your life.

“What we learned from this COVID crisis, we will be applying to the climate crisis...”
And soon you won’t be allowed to question it!
https://twitter.com/BernieSpofforth/...01530318651396

Dale--Going to be headed your way on a cruise in a week or so. Hope it is safe up there

Atlantic or Pacific side, Al?

As far as I know, most of the fires are out, or have been contained, but some are still complaining about the smoke in places so take that for what it's worth?

I haven't heard of any climate lockdowns yet from Trudeau, but if you're vaccinated, I heard you're protected from that too so you should be in pretty good shape, unless, of course, they come out with another booster?
Hopefully that doesn't happen and Trudeau doesn't dry dock your ship as I'm a longs ways from the Atlantic and even further away from the Pacific, but I'll do what I can do to help if that happens? :D

Hope you have a great one, Al. :)
Enjoy.

St John Bay of Fundy, Halifax, Sydney, Corner Brook, Saint -Pierre, and St John Newfoundland before crossing to Nuuk and beyond

All stopover's, Al, or just cruising on by?
Sounds like a heck of a trip. :)
Take some warm clothes!
https://www.google.com/search?q=newf...hrome&ie=UTF-8

Temps here above 100 for next 10 days. Not coming back until September

It's been really cool here for weeks now. On average about 10 degrees below normal. But next week, Thursday to be exact, it will be our hottest day this spring at 25 c, or 77 f, or so they say?

Hopefully those temps improve for you in NFLD or it is going to be a shock to your system. ;)

Al has survived visits to Austin Texas, any part of Canada will be a cakewalk in comparison.

Nothing to see here people. The plan-demic was real, they do not seek control by having a one world govt that dictates what you can say and do and, of course, The WEF is just a conspiracy theory too.

Get your vaccines and boosters because they care about you so much!!! :rolleyes:
https://www.tiktok.com/@papadale1971..._t=8dmXmVdzM2A

LOL, This thread reminds me of Beavis and Butthead only without the intelligence and common sense they had on the show.:D:D:D

Trigger warning for the pro-vaxxers, or at least those that shamed and ridiculed the anti-vaxxers.. You'll likely not appreciate this nor find it funny. :D
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oH5tk98Pnc4

Well, some of us anyways.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1273237280230935

Come out of the basement.

or let him stay there and live in his make-believe fantasy world. I doubt he is hurting anyone and if his posts don't make you laugh your ass off you need a better sense of humor.;):D

But, I'm doing my part to fight the climate crisis. Are you snowflakes never happy? :confused:

Ben, the cuck, gripping onto his virtue signal and facism like it's his favorite card. :(

Dale— will be in Dunkirk tomorrow, any messages for Macron ? :)

LOL. :D
You won't get within a 1000 yards of Macron no matter how hard you'd like too.
Lots of unrest/riots going on over there, or there were, so be careful if you dock and are allowed a walkabout.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ch-police.html
https://metro.co.uk/2017/04/11/huge-...s-out-6566898/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/04/busin...ost/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ts-2023-06-30/

How's the trip been so far? Hopefully good.
Enjoy. :)

Tell him it's a nice change of pace to see France not surrendering.
:D

time for mask mandates because emergency rooms are full and what about taking vaccines now with the new ones coming out soon, let me guess, immunity from lawsuits still, maybe not...i havent seen it either way but if you havent seen anything new that usually means the status quo still in place

I heard the new ones were twice as good as the old ones? Instead of these just being based on hope like the last ones were, they've upped their game to fingers crossed hope this time. :rolleyes:

There will still be line ups. I still see people with masks, walking outside, all alone. :(

https://www.facebook.com/10000911666...22751419334195

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CuQAE...JnsDc-VGe9dxos