Go back to previous topic
Forum nameGeneral Discussion
Topic subjectI got time today...do you know why you lose this argument?
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13450579&mesg_id=13451787
13451787, I got time today...do you know why you lose this argument?
Posted by auragin_boi, Fri Jan-14-22 11:46 AM
Because you don't grow, wouldn't concede...even when any of your points are thoroughly shot down. You're entrenched in your emotional paranoid beliefs and constantly hunt your echo-chamber for anecdotal evidence of discord in the scientific community to support your faulty narrative.

-throw out scientist who question the approach...fair but you ignore the overwhelming number of scientist who support the approach...disingenuous/agenda guilty
-Move the goal post whenever something is effectively addressed with "what about this, you didn't address that!"
-Expect people to disprove your stance and back their stance with facts and numbers (which you'd ignore anyway) but don't take effort to do ANY of that yourself.
-Link up opinion pieces by foreign doctors, translated from a language you probably don't speak, allow all that to influence your stance but then expect people to respect whatever slither of potential validity of a point you might have.
-But then, aggressively attack anyone elses opinions on the matter like they are invalid.

You my, friend, don't debate in good faith. But still...here goes...

>Where did you get "shrug off old people?" I said FOCUS on
>them. That's literally the opposite of shrug off.

Your suggestion literally puts all the people you said 'focus on' at risk because more people will carry and transmit the disease. You literally just said your vaxxed friends are walking around and operating like they are good but still contracting COVID (which by the way, is not how you should move during a pandemic even being vaxxed so your friends are at fault here, not the world) so if EVERYONE operated that way, the most vulnerable of us would STILL catch it and could potentially die from it.

More spread = more exposure = more death.

>I'm saying shrug off young people who don't get the virus
>(kids) or don't get affected by it (anybody under 40-50 w/o 4

this is a flat out lie. Kids are catching COVID rapidly in schools systems at this very moment. While they tend to catch is less often, they are still the most likely spreaders given schools are typically a haven for germ/virus spread.

And the demo that's contracted COVID at the highest rates are 18-49 year olds. And this data isn't hard to find.

>NOT shrug off old people or people w comorbidities. Which is
>also a thing ya'll don't seem to want to address.

Old people already have to be cautious given their advanced age...as well as those with compromised immune systems. The current solution is to find a way to slow spread (it won't be completely eliminated and no one ever claimed that's what a vaccine does) and develop treatments for/to prevent advanced, more damaging infection developments. You're saying this doesn't work and we should just let everyone catch it living their everyday lives...which would in turn allow for more spread (and potential mutation)...while focusing all our efforts on the elderly and immunocompromised but this skates on the fact that letting the virus run rampant without any slowing/treatment options for the mass public increases the risk to those you're saying we should focus on.

>I don't trust Pharma at all, personally haven't even taken an
>Advil in 10+ years, basically since teenager.

And this is the crux of everything you spout...and it shows. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't but you can't argue against the merits of someone else's stance on this without understanding this primary part of your intellectual DNA. This alone won't allow you to see logic in a solution based in Pharma because you will forever not trust it.

>Thats just anecdotal though and doesnt matter.

But it does matter because you are debating people about this topic.

My point is
>moreso that we should be looking at the success of IVM and HCQ
>- cheap, unpatented drugs - vs the failure of remdesivir and
>vaccines - which also happen to be generating billions
>DIRECTLY to Fauci (literally, personally to him) and Big

if IVM and HCQ are widespread solutions, cheap and were readily available to address this viral outbreak and are effective beyond all other measures...why wasn't this a widespread and marketed solution within the what 8-9 months before we had a vaccine? Why hasn't the bulk of the scientific community said..."that's the way to go with this"?

Do you think doctors and scientist like seeing people die en masse so they just kept this under wraps the entire time?

>Prove these are wrong

^^^And there goes your BS. "I can't prove this works and can only point to anecdotal evidence that it might have potential...and nothing concretely from you know, the actual USA, but YOU prove it's not a solution!!!"

It's a disingenuous way to debate and it wouldn't convince you even if someone factually and efficiently shot it down.

But to address the actual links; it's a positive that there are other studies and drugs being examined to treat COVID. The point is to get multiple solutions going so that we can downgrade this to an endemic and then classify COVID like we do the flu. But that's a process. And if the scientific community overwhelmingly says "until we get to that point, be cautious...get vaccinated and boosted, wear mask, social distance, be careful not to gather in big crowds often, if people have to be in an enclosed space with others for extended periods, make sure they are vaccinated to minimize death and spread (notice I didn't say eliminate because that's not possible with most viruses like this), stay way from others when infected, send people remote if there's a severe outbreak in a community to slow spread." Then we should definitely be listening to that too.

>Where do you get this from? Find one quote.

Your suggested approach. That's where.

>>So essentially...your plan is he current one minus
>>vaccines...how is that better?
>>Why do the high risk not matter? Old people?
>Again, find one quote. I'm literally saying the exact

No, you're not saying the exact opposite. You are saying do away with vaccines which have a years worth of data now that say they are affective in

1. Slowing the spread of COVID
2. Decreasing severe reaction to COVID (hospitalization)
3. Decreasing the rate of death due to COVID base pneumonia

Notice, I did not say stop the spread or eliminate the reactions or deaths...because that's not what vaccines typically do. And no other suggestion you've made can do those things as effectively as the current vaccine (and other suggested protective measures). None of them.


^^^There it is again. The BS. There's data on over 80% of the US that says it's mostly safe. Again, you can't speak in absolutes with medicine because there will always be someone who's adversely affected by it. The drugs you have suggest likely have side effects to and adverse effects on some as well. But to answer your question, the data is the proof that it's safe.

Now, you prove that 80% of the USA is at high risk of immuno-illness due to the vaccine. Right. The best you could do here is anecdotal studies of 'potential' risk, which ALL medicines have.

>>I could cherry pick countries with high vaccination rates
>>very strict lockdown measures that are also doing better.
>NAME EM....

Instead, why don't you point to the countries that have similar populaces to ours (city density, way of life, healthcare infrastructure issues, vaccine and pandemic deniers, etc) that employ your suggested method/treatments and are doing better than the US.

I'll save you the trouble, you can't.

>Why elsewhere? We are here...why ya'll keep dismissing these
>simple arguments?

Because you're not debating in good faith.

>I'm looking at real life and seeing my double vaccinated +
>boosted people getting more sick than me. Getting sick once a
>month. I see them going on planes and to work SICK AF "but
>I'm vaxxed so I'm good" ...they think they operate on a
>different plane now.

As I said earlier, your friends are the problem. The vaxx doesn't mean you should take more risk. It means your better protected but should still minimize risk. You get vaxxed and go to parties every weekend for a month or do excessive air travel, then yeah, you're going to still get exposed. And I would think if you aren't doing what they are doing then logic says you wouldn't get sick as often as they do. Mind you, it's also cold and flu season so someone getting sick once a month who's taking risk may be getting exposed to more than just COVID. But you know, your anecdotal assessment of why they are getting sick is devoid of these nuances and logic because you want your narrative to be the right one.

>I see 10+ probably 20 homegirls who haven't had their period
>in 6 months. I got homies with rashes and stomach problems.
>I got more homies that died of overdoses this year all under
>35 than anybody dying of COVID.

I call BS on this. Cap #1, I find it hard to believe any full grown adult has a circle of 20 people (let alone of one gender) that they keep up with that will willingly volunteer what's going on with their menstrual cycles. Secondly, there's absolutely NO way you can accurately attribute any of that to the COVID vaccine exclusively and conclusively. None of their doctors have told them that (if it's true and it's not). My wife is vaccinated, most of my female coworkers are too. I know first hand my wife still menstruates and none of my co-workers have reported issues with the vaccine in said nature (I work in HR and we've had some dialogue to our workforce regarding vaccines...they have a open floor to push back or inform us of side effects of this nature so we can redirect if such things occur...not ONE such complaint or concern). So there, anecdotal evidence to combat yours.

Cap #2, your homies got rashes and stomach problems and this is the vaccines fault? Have any of these guys had COVID? Has a medical professional told them that their current issue is 100% directly related to the vaccine? C'mon bruh. Do better.

>I see people scared to leave their house and going around in
>double masks and boosted still getting COVID. I see
>unvaccinated, unmasked people doing just fine.

A bit of fear is normal in a pandemic. There are people who never go on planes that are afraid of flying. Such is life. Again, vaccines don't stop you from getting COVID, it reduces the potential to contracted and reduces the likelihood of severe symptoms/hospitalization/death. Why do you keep saying that like it's some proof that the vaccine doesn't work? And some of those that are unvaccinated and unmaksed are doing fine. And then there's a swath of them in the hospital on a ventilator or in the morgue. Only a child sees the world in absolutes bruh.

>>You know VAERS is self-reported, yeah? Not verified?
>Ya and about 80% is NOT self reported but Dr reported and they
>are verified by CDC, thus week lag time. Also according to
>some *possibly dubious* studies, its been historically very
>Funny you leave out the data from Canada Europe etc...

You know ~80% of the US is vaccinated right, you know majority of them aren't having any reactions to the vaccine right? You know having the vaccine is reducing hospitalizations and severe reactions in that group drastically vs unvaccinated COVID contractors right?

Let's believe the stats shall we?

>>Also, do you want to talk COVID numbers, or nah?
>Died with or FROM COVID? Cases with 35+ cycle threshold and
>no system for dealing w duplicates (one guy, 5 positives
>happened like to 20 ppl this week) and false positives?

WTF are you talking about bruh?

>HCQ and IVM have literally been used for decades, they have no
>adverse reactions. This is in a million studies and REAL LIFE
>as you say.

They haven't been used for decades to fight COVID-19 because it's a 2 year old virus. And again, if this was the solution, the scientific community had 9 months to present it BEFORE vaccines. And also again, it's great if they work. They can be part of the entire solution wheel we are constructing to fight this thing and downgrade it. It doesn't have to be an either or. And lastly, we should STILL be doing what we're doing if it provides additional protections (which all of our suggested practices do) until a clearly defined protocol on how to treat COVID has been established.

>LOL more lockdowns more testing more masks more fear and
>paranoia more hysteria...THAT SHIT DIDNT WORK!!! It dont

Remote work and school should be a tool in communities where there's a drastic outbreak, testing makes perfect sense in detecting outbreak. And it absolutely worked. What the hell is your idea of 'working'? IF it's 100% stop of the spread, infection and death then nothing will work. Stop applying zero sum judgement on something that won't be zero summed any time soon. AND, there's data that says it did work. Cases dropped drastically, death rates slowed. Why you lying Craig?

>Ya'll still havent replied to any of the science presented
>against the narrative. Ya'll dont reply to the hundreds of
>IVM and HCQ studies, ya'll dont reply to the BS clinical
>trials, etc etc etc

I did. You still won't admit you're wrong (even if not completely), pharma paranoid and really just an asshole who doesn't want to inconvenience your life that really doesn't care about the safety of others (that aren't in your immediate circle). I'd actually respect that truth if it wasn't thinly veiled behind a mountain of anecdotal BS smoke screens.

>You want to lockdown and mask kids, which has proven to do
>more harm then good. I want them to live and grow. They
>don't get sick or die, leave them alone. Focus on the obese
>and elderly.

Lies. They do get sick and die.


Stop lying to provoke your agenda.

All of this has a psychological effect on people. It's a pandemic, it will have negative effects. But I'm 1000% sure, watching 900K people die affects them much worse.

>You want quarantines and mass testing and vaccines on
>everybody, I'm saying use that on the group that needs it.
>It's literally what the Israeli doctor said above. Use it on
>who NEEDS it, so they survive. Help them out tirelessly and
>as effectively as possible. Use all the tools we have at our
>disposal to save them.

Yet, earlier you argued that the method (vaccines, masking, social distancing) doesn't work. You argued that the vaccinated are still catching COVID and getting it worse than the unvaccinated. Make up your mind. Why should we do this for the elderly and immunocompromised if they don't work? That's a logic fail. And yes, the elderly pass at a higher rate than everyone else from COVID but they don't catch it more. 18-49 year olds catch it more...and WE spread it to the elderly. I just gave you an article about a 10yr old who died from COVID. So, all of us are just supposed to take the risk then huh? I mean, if a vaccination could have saved that child, are we not supposed to do so? If vaccinations slow spread, contagion and severe illness (which in turn slows mutations and exposure to the ederly) are we not supposed to do it? Because why? You and a few outlier docs don't agree with the inconvenience?

>Wasting a trillion tests on 20 healthy 20 year olds, masking
>10 year olds, vaccinating 5 year olds when Africa as a
>continent is at like 5%...that shit don't scream "science"
>"health" or "end the pandemic" to me.

Resistance is the name of the game. Controlling spread, slowing severe infections, slowing death. That's moving in the right direction. 900K dead and counting doesn't say 'end the pandemic' to me either. And with your approach, we'd have more than that (especially when a variant more deadly to the rest of us develops as a result).

>Locking down the world but not locking down McDonalds is funny
>style. Needing a vaccine card to buy some beers is BS.
>Wearing a mask through the door but taking it off at the table
>is laughable.

People need to eat, drive throughs work. *shrug*, Needing a vaccine card to enter a store is perfectly ok...you need ID to buy beer right? You comply with that because the powers that be decided you needed to be of an age to drink safely (which is BS, because legal drinkers are more dangerous than underage drinkers) so comply with it until the powers that be deem it safe to be in a store to buy a beer safely. Uh huh. And if the table is partitioned and distanced from other patrons, it's perfect fine to dine out. It's exactly the same set up we have at work. Mask in common areas, partitions on cubicles, de-masking at your work station or in your office. Mask up for proximity discussions.

What's the problem? Your feeling inconvenienced. That's it.

>Ya'll dismiss cheap therapy b/c its linked to Trump and
>conspiracy but ya'll don't see the studies. YOU are blinded by

Anything linked to Trump and conspiracy should be dismissed. lol The person that said COVID was a Democratic hoax, COVID would go away by (insert date), ran an inept response to the pandemic, ran to the hospital for the most advanced experimental treatment when he caught it and STILL kept up the facade for a while, barely blinked when one of his staunchest supporters (Herman Cain) contracted and died from it after attending one of his rallies doesn't deserve an ounce of leeway in this discussion.

I'm good with anything that has good data to back it up as a treatment. The problem here is, you're dismissing what's already working and has data to support it because you'd rather point to treatment drugs that have shown some slight promise and to b!tch about being inconvenienced because the vaccine doesn't eliminate 100% of COVID related issues.

>You say look at real life but don't see that USA and Europe
>with all the resources and lockdowns in the world are doing
>worse than countries living freely and just giving cheap
>shitty drugs and keeping people alive.
>Blindly following Big Pharma, Big Tech and this shitty ass
>govt that fucked us over since Day 1 is not the solution. They
>walked us down this road and now we are stuck at boosters that
>don't work. There are *preprint* studies now showing the
>vaccines have a NEGATIVE effect against Omicron.

By December 12, 2021, there were 5,767 identified Omicron cases in Denmark with a median age of 28 years (93% <60 years). Among those who had most recently completed primary vaccination, VE against Omicron was 55.2% (95% confidence interval: 23.5 to 73.7%) and 36.7% (−69.9 to 76.4%) for the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines, respectively, but with evidence of rapid waning over the course of five months. By comparison, VE against Delta was significantly higher and better preserved over the same period (see Figure and Table).

^^^This is from the very article you linked bruh...some notes:
1) Most people who caught COVID are younger than 60 with a median age of 28. So the biggest age group catching it aren't the elderly.
2) The study confirms the vaccines were VERY effective against the Delta variant (which was much more deadly than Omicron). But it says it's also 55% and 36% effective against Omicron depending on which vaccine you have. This means the vaccines are effective and work...at least to some degree against Omicron and to a higher degree against Delta.
3) Effectiveness wears off after 5 months...which is par for the course of most vaccines. Flu vaccines are designed to get you through flu season (4-6 months) and you have to re-up every year. Do you not know how vaccines work?

>Lockdowns masks tests vaccines all have proven not to work.
>And you want to double down on the suicides, drug overdoses,
>unemployemnt, mental health, stunted growth, no breathing,
>scared of people horseshit we been doing for 2 years.

LOL - silly, YOU just proved they do from your article. That whole last paragraph you typed is BS bruh. Suicide, drug overdoses, unemployment, mental health have all always been a thing. Anything related to the pandemic could use some additional health professional focus so yes, we should strategize to address those things but don't act like they go away if we all go out on the street with no mask or vaccines and frolic in the streets. Mass death due to illness has the same effect. Stunted growth? *shrug* and no breathing is laughable. "waaaah, I don't like mask" is what that sounds like.

The reason most countries that are doing better at this than us are doing better at it is because they don't have such a contentious populace who won't simply do what the scientist and doctors suggest.

Conspiratorial dissenters hopped up on political misinformation basking in 1st world grievances over inconvenience and devoid of empathy for their neighbors are the biggest hurdle to us moving on. Always have been.