Covid-19 The New Covid Megathread v.Oh-my-cron!

[-=SS=-]

Friend’s emotional message to young ultra-healthy COVID victim: ‘I’ll try to be like you’

Friends of the talented 23-year-old have delivered a series of heart-wrenching tributes after he died with COVID - despite having no underlying health conditions

7news.com.au

The MSM loves these stories. It's a shame they don't take the same time to put forward a few of the jab injuries, of which there are numerous to choose from.

It's propaganda that only works on the most empty headed of cretins and also highlights once again how numbers/big headlines are used to mislead people into false conclusions. We know nothing, and it's never presented, about the history of the individual or their health history. Just a number of their age, as if their entire physiology past and present can be reduced down to a single fucking number.

These stories are put forward by the 'nudge' units of governments in those countries. It's psychological manipulation, aka propaganda, designed to scare people into getting jabbed. It's not even remotely subtle.

 

[-=SS=-]

The Elites are Control Freaks
A Nudge makes it more likely that an individual will make a particular choice, or behave in a particular way, by altering the environment so that automatic cognitive processes are triggered to favor the desired outcome.
There are various notable examples of government applications of Nudge Theory.
In Australia, the state Government of New South Wales established a Nudge Unit of its own in 2012. In 2016, the federal government followed suit...In 2020, the British government of Boris Johnson decided to rely on nudge theory to fight the coronavirus pandemic.

I've just read about them in 'State of Fear' by Laura Dodsworth. There are multiple units in the UK that were set up years ago, and in many other countries as well. Stuffed with behavioral psychologists and corporate shills who's job it is to help the government manipulate public perceptions when the public won't do as they're told. There's connections into other departments and governmental groups, the military and their psychological warfare operations units, and undoubtedly the intelligence agencies as well.

Imagine a pandemic so deadly you have to rely on all that state apparatus to frighten people into compliance. If the pandemic were actually real, people wouldn't need frightening. It's not fucking rocket science.

Throw in the media censorship, big tech censorship, repressive laws in countries including the right to protest etc. What sort of pandemic is this lol. I genuinely can't believe there's so many people out there that after two years of this shit they still can't see through what's going on. Pandemics don't require all that psychological manipulation and censorship. Even if you put that aside, what does that tell you about the motivations of your governments when they don't believe you can make the right choices for yourself in a supposed pandemic lol.. they're basically admitting they think you're retarded and must be manipulated.

 

[Yourbaker]

There is a course of action by which the layman can acquire the knowledge of the scientist. not true for the religious leader, whose 'knowledge' doesn't really qualify as such under any reasonable definition.
...
Religion never showed us the concrete fruits of its knowledge and this is a key difference to me.

I have pulled out the part where you defend science as being open and transparent to the masses because the ignorant hoard obviously is a sign of complete misconception on the part of the scientific community. I won't really address this belief because the obvious truth is people are listening to media and not to any group that feels they are organized.

But on the religious side I have to disagree with your assumption.

You can't see the truth of the religious world because some religious people have disagreed with science in the past. Certainly not because you have studied under the masters and found their truth to be lies.

This is exactly the same reason science is in trouble. The public are once again not engaging with the knowledge and understanding directly themselves and some of the scientific community are not being exactly truthful.

The scientific community needs to teach clearly what is based on theory and allow those theories to be severely subjected to scrutiny without their egos blowing up in a "righteous anger" like the religious leaders before them.

When goal post change and science tries to alter the language or definitions all faith is lost.

 

[w01fg4ng]

When...science tries to alter the language or definitions all faith is lost.

Faith is for religion tho, not science.

 

[Yourbaker]

Faith is for religion tho, not science.

This would be a wonderful belief!

When ever you "trust" someone you are putting a little faith in them. When you are willing to let them inject you with something they have said will help you that is actually quite a lot of faith.

We are humans we had faith in religion once, but one group at a time we walked away when our faith turned out to be misplaced. A lot of us put out faith in science some in money but not many have faith in very many of the Gods anymore. We still all have faith in every system we don't fully understand. I have faith in the cement company that poured the foundations of my house.

Good faith is based on experience, like my house is still standing on an island 50 years later with zero flooding, I have faith in the work done by the guys long ago because I watched half the houses in my nieghbourhood flood this fall.

To build faith in science we need small visible truths that always allow for change. We get smarter, don't let egos, specially those of dead people, hold us back.

 

[Jabberwocky]

You can't see the truth of the religious world because some religious people have disagreed with science in the past. Certainly not because you have studied under the masters and found their truth to be lies.

you're making a massive assumption here. i actually do have religious beliefs that are separate from my scientific endeavours. i have found there to be truths that aren't amenable to science and wisdom handed down that was not learned by the scientific method.

This is exactly the same reason science is in trouble. The public are once again not engaging with the knowledge and understanding directly themselves and some of the scientific community are not being exactly truthful.

science isn't in trouble. some scientists showing the fallibility that is inherent to the human condition doesn't put science in trouble.

The scientific community needs to teach clearly what is based on theory and allow those theories to be severely subjected to scrutiny without their egos blowing up in a "righteous anger" like the religious leaders before them.

we do teach it. but sorry, most people don't bother to learn. we can't just tell you and you know it. people need to engage with the subject. and its fucking difficult. i can see why people don't bother.

the onus isn't on scientists to bastardise and simplify concepts to the extent they are meaningless just so "the masses" can feel like they understand science- in fact this is exactly what's happened and how people with no scientific training have come to believe themselves to have a better understanding than the brightest people in whatever field they think they know about.

you are free to rigourously scrutinise any science. it won't upset anyones ego. when i was in theoretical physics we got emails from people who'd discovered perpetual motion or whatever without bothering to learn basic physics on a monthly basis, they always got sent round the department for a good laugh because there was always an incredibly basic error.

luckily for us, people who have bothered to learn the basics and further, showed themselves to be talented researchers, are intensely scrutinising all new science almost as soon as its published. every scientist worth their salt keeps an eye on new publications in their field. in my old research group we would try and best every new paper in our field as soon as it was published. if an idea looks good it will be tested immediately by people with similar tasks.

its a bit harder for expensive experiments because there isn't funding to repeat others work, but eventually a PhD student will try a published method and after a year of it not working as expected and thinking their making a mistake, realise the original method was incorrect. so it self corrects eventually.

i don't really see what fields there are under more scrutiny tbh. academia is rigged so that people have to step on each other and trash each others work to prevail, so scrutiny is in built.

When goal post change and science tries to alter the language or definitions all faith is lost.

when has science done this? we have colloquial definitions and formal definitions, one for use in contexts such as this, one for talking with peers. every job has specialised language.

 

[w01fg4ng]

This would be a wonderful belief!

Science specifically spells out each and every assumption made. I don't think the word assumption even exist in religion.

 

[AutoTripper]

There is a reason certain numbers stick out to certain people.

My mother in law is obsessed with the number 22.

Once you start looking for it, you'll see it everywhere.

I disagree. The magical underprint of our reality and brain pattern and structure is fascinating.

This guy is genius. He has uncovered infintely more than your average mortal.

 

[Yourbaker]

you're making a massive assumption here. i actually do have religious beliefs that are separate from my scientific endeavours. i have found there to be truths that aren't amenable to science and wisdom handed down that was not learned by the scientific method.


science isn't in trouble. some scientists showing the fallibility that is inherent to the human condition doesn't put science in trouble.



we do teach it. but sorry, most people don't bother to learn. we can't just tell you and you know it. people need to engage with the subject. and its fucking difficult. i can see why people don't bother.

the onus isn't on scientists to bastardise and simplify concepts to the extent they are meaningless just so "the masses" can feel like they understand science- in fact this is exactly what's happened and how people with no scientific training have come to believe themselves to have a better understanding than the brightest people in whatever field they think they know about.

you are free to rigourously scrutinise any science. it won't upset anyones ego. when i was in theoretical physics we got emails from people who'd discovered perpetual motion or whatever without bothering to learn basic physics on a monthly basis, they always got sent round the department for a good laugh because there was always an incredibly basic error.

luckily for us, people who have bothered to learn the basics and further, showed themselves to be talented researchers, are intensely scrutinising all new science almost as soon as its published. every scientist worth their salt keeps an eye on new publications in their field. in my old research group we would try and best every new paper in our field as soon as it was published. if an idea looks good it will be tested immediately by people with similar tasks.

its a bit harder for expensive experiments because there isn't funding to repeat others work, but eventually a PhD student will try a published method and after a year of it not working as expected and thinking their making a mistake, realise the original method was incorrect. so it self corrects eventually.

i don't really see what fields there are under more scrutiny tbh. academia is rigged so that people have to step on each other and trash each others work to prevail, so scrutiny is in built.



when has science done this? we have colloquial definitions and formal definitions, one for use in contexts such as this, one for talking with peers. every job has specialised language.

So much to respond to but I don't know how to insert and quote pieces easily.

First off no assumption at all you have expounded multiple times on your religious position, and you have refered to your scientific studies and achievements. You don't have a religious doctorate, and there are probably a thousand catagories of religious doctorate so when I say you haven't dismissed religion because you engaged and learned you dismissed because you found interest elsewhere and there was conflict.

This is always true, our interests will guide us through life. We will gravitate toward those ideas and those people who have similar interests and we will feel normal.

Your opinion is science isn't in trouble.

Currently the scientific community is being blamed for a metric fuck ton of issues.

Science might have blown the whistle on global warming but science also caused a lot of it.

Excessive restrictions during Covid.
Inciting panic across the globe.
Loss of freedoms.

Giving the elite control freaks a tool to disadvantage millions with (science created Covid)

Depending on how seriously the scientific community take the lack of faith from the public will depend on how bad the push back gets. In Germany during the holocaust science played a huge role as well.

Right now the scientific community are experiencing a time of ease as everyone listened, everyone believed for years no mater what they told us. Because of poor communications (as witnessed by the ignorant hoard) this is changing. Realize that Neil deGrasseTyson can not be the only person explaining shit in layman terms and you need some variation.

The biggest issue is stop getting behind the narrative.

I am guilty.

When I worked for Radio Shack in the 80's I spent a lot of time writting sales comments and strong answers for worldwide store staff because I could word it so it was believable. When asked why we used Microsoft basic in our early computers I suggested to confidently say "we use microsoft because it's the industry standard". I had no idea the marketing reps from IBM would buy that line and go straight to bill for a literal globaly edited version of TRSDOS called MS-DOS.

I am sorry.

 

[-=SS=-]

science isn't in trouble. some scientists showing the fallibility that is inherent to the human condition doesn't put science in trouble.

Well done, you finally admit to the fallible nature of human beings working as scientists.

Science is very much in trouble. From particle physics and the standard model, to astrophysics. It's been in crisis for some time - still just 20 years until nuclear fusion bro! It's current role in the covid crisis will not go unnoticed either when the dust settles, though I think the medical industry and the specific branch of virology will take the greatest flak. However public confidence in science will get shaken. If and when the climate change bandwagon collapses too, that will shake it further.

 

[Jabberwocky]

First off no assumption at all you have expounded multiple times on your religious position, and you have refered to your scientific studies and achievements. You don't have a religious doctorate, and there are probably a thousand catagories of religious doctorate so when I say you haven't dismissed religion because you engaged and learned you dismissed because you found interest elsewhere and there was conflict.

my point was that i am aware of different types of belief that some describe as knowledge, as i have those myself. as such, i can see the qualitative difference and thus it is abundantly clear that it is not the same as the knowledge that is made accessible by science.

i really can't understand how this is controversial.

Excessive restrictions during Covid.
Inciting panic across the globe.
Loss of freedoms.

if you read the premonition by michael lewis and spike by jeremy farrar and anjana ahuja you will find out what actual scientists have been recommending.

if they had been listened to from the start we wouldn't be in half as bad a situation as we are, and we wouldn't be over 5 million dead.

stop blaming scientists for politicians failures.

scientists don't control narratives, thats politicians and the media. they do research, and if respected enough they are invited to advise governments, who almost always ignore them til its too late.

Realize that Neil deGrasseTyson can not be the only person explaining shit in layman terms and you need some variation.

you are not getting it.

tell me about something you have studied in depth full time for decades in laymans terms without bastardising, in a tweet, and you'll have a point. my guess is you won't because its not possible.

look, i couldn't understand what a plumber did to the extent i could do my own plumbing if he explained it to me, or a construction worker, even things i have an interest in and do regularly like cooking, a michelin starred chef couldn't communicate their art to me in a few easily digestible comments. so why are you expecting it of subject matter that is almost by definition so specialised that you need an advanced degree to even have a basic comprehension?

 

[Yourbaker]

I can't see what point you are trying to make.

Science specifically spells out each and every assumption made. I don't think the word assumption even exist in religion.

Do you know those assumptions? Or do you take science on faith?

99.99% of the world use faith. (Trying not to colour the whole world with one brush) Maybe, as @chinup pointed out, this is an issue of understanding the language. If you don't know things directly you are using faith in the guidance of others.

The word assumption exists in English. The entire religious community is based on assumption, does that make science good somehow or religion bad?

Society is simply putting faith in each other to build a better community. Don't fear the word because religious people don't own it.

 

[w01fg4ng]

Do you know those assumptions?

I studied pure mathematics, yes.

 

[Yourbaker]

my point was that i am aware of different types of belief that some describe as knowledge, as i have those myself. as such, i can see the qualitative difference and thus it is abundantly clear that it is not the same as the knowledge that is made accessible by science.

i really can't understand how this is controversial.


if you read the premonition by michael lewis and spike by jeremy farrar and anjana ahuja you will find out what actual scientists have been recommending.

if they had been listened to from the start we wouldn't be in half as bad a situation as we are, and we wouldn't be over 5 million dead.

stop blaming scientists for politicians failures.

scientists don't control narratives, thats politicians and the media. they do research, and if respected enough they are invited to advise governments, who almost always ignore them til its too late.

you are not getting it.

tell me about something you have studied in depth full time for decades in laymans terms without bastardising, in a tweet, and you'll have a point. my guess is you won't because its not possible.

look, i couldn't understand what a plumber did to the extent i could do my own plumbing if he explained it to me, or a construction worker, even things i have an interest in and do regularly like cooking, a michelin starred chef couldn't communicate their art to me in a few easily digestible comments. so why are you expecting it of subject matter that is almost by definition so specialised that you need an advanced degree to even have a basic comprehension?

Well now you've stopped making sense.

Science is blaming politicians and media because people don't understand?

Sounds like religious leaders as faith in their world fell apart.

Where you get emotional and ask me about my studies. Why? Is this a discussion of how science is in trouble as public faith is waining or a dick measuring thread?

I am a baker, for over 35 years. This is my third career. I can rework any recipe in nearly any situation and work in the huge plants that make food or the tiny shop that just makes cookies. I do gluten free for the fearful and the celiac.

if you have an issue in your plant and its baking I can help you. If your mom wants to learn how to make choux paste at home I can easily work with her in her kitchen using silly tools I would never own.

Will you disqualify baking as a serious study? I can teach a class of children how to understand gluten and show where it comes from, how we alter it for use and consumption.

Scientists should stop trusting the media to portray them correctly or to get their point across to the public. Media have their own financial agenda and it skates a long long ways from truth.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Well now you've stopped making sense.

did you actually read my post?

Science is blaming politicians and media because people don't understand?

i told you to stop blaming scientists for decisions made by politicians and narratives controlled by the media.

Will you disqualify baking as a serious study? I can teach a class of children how to understand gluten and show where it comes from, how we alter it for use and consumption.

nope, i specifically mentioned cooking as an example. you can teach children that, but they will not be as good a baker as you. that is exactly my point. baking is no different to science or any other skill in this case, no amount of explanation by a practitioner makes up for practise.

no amount of laymans explanations will make a lay man capable of understanding a field of science to the level a researcher can.

 

[CFC]

I probably have covid again. But because half the country seem to be taking at least one test every single day, I can't get hold of a fecking LFT anywhere to check. All the online home delivery pack slots are also taken. What a pain in the arse

Managed to get some tests in the end. Now let's see if I've got this new fangled omnibus variant or if it's just a regular old cold...

 

[Mr. Krinkle]

Well now you've stopped making sense.

Science is blaming politicians and media because people don't understand?

Sounds like religious leaders as faith in their world fell apart.

Where you get emotional and ask me about my studies. Why? Is this a discussion of how science is in trouble as public faith is waining or a dick measuring thread?

I am a baker, for over 35 years. This is my third career. I can rework any recipe in nearly any situation and work in the huge plants that make food or the tiny shop that just makes cookies. I do gluten free for the fearful and the celiac.

if you have an issue in your plant and its baking I can help you. If your mom wants to learn how to make choux paste at home I can easily work with her in her kitchen using silly tools I would never own.

Will you disqualify baking as a serious study? I can teach a class of children how to understand gluten and show where it comes from, how we alter it for use and consumption.

Scientists should stop trusting the media to portray them correctly or to get their point across to the public. Media have their own financial agenda and it skates a long long ways from truth.

Oh you really are a baker...that's cool

there's a lot of science in baking

 

[maassive]

Currently the scientific community is being blamed for a metric fuck ton of issues.

You might want to consider who is doing the blaming. Hint hint, its usually people who know fuck all about the subject at hand. As the posts on this forum painfully show, everyone has the ability to voice their opinion, no matter how ignorant they are of the subject at hand.

Science might have blown the whistle on global warming but science also caused a lot of it.

The above comment is an example. What the fuck are you even trying to say? It's pathologic to be blaming 'science' for anything.

Excessive restrictions during Covid.

Go and blame someone else for that, not 'science'. BTW, if this pandemic had a 30% mortality rate, which it easily could have (and the next pandemic could easily have) you lot will be humming a different tune me thinks.

 

[Mr. Krinkle]

Whats fascinating is that the most of people blindly regurgitating this shit have lost the ability to read and understand a sentence. From the abstract of the quoted Study:

"Among 11,937 households (2,225 with the Omicron VOC), we identified 6,397 secondary infections during a 1-7 day follow-up period. The SAR* was 31% and 21% in households with the Omicron and Delta VOC, respectively. We found an increased transmission for unvaccinated individuals, and a reduced transmission for booster-vaccinated individuals, compared to fully vaccinated individuals.

(*where SAR is the percentage of secondary cases within the same household that tested positive between 1-7 days following the positive test of the primary case within the household)

All i gotta say is Thank Fuck none of the armchair experts posting here are in charge of anything important.

Oooh!

im glad you pointed that out so eloquently

im gonna go get vaccinated today!

thanks!

 

[Derschieber]

Oh you really are a baker...that's cool

there's a lot of science in baking

I think he really is. I want to ask him how to make salted pretzels with that shiny glazed outer skin...apparently they use drain cleaner lol