(11-29-2020, 05:40 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ] (11-29-2020, 01:47 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I was wrong about cancer. I thought it could kill you outright, but you are correct. I retract that statement, but it doesn't change how I am correct in my post. It is just the same as the flu and covid. Here's an example death certificate:
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2F...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F324607889%2Ffigure%2Fdownload%2Ffig1%2FAS%3A617295080615937%401524186024256%2FAn-example-of-the-formation-of-a-death-certificate-according-to-World-Health-Organization.png&f=1&nofb=1)
The study p_rushing and conservatives like to cite says that 6% of people died directly from Covid. That is impossible. Every direct cause of death should be something specific. Covid is an underlying cause, just like cancer or the flu. The only reason 6% of patients "directly" died from Covid is because the people filling out the form were lazy or ignorant. The correct number is 0%. That doesn't mean Covid isn't responsible for the death. But you also have to look at other, co-morbidities. My argument is that, because we are scrutinizing Covid deaths, we see there is respiratory failure, caused by pneumonia due to Covid. Covid is the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. We are not as critical of the flu. Like I said, a study showed that 40% of people biopsied had the flu when dying of pneumonia, but it wasn't listed as an underlying cause on the death certificate. That's a big deal. Are epidemiologists looking at that? Or do you think that maybe only a small amount of people are keying in on that idea.
Science is ever changing, and the majority is often wrong about a lot. I stand by what I said earlier. In a world where everything is political, you not only need to have an authority opinion, but that opinion needs to conform to the most politically accepted idea or it's cast out as junk science. Even though that's not how science works. Neither the election fraud or what I am siting here is anything like flat earth, and you come across as a sophist when you make stupid claims like that. There is overwhelming evidence the earth is not flat. I am not denying Covid is dangerous. I am simply saying it's only slightly more dangerous than the flu when you consider the following:
- Many deaths were caused by our early mishandling of the virus
- Covid is more scrutinized than the flu
- Flu numbers are mitigated by a vaccine
- As many as 40% pneumonia deaths in years past were not correctly attributed to the flu, which could add anywhere from 50-100k deaths a year to the flu totals
- Once covid is established, and herd immunity is achieved, new covid deaths will stabilize
I'm not saying I am undoubtedly, 100% correct. I am making a plausible case that humanity has experienced this same thing many times over, using logic and evidence. The real threat of Covid is being exploited to make money and gain political power, but, when comparing apples to apples, I don't think this will be much different than the flu by next year. What we should see is excesses deaths that come anywhere between 150k-200k, that are somewhat mitigated by lockdowns.
On a side note: The majority is often incorrect, and I don't yield my intellect to people just because the news media says something. Twice now, you have referenced the OVERWHELMING opinion of groups. You haven't surveyed an group of data scientists with regards to the elections, just like you haven't surveyed a group of epidemiologists with regards to Covid. I imagine the opinions would be all over the place. So why do you get that impression? Because you, like most people, are being influenced by the news you consume. That's it. Nothing special. I just watched an old video of a CNN reporter saying how she fact checked Trump's claim that a vaccine would be ready before the end of the year. It's never been done before and all the experts agree he's just saying that to make himself look good. She even talked to a whole source who confirmed sources agree it was definitely false. Good ole' experts just experting in overwhelming fashion. This happens all... the... time....
I appreciate you recognizing your error with cancer being essentially the same as COVID with respect to causes of death. But your statement that COVID is "like the straw that breaks the camel's back" is not always accurate. Like cancer, it can be that; but it can also be the anvil that is dropped from three stories up that crushes someone. Every individual case is unique.
Of course epidemiologists understand that 40% of people biopsied with pneumonia have the flu. Do you really think that you know more than epidemiologists? If a couple of guys on a message board know that, do you really think they don't?
.gif "Laughing")
Of course science is ever changing... that is the nature of science. Have you ever heard the phrase "update your priors"? That means, as new knowledge accumulates and gets plugged into statistical algorithms, you improve and refine your knowledge and understanding. Anyone should always be able to change their mind as more knowledge is provided... otherwise, they are an idiot. The other side of that coin is you should not form a strong opinion UNTIL the accumulation of evidence swings it in a specific direction. You are guilty of this with both COVID and election fraud opinions. Your bias is influenced by inconsequential or easily explained "evidence" despite an overwhelming amount against it. That makes your claims "stupid"... not mine. The overwhelming evidence is my favor; you have as much evidence as Flat-earthers do at this point.
And by majority opinion, I meant majority of the data. I realize the example I provided was numbers of experts, but that typically correlates with the amount of evidence. I could have made that point clearer. But the fact that you form opinions against the majority of the data displays the poor influence of YOUR media sources... not mine. Mine is an evidence-based opinion; yours is cherry-picked, opinion-based evidence. You act like there is an equal split between the beliefs of epidemiologists and cyber-security experts regarding COVID mortality rates and election fraud, respectively. There is not. That is because you are being shepherded by anti-science, right-wing media sources. Do some independent research on your own from several different scientific sources and open your eyes. Can you identify even one epidemiologist that agrees with your perspective? Good luck finding that.
You stating that well-established science being proven wrong "happens all the time" is also strongly influenced by your media sources. Sure, it happens... but very infrequently. And when it does, it gets overplayed in the media. The OVERWHELMING bulk of the time, when sufficient data has been collected, well-established scientific opinions hold true. You just hear about the rare occasions when "updating your priors" flips a previous point of view. If you want to bet on all the long-shots that are statistically improbable, that's your prerogative. But it is anti-science. You are smart enough to realize that, but your media sources and bias blind you.
You are not presenting overwhelming evidence of anything. You might have it, but so far, most of what you wrote is ambiguity with a hint of appeal to authority. You reference all of the epidemiologists, who aren't a monolith, without knowing what a majority of them think. Then you reference a majority of data, without knowledge of how or where that data is produced. You make a claim that they all know about the study I read 4 months ago, without any evidence it is common knowledge. Can you show proof of any of that, or are we supposed to take your word at face value? I feel like you're operating on principles that just aren't true.
There are 7 thousand epidemiologists, according to the department of labor, and they are studying over 320,000 viruses in the world. All information is not commonplace. It's unreasonable to think that any of them know all the things. That's not how knowledge works. MOST people remember the most frequent tasks they use in their job and whatever it is they are researching at the moment. I bet 90% of our data on the flu comes from less than 100 people (just a guess, could be wrong). How much influence do you think they have on the literature used by every other scientist? Why would the researcher even waste time to publish it if it were common knowledge?
This is not to say that I know more than them; I certainly don't. However, this is a well known phenomenon in science that the front runners of new information are often ignored because people continue to accept the status quo. It happens ALL THE TIME. There are entire books written about it. Human beings know barely anything when it comes to actual knowledge, so we are
constantly modifying our views. Unfortunately, the rate at which the general population changes their view is different than the rate at which the scientific community changes its view, which is different than the rate the individual researchers change their view. Good science begs for the accurate knowledge to be pushed to the forefront of society. Politicized science does not. This phenomenon is amplified to the degree the media is not politicized, because scientists do not have the capacity to get that information to the public. Our media is dog [BLEEP], completely in bed with a government that profits at the taxpayer's expense.
I am fully aware of my biases (well, to the degree that I can be). I know that I have them, and I am generally good about filtering new information through them. I almost always try to understand the opposing point of view, and thinking about the problems they would have with my claims. I even take the time to look up opposing arguments. I do almost all my own research, so I find it odd that you'd recommend that I take that up as a hobby. I also try to understand the systems that produce or information and their biases and limitations. The problem with anything political in our current environment is that almost all new information is processed through a political lens, packaged, and handed to us in a ready-to-consume form. I am inherently mistrusting of institutions that benefit from that system. That's a bias, sure, I get it. I'm not wrong a lot, though, and I could give you probably 50 examples this year of legacy media outright lying to the American public. Do I get duped by alternate news sources from time to time? Sure, but only when I get lazy. That happens, too. It's hard to stay on top of this stuff. I certainly don't think you do.
Probably shouldn't call people sheep for mistrusting an obviously corrupt system. If you can't see it, you're a part of the problem.